Posted on 04/19/2008 9:49:08 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Smoking ban, fitness tests for healthier nation
By Sharri Markson
April 20, 2008 01:36am
SMOKING would be banned for everyone born next year, junk food would be taxed and everyone would be subjected to a fitness test by 2020.
By comparison, the cost of healthy food, including fruit and vegetables, would be reduced to reflect its low environmental impact and obvious health benefits.
These are just a few of the ideas from 100 of the nation's health experts who discussed the best way to combat obesity, reduce illness and promote a healthy lifestyle.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon said one idea put forward in a submission was an annual national fitness test where citizens would receive a financial incentive if they pass.
Health stream participants in the 2020 summit also discussed increasing public education about how death can be a "positive experience" to avoid patients panicking when they reach hospital emergency departments.
Health participant, Meredith Sheil, a former Westmead Children's Hospital pediatrician, said many participants had suggested a ban on cigarette sales by 2020.
"A lot of the health submissions suggested a ban on smoking by 2020," she said.
Thank GOD not everyone smoked and those were the days of real windows that opened in the nicer weather. And who knows what the future will bring? You are very presumptuous.
Not really.
Though I could probably enjoy living in many different places.
As have said. I really don’t prefer Government heavy handedness.
Thanks for the ping!
Imagine the amount of Soylent Green you can harvest from an obese person...
I can see it now... Fat People... The New Cattle.
Scary.
Some people might say that about SUVs. Others might say that about burning fossil fuels. The point is, we shouldn't just try to get things like these banned just because we (specific "we", not general) cannot see the value in it.
Excellent. We should look to the example of totalitarian societies like Iran, NorthKorea and even China, though only sporadically and piecemeal around the country in banning smoking. And, more importantly, EFFECTIVELY banning it.
Some may quibble over nebulous concepts like Liberty but, in service of a goal as worthwhile as banning tabak, do people’s individual wishes and so called “rights” really matter. Should they even be allowed to impede progress towards a new society? NEIN!
Look at the benefits - no childhood or adult ashtma, decreased if not disappeared bronchities, lung cancer etc etc.
The eventual target has to be alcohol.
Sharia by Stealth. Inshallah!
Are you suggesting that it should be up to smokers (or any other targeted group) to justify their behavior? As conservatives, shouldn't we properly place the burden on the government to justify sticking *their* nose into our business? There are plenty of things in life that don't have any apparent "value", but I don't want to give the government a blank check to regulate them.
As for secularism and Islamic modesty laws, that would be an entire cultural shift and to equate such a major shift as that with smoking is intellectually weak.
I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't trying to suggest that smoking bans are as serious as Islamic law. I was simply trying to illustrate the intellectual weakness of *your* argument that "if you don't like it, get out."
Suppose the liberals in your state wanted to significantly raise taxes. That's certainly a realistic scenario, and no major cultural shift would be required. When told what a stupid idea that would be, the liberals respond "Well, if you don't like it, you're free to cross the border where tax rates are lower." Would you find that a very convincing argument?
As for cultural shifts, such things do happen. That's what I was hoping you (and other smoking ban supporters) would notice in the article that started this thread. Look at how much things have changed over the last 20, 40, and 60 years. Take anti-discrimination laws. When they were first passed, who would have imagined those laws would one day be used to protect homosexuals? And yet just a few weeks ago I read a story about a Christian photographer who was fined for refusing to work at a lesbian wedding.
Society does change, and it often tries to impose those changes through law. When people try to change the laws, they usually build off precedent. That's why its critical for conservatives to hold the line and continuously fight for limited government, individual rights, and free markets... and only expand the powers of government when it's really necessary.
I agree with your general line of reasoning about precedents. You are absolutely right. What I disagree with is that the banning of smoking in public places carries with it some kind of inherent link to other freedoms.
The fact is that smoking is a very unique issue. The right to smoke and the corresponding right to inhabit a smoke-free area is certainly a quandary, and I believe that the rights of the non-smoker trump those of the smoker when there is an argument as to who gets to assert their rights.
The only other situation I can think of that could even come close is the issue of fragrances or of peanuts. Would you suggest that the peanut eater’s right to eat peanuts would trump the right of the individual that could go into anaphylatic shock if he is exposed to even the peanut’s aroma?
There is no intellectual weakness in my argument because my argument is strictly regarding smoking rights and I do not believe smoking rights can be equated with any other rights since smoking is not something one needs to do.
You can’t just land your airplane wherever you want either, you know, so why can you smoke wherever you please?
Re: My post 108 - I have some serious typos in there. My apologies. I hope you can still understand.
Huh? SUVs have value - they transport people and might come in handy for those living in some rural mountainous areas. As for burning fossil fuels, until we come with something better that the government is willing to get on board with, those are very valuable.
There is nothing valuable about smoking except to the addict that needs his next hit and if he didn’t take the first drag, he would not have been there in the first place. It’s a sad deal.
As for banning smoking, I don’t think people necessarily want it banned in the sense that nobody is allowed to smoke just that they want it banned from THEIR space.
Just had another thought. I have noticed that a lot of you big time “liberty” and “freedom” folk are also the same people who think pornography is just peachy. If we can’t ban smoking from certain places or venues, then why should we ban profanity or pornography? And while we’re on the topic, there are people who actually think child pornography is freedom of speech and I’m sure they would use much of the same line of reasoning.
I do have some lines and I think smoking is a line. You can smoke in your home and in your yard but please stay away from me - like around 500 feet away. Thank you.
Trying to follow the logic, vitriol and tactics by some of the mobsters on FR; I would say the following:
If you are against implementing these government rules on health and well being and if you are against enacting new laws in these regards; then you are FOR death, disease and AGAINST the children’s right to be cared for by the government. Nobody cares like the government. You must obviously want people to die horribly unspeakable deaths, and you want children to be abused. There are fat people walking around, some are children!!! Shame on you folks!
Get these laws passed now! Anybody found in violation should be rounded up! I demand DNA tests to determine where the food originated and those violating businesses that prepared, packaged, and distributed or sold this food shall have all their employees put in prison for years. The employees and employer are all culpable! Anyone not taking part in government exercise programs at all ages shall be executed upon suspicion immediately! Why did this take so long?
/s
Except the (former) "Land of the Free".
Thanks for that.
It keeps me from taking a 2 X 4 to the antismokers (for now).
I agree. It’s for the greater good.
Hope. Change.
I’m with you. I’m not against annoying fat women yapping on their cell phones.
They can yap all they want at home.
When they do it next to me on an airplane for 3 hours while taking up half of my seat and sticking their fleshy elbows into my ribs while I’m trying to sleep, then it’s mine and the Gubmints business.
There are ought to be a law. I’m going to write my local congresscritter tomorrow.
I can't say with *certainty* that smoking bans are inherently linked to other freedoms, but I am fairly confident that a link exists. As far as I can tell, smoking bans are a fairly novel form of regulation.
Previously, regulation of private property has been focused on either protecting adjacent property owners (like fire codes) or protecting against reasonably undetectable dangers (like food hygiene regulations). The reasoning was that certain uses of property subjected other people to a risk they could not reasonably avoid, so some kind of government intervention was necessary.
Smoking bans aren't like that. I think it's pretty obvious that one can easily discover which places are smoker-friendly, and just as easily avoid those places. Nobody is put at risk unless they choose to be at risk. So the only possible justification for a smoking ban is to a). protect us from risk we voluntarily choose to accept, or b). to cut down on something that is a mere nuisance. If we accept these as valid reasons for government intrusion into the private sector, we're effectively opening up broad new areas for government regulation. As a conservative, this should be something we do only when absolutely necessary.
The fact is that smoking is a very unique issue. The right to smoke and the corresponding right to inhabit a smoke-free area is certainly a quandary, and I believe that the rights of the non-smoker trump those of the smoker when there is an argument as to who gets to assert their rights.
Perhaps, but I would argue that real conflicts between a smoker's "rights" and nonsmokers' rights are rare. On private property, neither the smoker nor the nonsmoker has the right to impose her preferences...it should be up to the property owner to decide whether smoking is allowed on the property or not. If the smoker/non-smoker doesn't like the property owner's decision, they can find somewhere else to go.
Public property is a different matter. I am somewhat more understanding of smoking bans on public property when the need is reasonable. To ban smoking within the DMV is legitimate in my opinion, since people don't really have any other options to get their driver's license and since the DMV is usually very crowded and within an enclosed space. But to ban smoking in public parking lots or parks seems silly...if someone doesn't like the smell of smoke, they can easily walk around a smoker and not be bothered by it at all.
The only other situation I can think of that could even come close is the issue of fragrances or of peanuts. Would you suggest that the peanut eater’s right to eat peanuts would trump the right of the individual that could go into anaphylatic shock if he is exposed to even the peanut’s aroma?
In that situation, I generally believe it is the allergic person's responsibility to avoid situations where there is a danger of inhaling peanut dust. I wouldn't have much sympathy for peanut-allergic person if they decided to take a tour of the Planter's Peanuts factory, for instance. But at the same time, I think it would be acceptable to require restaurants to provide information on what meals contain peanut products so that people can avoid them when necessary. As long as person can tell where the dangers are located, and they can reasonably avoid them, then I don't see why the government has to be involved.
Smoking is different, of course, since smoking is not an immediate risk to one's health and since one can easily detect the presence of tobacco smoke. Unlike a person with a peanut allergy, a person who doesn't like smoke can almost instantly discover when there is tobacco smoke and can very easily avoid it. So I think the two problems call for different solutions.
There is no intellectual weakness in my argument because my argument is strictly regarding smoking rights and I do not believe smoking rights can be equated with any other rights since smoking is not something one needs to do.
I'm really more concerned with property rights and the idea of limited government than I am with any idea of "smoker's rights." I don't think there is anything special about smoking, and I am not a smoker. But I also don't think there's anything about smoking that requires the government to stick its nose into our business even more than it does already. That said, try to imagine for a moment all the things that one does not "need" to do. I don't need to put half a bottle of hot sauce on my burgers. I don't need to watch 4 hours of television a day. I don't need to light off firecrackers on the 4th of July. But I may enjoy those things. Again, should those things be open for government regulation *simply* because I don't need to do them?
You can’t just land your airplane wherever you want either, you know, so why can you smoke wherever you please?
I don't think a person should be able to smoke anywhere they please. If a place has a private owner, then it should be up to the owner to decide if smoking is allowed or not. If the place is owned by the public (e.g. a government building) then it should be up to the voters, but restrictions should only be imposed when they are actually needed. That's a reasonable standard for a conservative, is it not?
Fair question. Personally, I am not in favor of banning profanity and pornography. But even if I was, it would be for one of two reasons, neither of which really apply in this context.
One reason to ban pornography/profanity is because we view it as something profoundly immoral, and because we believe the government should have the power to ban things that are profoundly immoral. If you believe smoking is profoundly immoral then we'll probably have to start a very different debate. If that is the case, though, I think smoking ban supporters have an obligation to frame this as a moral issue, instead of trying to mask it as a health issue.
The other reason offered to justify banning pornography is to protect kids. Assuming this is a legitimate concern (for the sake of argument) I still don't see how it applies to the kinds of smoking bans we've seen imposed over the last 10 years. If the concern is with protecting kids, then that objective could be accomplished through much less intrusive means. There's no need to ban smoking in bars, for instance, since kids don't typically hang out at the local watering hole.
And while we’re on the topic, there are people who actually think child pornography is freedom of speech and I’m sure they would use much of the same line of reasoning.
Sure, perverts might make that argument. But it would be pretty easy to argue in response that kids can not effectively consent to the significant risks involved in pornography, and that's why we don't allow them to pose for dirty magazines.
But none of those issues really apply to the smoking bans. Smoking bans aren't limited to protecting kids, they are just blanket bans that affect everyone, even adults-only venues like bars. And the risk to a kid from occasionally being around tobacco smoke is not at all as serious as the risk they would face from being used for pornographic purposes.
So again, the concerns from involved in child pornography don't really apply here. I'm still failing to see why the government needs to step in and protect people from tobacco smoke, when they are very capable of protecting themselves.
There’s no reasoning with these people.
They will continue to roar their approval, right up until it’s too late.
I have to say that you are about the most pleasant debater I have come across and you have some very sound reasoning in your arguments. I’m impressed.
Unfortunately, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart because I am very guilty of some similar-type sins, I do believe there IS a moral basis for being against smoking. As a Christian, I believe we are made in the image of God and that we are to honor our bodies and take good care of them (i.e. be a good steward of all we are given; yes, and that includes our body). That means we should NOT overeat (i.e. not be a glutton). Thus, I’m not talking about somebody overeating a meal or two or having an extra helping of dessert - I’m talking about overeating as a pattern. Likewise, we should not drink to drunkenness; or abuse our body in other ways. I also have problems with tattoos and body piercings, which I think desecrate the body (this gets far more complicated to discuss here now). I think smoking is gross abuse of one’s precious body. It’s just that it IS a powerful, powerful addiction and many people got sucked in (no pun intended). I don’t JUDGE smokers like the old-timey Baptists who would tell you you’d go to hell for smoking (or card playing or dancing), but I do think it is not honoring one’s body. Needless to say, being slovenly or slothful is also wrong. Please do not think I am implying in any way that I am perfect. I struggle with all the same things most people do - doing more physical exercise, eating better, etc.
As for smoking in bars and restaurants, I believe the workers’ health is important and the oft-used argument that the workers could get a job in another place isn’t really fair since in days past, everywhere allowed smoking and servers don’t always have skills that they can translate into other jobs. Think of the single-mom waitress (putting herself through school) and maybe the only job she can get that will give her the flexibility to go to school and pay a decent enough wage so she can support her family IS a server or a hostess. Why should they not be protected?
Finally, while I do believe that pornography is not something to which I would want my child exposed because I do think it could be damaging, the same argument can be used for second hand smoke. Not every child exposed to violence or pornography will suffer the effects (e.g. be damaged or harmed emotionally or psychologically), and likewise, the damage from second hand smoke still seems to be quite controversial. My general philosophy about things like this is to examine the studies and see who has the most to lose, financially, should things be one way or the other. Certainly, most physicians and other health care professionals would actually MAKE more money if smoking were increased in the population, so one would think it would be in their best interests to jump on the bandwagon with those who say smoking or 2nd hand smoke does not cause disease. But they do not.
I am certain that my background in health care has predisposed me to believe the studies I have come across and not the ones that say 2nd hand smoke is not a risk.
I have known too many doctors that see the outcomes and being around smokers is not good (besides, it makes you stinky and THAT alone is worth staying away from them).
So... we continue to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.