The government had already pledged to resurrect Rishi Sunak's flagship smoking ban, which was shelved before the election. But Sir Keir Starmer's government could now go further.
So why the fuck are you advocating for the government to take away more of your rights? Why can’t I throw myself off a fucking cliff if I want to? It’s my fucking God-given right. Stop being such a simp for the boot.
Fuck the authorities because god says I can do what I like?
Also where is it you think the smokers section comes from?
I’m not saying what they are doing isn’t bullshit, it very much is, but “who are they to tell me to do this new thing, I can continue to do this other thing they told me I can do, because I don’t have to listen to them” is some Olympian level mental gymnastics
God given rights comes from the American Constitution. It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).
We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.
If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.
God given rights comes from the American Constitution
It does not, purposely so.
It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).
Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.
We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.
Who’s we and when was this decided ?
If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.
That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.
Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.
That’s an entirely different conversation though.
The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.
That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn’t make the previous change any less a governmental decree.
Let’s assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:
Is this the only universal right that exists ?
Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?
To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.
A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.
Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.
Thats the one same difference
Who’s we and when was this decided?
We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself
Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.
Thats what i think it should be but yeah definatly a different conversation.
Original crackdown which i though was fair. Restricting you to a section of the place ur already at not restricting your ability to drink a beer and socialise symulationiously while also allowing people to not be exposed to carsinagens throught the entire premises. Net increase of liberty.
Is this the only universal right that exists ?
What do u think?
To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.
U cant just proclaim something to be true. You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.
A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.
Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.
Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.
Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn’t.
We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself
My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.
What do u think?
I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else’s right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.
U cant just proclaim something to be true.
That’s fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I’ll clarify what i meant in the next sections.
You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.
This is true for all.
In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying “well they can just smoke when they get home”, technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.
Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.
That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren’t exactly as “outside” as they could be.
I’m not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i’d imagine its heavily subjective.
Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.
Oh absolutely, even if it wasn’t bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it’s a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the “huge burden” on the NHS.
Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match. You wouldnt see this on the internet anywhere but lemmy.
And yeah it is all just bullshit posturing and political grandstanding.
From what ive heard the nhs has devolved into a complete clusterfuck and everyone is too scared to touch it in fear of backlash. Not sure whats worse that or how us aussies are going getting more simmillar to the american system by the day.
A 10 metre radius, hey? Fucking exaggeration, much.
The argument for taking away guns is because by taking away the individual liberty to own a gun you are increasing the total liberty of people to not get shot.
It’s all about the level of acceptable risk. If you were to use your rational brain to think about this instead of your emotions you would come to the realisation that cars are more dangerous than people smoking on the street, so perhaps we should ban all cars.
And if you’re at a pub and you don’t like people smoking, perhaps you can go somewhere else. Fucking walk inside. Leave the smoker section. It’s not that fucking hard.
By taking away the liberty of one person smoking, you are increasing the liberty of all the people around them to breathe in clean air.
Cars at least provide a purpose. We take the risk of having cars because they are very convenient. What is the benefit of smoking? The only benefit is calming the effects caused by not smoking while having a smoking addiction.
I just dont think ur math adds up.
Here’s my logic on the matter
Loss of liberty = population * smoker% * average liberty of someone to smoke a ciggy
Gain in liberty = population * (1- smoker%) * relative air quality improvement * average liberty of someone to not be exposed to ciggy smoke
I would simply argue the relative air quality improvement is so small that the gain in liberty will never be greater than the loss. Lets assume that ciggy smoke distributes according to inverse square law and smoking reduces ur lifespan by 50% at a distance of 1m ur life is reduced by 0.039% at 2m its reduced by 0.0099% for comparison by my rough estimation the avergae driver loses about 0.036% of their life by driving and society accepts that risk so all u need to do is stand a little over a metre away from anyone with a ciggy and its safer than driving (i did all the calcs in favour of ciggies being as bad as possible.
This is all just fermi estimation but we should be in the correct order of magnitude.
Governments have a say in your rights every single time.
When they put fences around a cliff they are infringing upon your right to throw yourself off a cliff.
That’s part of the powers of governments, deciding if you have the right to do something.
So why the fuck are you advocating for the government to take away more of your rights? Why can’t I throw myself off a fucking cliff if I want to? It’s my fucking God-given right. Stop being such a simp for the boot.
God-given? That’s your go to?
Fuck the authorities because god says I can do what I like?
Also where is it you think the smokers section comes from?
I’m not saying what they are doing isn’t bullshit, it very much is, but “who are they to tell me to do this new thing, I can continue to do this other thing they told me I can do, because I don’t have to listen to them” is some Olympian level mental gymnastics
God given rights comes from the American Constitution. It was purposely put there because it is undeniable for all people that it applies equally (Well, except for the whole slavery thing, but the Americans aren’t that bright).
We decided that it was better for the society to take away some liberties to increase the total amount of liberties for all people.
If we are to take away someone’s liberty without increasing the total liberty for all people, then we have reduced the total amount of liberty in the world, which I would argue is backwards of the ultimate goal.
It does not, purposely so.
Perhaps you mean unalienable rights (which was in the declaration of independence iirc), but yes afaik it was supposed to apply to all people equally.
Who’s we and when was this decided ?
That is logically incorrect (reduce one persons liberty points by 10, add 5 liberty points each to 2 people and liberty equilibrium is maintained) but i think i know what you are getting at.
Assuming everyone’s idea of the ultimate goal is “liberty for all” is also a stretch.
That’s an entirely different conversation though.
The smokers zones were a result of the original crackdown on smoking in public places, the government decided and it sounds like you followed along.
That this new change goes further than you are personally comfortable with doesn’t make the previous change any less a governmental decree.
Let’s assume however that you do have some universal right to smoke in the smokers section:
Is this the only universal right that exists ?
Do other people not have a right to not be forcibly exposed to known carcinogens ?
To pre-empt the “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” argument, yes, they do.
A pub garden isn’t magically warded to keep the smoke out of the air of non-smokers.
Thats the one same difference
We society and depends on how u look at history and ur interpretation of the purpose of government itself
Thats what i think it should be but yeah definatly a different conversation.
Original crackdown which i though was fair. Restricting you to a section of the place ur already at not restricting your ability to drink a beer and socialise symulationiously while also allowing people to not be exposed to carsinagens throught the entire premises. Net increase of liberty.
What do u think?
U cant just proclaim something to be true. You dont have to go to the pub and expose yourself to the risks associated alcohol, drunk idiots, dumb cunts, covid riddled mouse breathers, adverse political opinions, suspiciously sticky floors etc.
Whats the level of acceptable risk i would imagine that smoke distributes in accordance with the inverse square law so perhaps simply requiring a little extra “buffer space” would reduce said risk within acceptable tolerances.
Look i see where ya coming from but i definatly feel this is the slightly thicker than last time end of the wedge that the nany state is never gonna stop hammering.
Not really, one has religious connotations the other doesn’t.
My interpretation is different, but not any less subjective than yours, so fair enough.
I think that your argument implies that your right to smoke in the smokers section is greater than someone else’s right to not have to ingest second hand smoke from you smoking in the smokers section.
That’s fair and i worded my argument somewhat poorly, I’ll clarify what i meant in the next sections.
This is true for all.
In the context of the original statement, what i meant to say was the argument “but they don’t have to be near the smokers” holds about as much weight as people saying “well they can just smoke when they get home”, technically yes but we are talking about situations where both parties are in attendance.
That is also my understanding, but that assumes a completely neutral space with no directional blowing, no obstacles etc, also a lot of smoking areas aren’t exactly as “outside” as they could be.
I’m not arguing the level of acceptable risk either way , i have no idea and i’d imagine its heavily subjective.
Oh absolutely, even if it wasn’t bullshit posturing and political grandstanding it’s a far cry from the most effective thing they could be doing to alleviate the “huge burden” on the NHS.
Hey did we just have a productive disscussion with differing opinions without devolving into a shouting match. You wouldnt see this on the internet anywhere but lemmy.
And yeah it is all just bullshit posturing and political grandstanding.
From what ive heard the nhs has devolved into a complete clusterfuck and everyone is too scared to touch it in fear of backlash. Not sure whats worse that or how us aussies are going getting more simmillar to the american system by the day.
Because I fucking hate walking around the city and having to hold my breath because there’s a smoker in a 10m radius.
The same reason that I advocate for the government to not allow people to buy guns.
A 10 metre radius, hey? Fucking exaggeration, much.
The argument for taking away guns is because by taking away the individual liberty to own a gun you are increasing the total liberty of people to not get shot.
It’s all about the level of acceptable risk. If you were to use your rational brain to think about this instead of your emotions you would come to the realisation that cars are more dangerous than people smoking on the street, so perhaps we should ban all cars.
And if you’re at a pub and you don’t like people smoking, perhaps you can go somewhere else. Fucking walk inside. Leave the smoker section. It’s not that fucking hard.
By taking away the liberty of one person smoking, you are increasing the liberty of all the people around them to breathe in clean air.
Cars at least provide a purpose. We take the risk of having cars because they are very convenient. What is the benefit of smoking? The only benefit is calming the effects caused by not smoking while having a smoking addiction.
I just dont think ur math adds up. Here’s my logic on the matter
Loss of liberty = population * smoker% * average liberty of someone to smoke a ciggy
Gain in liberty = population * (1- smoker%) * relative air quality improvement * average liberty of someone to not be exposed to ciggy smoke
I would simply argue the relative air quality improvement is so small that the gain in liberty will never be greater than the loss. Lets assume that ciggy smoke distributes according to inverse square law and smoking reduces ur lifespan by 50% at a distance of 1m ur life is reduced by 0.039% at 2m its reduced by 0.0099% for comparison by my rough estimation the avergae driver loses about 0.036% of their life by driving and society accepts that risk so all u need to do is stand a little over a metre away from anyone with a ciggy and its safer than driving (i did all the calcs in favour of ciggies being as bad as possible.
This is all just fermi estimation but we should be in the correct order of magnitude.