Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[Aquagraph]

Finnish health regulation saving the day and you from yourself.
I don't know if this thread is about politics or venting or just random rambling. Fortunately, they don't exclude one another.

Picture not related. Actually it is. It's an illegal setting if in Finland. Starting from 1.1.2012 the law requires for stores not to display cigarette brands. Not even in the back of the salesman. Finnish commercials are cigarette free as well. Apparently displaying cigarette filters in stores is okay though. You can ask a list you can take with you. If the list has pictures you can only look at it.

It's pretty lame if you ask me. I don't know if it works but if it does even a bit, I might say it's worth it. There's also a possible forbidden fruit factor which could be counterproductive.

Regulations seem annoying as it shows that there is someone controlling a minor aspect of everyone's life. Especially if those someone were easily thought of corrupt or stupid. Everybody not totally politically unaware likes to badmouth the branch of this entertainment industry (metaphor originally from Frank Zappa). But in any case, the situation is that regulation can be corrupt or stupid like the people who made it, but is this a bad case although I'm a bit pissed and I still think I should govern myself in sovereignty? Can you say that? I mean can you say to "to govern oneself in sovereignty"? Anyways I want your two cents on the matter. And a possible grammar correction.

I must add that I am still pissed because I can't smoke in the bars without going to the smoking booth room thingy. If you are in bar, why would you want to save your body anyways? Did you not come there to destroy yourself? whatever, I think I'll just take it out on the people by smoking in the trams. Please do come and tell me about the dangers of second-hand smoking.

And try not to mistake being high for Ne dom.
This is not a statement, but a note.

And yes I go to 9gag, being the 90s born nolife target audience

[Lotus]

loveeee living in a tobacco state. down here you can still smoke in bars (some, not all) and of course crappy timeless places like bowling alleys and waffle house. i onlY see cigarette advertisements inside gas stations and convenience stores though.

the finnish law sounds waY too extreme imo. who cares if smoking is unhealthY, so are most people's eating habits Yet its ok to advertise heart attack inducing fast food. let people die how they want to.

[Capitalist Pig]

loveeee living in a tobacco state. down here you can still smoke in bars (some, not all) and of course crappy timeless places like bowling alleys and waffle house.

Jealous. There's no smoking in the bars in Colorado. Florida was different.

Although we do have things like "cigar bars," but last I heard they're trying to shut those down, even.

[Ave]

I kind of agree its extreme to have no smoking bars lol since that seems contary to why you go to a bar. I do think second hand smoke is bad for people who dont smoke though, yes, you go to a bar for self-destruction but only in ways which you choose to destroy your body. You can destroy your body, but I dont think you have a right to cause it on others who dont want it. But. I think second hand smoke is only a problem if you live with someone whos smokes, but if its only exposure to second smoke at a bar its pretty harmless anyways. Filled with smoke - thats how a bar should be anwyays, it seems kind of against the point of going into a bar to have your health freak habits maintained, lol.

I think we have a similar law here in Belgium, though Im not sure, but you dont see cigarrette brands adertised anywhere is grocery stores or anything. So I guess we have the same law. I dont know what I think about it.

[Capitalist Pig]

I kind of agree its extreme to have no smoking bars lol since that seems contary to why you go to a bar.

The point is, if people refuse to go to a bar because they permit smoking, there is nothing stopping a bar owner from opening a bar that discourages the act, or at least designating a smoking patio for people who do want the choice. Most bars will allow smoking inside, however, to encourage more business. The economics of discrimination is interesting, and it applies to more than just smokers, but the market is more than capable of accommodating all classes inasmuch as the demand justifies the expense.

[krieger]

translation: Smoking Is Deadly

as a life long non-smoker i think this is a barrel of laughs. i have mixed feelings about having the advantage of improved health over others relinquished, though.

[olduser]

loveeee living in a tobacco state. down here you can still smoke in bars (some, not all) and of course crappy timeless places like bowling alleys and waffle house. i onlY see cigarette advertisements inside gas stations and convenience stores though.

the finnish law sounds waY too extreme imo. who cares if smoking is unhealthY, so are most people's eating habits Yet its ok to advertise heart attack inducing fast food. let people die how they want to.

I agree.. The only thing that bugs me is smoking indoors, i'm really not crazy about that just because its uncomfortable for me. Sorry if my people rained on your parade.

[marooned]

Well, I do like being safe from other people's smoke. I want to save up my somewhat clean lungs for people I've known or will know and end up spending time with who are smokers. I think that is plenty of smoke. So, you see, I don't have a lot of reserves if you think about it that way.

I think that you may have covered in the OP a lot of the pros and cons. And I'm really unfamiliar with it and don't have an opinion.

[force my hand]

IMO, people have really gone overboard with anti-smoking sentiment.

[Esaman]

Smoking has a huge physical addiction component. Stronger than a lot of illegal substances. It also doesn't have any kind of benefit. Momentary ease is only other side of increased agitation from cravings. Most of long time smokers would like to stop, but prospect of withdrawal is too much for them.
And yes there is a concept that you benefit from health of other people in your society even if you don't pay for their health care, and then some more when you do.
That is the pitch. I recognize that there is a line to be overstepped here in terms of personal freedom, but removal of all marketing and making internal public spaces non-smoking is not it.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Smoking causes emphysema.

[Absurd]

Smoking causes emphysema.

Cigars cause pneumonia. Believe me, I'm not kidding.

[Absurd]

Regulations seem annoying as it shows that there is someone controlling a minor aspect of everyone's life.

Crossing the street and getting hit by a car like the guy I saw once on my way home from school is actually breaking the regulations. Guy flew 2 meters in the air like a bag of potatoes but I get what you're talking about - they're doing it on their own initiative. I'm okay with it.

But in any case, the situation is that regulation can be corrupt or stupid like the people who made it, but is this a bad case although I'm a bit pissed and I still think I should govern myself in sovereignty?

Best part is, your countrymen elected those people. Your countrymen voted yes in a referendum in October 1994. In other words, your countrymen, the 57% majority, are controlling you.

I must add that I am still pissed because I can't smoke in the bars without going to the smoking booth room thingy. If you are in bar, why would you want to save your body anyways?

Well, look on the bright side, you're not U.K nor Ireland citizen. Both have the strictest laws - a complete ban on smoking in indoor workplaces and public places, including public restaurants and bars.

Bear in mind that European Commission has no power whatsoever when it comes to enforcing laws, that body can only influence/lobby.

[marooned]

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-h...g-disease.html

There are benefits to most things. I think in the case of smoking the risks way outweigh the benefits. (Although maybe there's some way to make tobacco into a safe dietary supplement, hehe.)

Each year (in the US I presume?), an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking.

This doesn't mean of course that everyone who is a smoker is going to die from it or that people who smoke part of their lives are. But that statement isn't meant to undermine the dangers.

Anyway, I thought this was mainly about businesses not being allowed to in any way advertise or display their nicotine/tobacco products in a sort of great strategy of if people don't see it, then it isn't there, and so they will be less inclined to try to find it, ask for it and buy it. (Out of sight, out of mind.) Really that would be a huge deterrent for me, having to go out of my way to ask for them. I suppose I could just bring a picture of what I want and then I wouldn't have to speak. I could say, "these" and leave it at that.

I still don't seem to have an opinion.

[mu4]

I don't really care, but I don't let people smoke in my house. I tend to view laws of this sort as meaningless but also as not a big problem if enacted, at the end, it's just smoking or non-smoking, a relatively trivial hassle for both sides.

[ArchonAlarion]

Unless the enactment of such laws creates a precedent for enacting increasingly intrusive laws.

[olduser]

Unless the enactment of such laws creates a precedent for enacting increasingly intrusive laws.

they dern took away our smokes! what next?!?! this for freedom dermnit!

[ArchonAlarion]

and next DEL BE TAKIN ER JERBBSSS.

[Aquagraph]

they tirrrkk errrr JERRRBBSS!!

[Esaman]

I would feel sorry for hurting your feelings, if I hadn't readily appologised for not having interest in conversation you were interested in. Grow up.

[Lotus]

When you get pissed enough about the stupid shittiness of government, you can join me and CPig in calling for its destruction.

YaY anarchists on the internet!

none of You guys do shit.

ashton respond to mY pm i need VI confirmation asap.

i love You cpig.

[Absurd]

Revolutionaries on the Internet.

[olduser]

Revolutionaries on the Internet.

ron paul 2012

[Absurd]

ron paul 2012

Hahaha! I pissed spit myself wilist smoking a dn drinking beer. Thank you.

[Aquagraph]

Researchers in the academia get name for themselves by finding controversial facts.

Yes, the ideal science is critical and counters itself from time to time. Eppur si muove

Also they get funding for particular research not particular results, skewing the results endangers their credibility and career.

So cigarette industry would have a discretided scientists..

If money was an issue tobacco industry would chip in.

..on an payroll for counter-productive results?

These people ain't stupid but calculative. That's a major part of it why they are in their positions.

That is bullshit. Longer and healthier life is of clear value for any person who isn't fucked up and selfdestructive.

I criticize about the subjectivity of that pseudo-factual statement and then you countered it with said it's about values of a particular group (the "normal" people)?

If the smoking alleviates schizophrenics condition it is reasonable for him to trade improved quality of life for the amount of it.

Good. They needed your approval.

That rational choice is not available to other people, because there is no benefits to quality of life present for them that could compete with the harm to the quality and length of life.

There are other less studied benefits. Besides the apparent high and social tool aspects.
Can you imagine a scenario where the cigarette companies are happy that they have the forbidden fruit you shouldn't use?

There are benefits to most things.

I dare you all to name one thing that hasn't.

Anyway, I thought this was mainly about businesses not being allowed to in any way advertise or display their nicotine/tobacco products in a sort of great strategy of if people don't see it, then it isn't there, and so they will be less inclined to try to find it, ask for it and buy it. (Out of sight, out of mind.) Really that would be a huge deterrent for me, having to go out of my way to ask for them. I suppose I could just bring a picture of what I want and then I wouldn't have to speak. I could say, "these" and leave it at that.

I completely agree with this.

I still don't seem to have an opinion.

Sounds wise.


Describe me the typical smoker, please.

[willekeurig]

I'm very much against smoking in bars outside of the area specified for that. The cigarette smoke makes me feel like throwing up most of the time and the smell sticks to hair and clothes so you smell like shit and need to wash clothes all the time. I don't like the idea of getting whatever toxic substances cigarettes contain in my lungs either. Since pretty much everyone of my friends are smokers I'd have a shitty time at bars/restaurants if it wasn't for the smoking rooms/areas. Another thing is that the people who work at bars would be exposed to the smoke at their job. Ok you can always say that people choose their jobs but I dunno, it's hard to find a job these times and if the only one you can get is of the kind that puts your health at a risk what can you do about it? I think having to take a few steps to go to a smoking room/outside is a low cost for making the place safer and cozier for everyone.
(I'd imagine one plus side to the smoking booths/having to smoke outside is that you also get to talk to strangers in a non-socially awkward way. Asking for a lighter is easier way to open a conversation than walking up to someone's table )

The "you're drinking so you shouldn't mind smoking" argument sucks ass imo. Not everyone goes to bars to "destroy themselves"; small amounts of alcohol are actually proven to be good for your health. Most heavy drinkers maybe wouldn't care too much, but not everyone is like them. Many people go to bars to socialise, hold meetings, to relax with a glass of wine after work, there are bars that are also cafes and half of the customers don't even drink anything else but tea or something.. Also, I don't think having one unhealthy habit means (or should mean) you give away the right to protect your health from other unhealthy stuff. As if forcing people who eat junk food to drink booze would be okay because "they're already destroying themselves". Or not letting the people who don't do sports get public health care as "they don't care anyways". The fuck?

With everything else I agree.

[Aquagraph]

There isn't much to do except disseminate the ideas. Also, engaging in counter-economic activity wherever reasonable.

Which reminds me, Aquagraph you might like Agorism.

When you get pissed enough about the stupid shittiness of government, you can join me and CPig in advocating for its destruction.

I was hoping for an explanation for why this kind of regulation is bad too, assuming it would be productive. Can I have one? I'm also interested how you see age limit enforcement.

loveeee living in a tobacco state. down here you can still smoke in bars (some, not all) and of course crappy timeless places like bowling alleys and waffle house. i onlY see cigarette advertisements inside gas stations and convenience stores though.

I gotta visit places like that if I visit the States again.

the finnish law sounds waY too extreme imo. who cares if smoking is unhealthY, so are most people's eating habits Yet its ok to advertise heart attack inducing fast food. let people die how they want to.

If you believe in the Scandinavian welfare (communism sympathizing) society with (socialist) universal healthcare, you could call it cutting the need for tax funded (robbed) money.

And don't mistake me for a person with static ideologies.

I like the idea of experimental federalism though.

Agorism? A new category economical again. Thanks

Also found:

Other names for practicing counter-
economists (other than black marketeers)
are:
[...]
•Anyone who has ever smoked a joint,
even if he regretted it (as when running for
office);
• Anyone who has ever committed any
sex act except the missionary position with
one’s legal spouse in one’s legal home
(most states);
• Drivers in some states who do not
run in front of their cars with lanterns so
as not to scare horses;
and many others. Did you find yourself on
the list?

Agarina, you probably realized that it's a vent. Not too serious about it. I still smoke in trams. I also believe that Aki Kaurismäki should be the national director of Finland. And Finnish bars need smoke. They tend to have no smoking areas and even completely smoke-free bars.

I agree with what you said about smoking booth social stuff. As an extreme extrovert alcoholic smoker, I gotta love them.

Agarina, what do you think of the legislation itself?