Proposed UK NZ-style legislation

[jaingorenard]

Some of you in the UK might be interested in this article from the Spectator written by Winston Marshall in favour of cigars, in response to the proposed legislation to have a rolling ban for smoking in the style of New Zealand. Although history seems to march inexorably onwards away from liberalism towards puritanism, it's nice to know there are some voices left defending tobacco:

Save our cigars!

There’s nothing new about Rishi Sunak’s reported proposals to phase out smoking in Britain. His plan has been borrowed from New Zealand’s former leader Jacinda Ardern, whose shamefully illiberal legacy includes the complete illegalisation of tobacco sales to those born after 1 January 2009...

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[Elric]

He lost all credibility with this masterstroke:

"Cigarettes are revolting and, everyone can now agree, bad for you. Vaping is a moral abomination. But cigars… well, cigars are another story."

 

[jaingorenard]

He lost all credibility with this masterstroke:

"Cigarettes are revolting and, everyone can now agree, bad for you. Vaping is a moral abomination. But cigars… well, cigars are another story."

Very true! Surely the whole point should be that it doesn't matter if something is bad for you. I think any argument relying on 'this study shows cigars/pipes are healthy/less unhealthy than cigarettes!' is doomed to failure.

 

[condorlover1]

The new puritans! Reminds me of Blackadder's in laws!

 

[proteus]

Never has so much time and money been spent on a plant. Well may be two plants but that's another board's focus.

 

[sardonicus87]

Very true! Surely the whole point should be that it doesn't matter if something is bad for you. I think any argument relying on 'this study shows cigars/pipes are healthy/less unhealthy than cigarettes!' is doomed to failure.

This has always been my stance on the matter. I also hate the comparison to cigarettes because it's far too easy to slippery slope those goalposts to include pipes, cigars and anything else anyone might deem unhealthy.

And for what it's worth, my stance in general is "your body, your life, your choice". As long as you doing whatever you're doing doesn't have any real affect other people, then it's not other people's business. By real affect, that doesn't include someone's feelings getting hurt or having to see or be aware of something they don't like, just as long as it's not physically hurting them or disturbing the peace (which doesn't include disturbing butt-hurt Karens that lose their shit over anything).

That's why I have no problem with laws that say you "can't smoke within X feet of a doorway or thoroughfare", for example. Pungent smells disturb the peace, you can still smoke, just not where the smell could bother others. I think that's reasonable. But bans on things outright because they're harmful to one's own health? No, absolutely not. Tobacco isn't inherently a public nuisance.

 

[PoshJosh1999]

I think one of the main reasons the UK is getting more strict unlike the US is because of the NHS. Since we essentially get free medical care, they want to find ways to stop it from being overwhelmed, and cigarettes as the main example must cost the NHS many many millions of pounds a year. In the US you’re (hopefully) covered by insurance. I like to think that’s why it is anyway, but in reality the government have shown and time and time again how little respect they have for the NHS.

 

[Andriko]

I think one of the main reasons the UK is getting more strict unlike the US is because of the NHS. Since we essentially get free medical care, they want to find ways to stop it from being overwhelmed, and cigarettes as the main example must cost the NHS many many millions of pounds a year. In the US you’re (hopefully) covered by insurance. I like to think that’s why it is anyway, but in reality the government have shown and time and time again how little respect they have for the NHS.

The problem with this is that smokers are no a cost for the NHS, infact the complete opposite - we are net contributors to the treasury by significant ammounts, on top of which the 'costs' of smoking are usually quite bogus when looked at in detail (they include things like estimated loss to GDP from a hypothetical smoker taking time off work and so on - see Christopher Snowden's articles on the subject).

Aside from that the NHS is hardly free. It's very expensive, and is constantly used as an excuse to take away my freedoms, which is a price too high to pay. I'd rather get rid of it and be left alone.

 

[Tyke Piper]

The problem with this is that smokers are no a cost for the NHS, infact the complete opposite - we are net contributors to the treasury by significant ammounts, on top of which the 'costs' of smoking are usually quite bogus when looked at in detail (they include things like estimated loss to GDP from a hypothetical smoker taking time off work and so on - see Christopher Snowden's articles on the subject).

Aside from that the NHS is hardly free. It's very expensive, and is constantly used as an excuse to take away my freedoms, which is a price too high to pay. I'd rather get rid of it and be left alone.

 

[PoshJosh1999]

The problem with this is that smokers are no a cost for the NHS, infact the complete opposite - we are net contributors to the treasury by significant ammounts, on top of which the 'costs' of smoking are usually quite bogus when looked at in detail (they include things like estimated loss to GDP from a hypothetical smoker taking time off work and so on - see Christopher Snowden's articles on the subject).

Aside from that the NHS is hardly free. It's very expensive, and is constantly used as an excuse to take away my freedoms, which is a price too high to pay. I'd rather get rid of it and be left alone.

You’re quite right! After doing some further research I realised my friend (a cigarette smoker) has paid around £250k in tax, which more than covers any medical expenses. Not only that, but with the promotion of vaping, we’ll end up with more nicotine addicts than ever in our history, and in 10 years time they’ll say “actually, vaping isn’t any healthier than smoking”.

 

[warren]

And for what it's worth, my stance in general is "your body, your life, your choice".

As long as you have the finances and/or private insurance to cover all illness costs without depending on your neighbor's tax payments, I'd agree. But, if you are relying on government assistance for assistance in the case of illness or injury you get through unhealthy, risky behavior then you are impacting a lot of other peoples by relying on them to cover your costs. I apply this philosophy to all "risky" behavior, smoking, motorcycles, sky diving and etc. When your behavior results in costs to me, it is no longer "your body ........" Assume the costs of accident or illness and . . . good on you! Have at it and enjoy. But, never forget actions have consequences so, don't rely on me and your neighbors to bail you out from the possible consequences, assume responsibility for you choices. You'll have my blessings and moral support but, not my monies, Maybe even a bit of sympathy but, not my moneys.

All that said, the government no longer holds people responsible for their behavior and actions, for the most part. So, all of the above aside, I'm going to have to assist paying your medical bills and such no matter how much I resent it. Life is a bitch and then you die!

 

[Peter Peachfuzz]

Cellar deep..

 

[RookieGuy80]

@warren I'm not sure I understand. So when I retire and go on Medicare I should stop with the risky behavior I've been putting off due to family responsibilities? We use my wife's health care. Where does that fall with you for that? Because one way or another its funded with taxpayer dollars.

 

[warren]

So, all of the above aside, I'm going to have to assist paying your medical bills and such no matter how much I resent it.

I believe my point is easy to understand. Perhaps not though. Government babysitting, medical payments and such relieves people of responsibility for their actions and choices. I think it was better back in the times of a person having to rely on themselves to handle the consequences of the actions. But, I'm not oblivious to the fact that people prefer "cradle to grave" governmental care and letting the tax-payers foot the bill. Of course the consequences of such government maintenance is government control. Its a choice voters of the years have made and I live with it. I don't have to like it though.

My personal insurance is something I paid/pay for. Do I use government supplies healthcare. I'm not stupid so, of course. Just as I accept SS payments. Never turn down free money and always thanks the kids handing you your Big Mac, the store clerk and such for their contribution to your monthly government stipend.

 

[LeafErikson]

I apply this philosophy to all "risky" behavior, smoking, motorcycles, sky diving and etc. When your behavior results in costs to me, it is no longer "your body ........" Assume the costs of accident or illness and . . . good on you! Have at it and enjoy. But, never forget actions have consequences so, don't rely on me and your neighbors to bail you out from the possible consequences, assume responsibility for you choices.

I would say the biggest flaw in your logic is the subjectivity of perceived risk. For example, you seem to think that skydiving is very dangerous, yet you're statistically much more likely to die in a car wreck. You're actually multiple orders of magnitude more likely to die in a car wreck. Does that mean that everyone who drives a vehicle wouldn't get coverage? Obviously the average person drives more than they skydive, increasing the likelihood of automobile death, but the statistics are still the statistics. What about people who live a sedentary lifestyle and eat big macs every day? Is that considered high risk behavior? What about the people who smoke cigarettes that live a shorter life than people who don't smoke? Wouldn't their truncated life span cost us all less money? Especially considering that whether you're dying of 'natural causes' at 80 (after living a subjectively healthy life) or lung cancer from cigarettes at 62 your end of life care still costs us all money. The 62 year old cigarette smoker would end up costing tax payers less money in the long run potentially.

While I agree with aspects of your philosophy, I believe in practice it becomes impossible. The healthcare thing is one of those "all or nothing" types of things, unless voters dictate otherwise. I don't meant to come across as truculent I just genuinely wanted to engage in discourse. Hope you're well Warren.

 

[BriarBrook]

The problem with this is that smokers are no a cost for the NHS, infact the complete opposite - we are net contributors to the treasury by significant ammounts, on top of which the 'costs' of smoking are usually quite bogus when looked at in detail (they include things like estimated loss to GDP from a hypothetical smoker taking time off work and so on - see Christopher Snowden's articles on the subject).

Aside from that the NHS is hardly free. It's very expensive, and is constantly used as an excuse to take away my freedoms, which is a price too high to pay. I'd rather get rid of it and be left alone.

I always laugh when I hear people from other countries talk about "free healthcare" and "free tuition". Nothing is free. They are taking YOUR money (taxes) and YOUR freedoms (laws) to make things "free".

 

[Briar Lee]

It’s about morality.

Those that don’t smoke think smokers are immoral.

All the arguments made about smokers being a burden on the health care system and the fumes harming bystanders are stalking horses for the elimination of vice and sin.

Thank the Lord the morality squadrons like an occasional drink and a cup of coffee and tea.

 

[SBC]

Although I think that the libertarian principle has shortcomings as the final epistemic mechanism for civil jurisdiction, nevertheless it's a helpful mechanism in many cases, and I really cannot think of an issue to which it more obviously applies than this.

If you want to ban tobacco from public places, because some citizens don't want to choose between public places and smelling others' tobacco, fine. I disagree, but I can understand the logic here.

If you want to ban tobacco from being smoked inside a residence where minors are resident, fine, I disagree, but I can understand that logic, too.

But there are only two principles on which you could you ban an adult from smoking tobacco in a non-public, outdoor place (like his back yard):

His own health as an end in itself, or else his own health as a burden on tax-funded health care.

You can't say (as you could say in the case of currently illegal drugs) that he might be dangerous to other citizens while under the influence of tobacco. Nobody has ever claimed that.

There is much more justification for banning alcohol than banning tobacco. People under the influence of alcohol sometimes kill other people, so you could make a (strained) libertarian argument there.

But there is no such argument for tobacco.
If you keep it out of public places, and away from minors indoors, then it literally cannot impact anybody but the person using it (or tax-payers via public health care).

Whether health care should be funded by taxes is a different question which many of us will have strong opinions on, but let's just grant for sake of discussion that that dynamic isn't going to change any time soon:

Either way -- whether the concern is with or without regard for a centralized and enforced safety net -- this kind of legislation opens pandora's box:

By either of these rationales, we are now ready to begin legislating against anything the science de jour deems detrimental: alcohol, red meat, confections, etc.

Heck, we might as well alot people a certain number of calories which they are permitted to consume per day, based on each commrade's height, age, and level of activity in the service of the commune.

Let's be real: this kind of dystopian policing really could lower the burden on tax funded health care. And it really would be evil. So maybe this is an opportunity to go back and check some more basic assumptions.

 

[sablebrush52]

But bans on things outright because they're harmful to one's own health? No, absolutely not

Taken at face value, you’re in favor of no laws banning drug use, like fentanyl, or any other restrictions regarding self destructive behaviors, assuming that they don’t affect others not involved.
Human behavior is rarely clean with margins. Most of it spills over onto others. Taking into account the messiness, who picks up the bodies?

 

[SBC]

Human behavior is rarely clean with margins. Most of it spills over onto others. Taking into account the messiness, who picks up the bodies?

Yes, this is a great point, and one of the major limitations of the libertarian principle. How do you actually distinguish between those things which affect other citizens and those things which do not?

I still find the principle helpful in many cases, but it isn't a perfectly clean, final arbiter. My neighbors still encounter in various ways my personal decisions.