World events

I'm not sure if I completely understand your example, but I do not agree with that.

Then you can start with "when you are biking, and you break your elbow, pay all costs yourself because you know you can fall". Or when you are living near an odd smoke loving factory because you were able to buy cheap acres, and suddenly you get some sickness, handle it yourself. Where is the line in these cases, and why would we treat each other like that? But yes, need to look at our social security system, and question ourselves what should be paid and not paid. It costs a lot of money, and is under stress more and more.

Banning smoking in bars and restaurant is a great start (Belgium is the only West-European country where such ban is not yet implemented, sadly enough, and I more and more skip an evening in a bar because of that, searching alternatives), but we need to expand that to public buildings and some locations as well.

I think we've gone past that now, realistically. Here in the UK we're now at the point where tax on cigarettes is so high that smokers do pay for themselves in terms of healthcare.

Totally agree Pawel save one thing. Is the right to have that occasional beer worth all the aggrevation that is caused by the 20% who are alcoholic. I'd go along with your idea if that 20% were just put away for life.

Come to think of it, also nicotine is researched as an anti-depressant and schizophrenic people are often chain-smokers, because it helps them with a short-memory impairment.

So it's all not that easy.

I've been negatively affected by alcohol in my life as well, Tom, so I'm well aware of the consequences.

The problem is that you are not providing a good alternative. The choice isn't between alcohol vs. no alcohol, it's between alcohol vs. alcohol and a huge, new criminal market. Alcohol doesn't go away just because you outlaw it. People will still drink, and additionally you get stuff like this.

That said, I don't think you can make an informed decision if all you're focusing on is the negative. Taking away a freedom that improves many people's lifes is a serious offense in my opinion. All freedom involves risks. Leaving your own house every morning is about the most dangerous thing you can do. We can outlaw that as well and save countless lives. But when you ban people's freedom to enjoy themselves you're making those lifes less worth living (and saving).

Peter

I think the Prohibition and the consequences of it showed really well what a ban could do to people.

Do your homework Pawel. Prohibition worked. Alcohol is all about money. Our government gets billions in revenue. I have no problem with anyone drinking. I have a major problem with people drinking and driving as this directly has a bearing on me. A soccer mom hit and killed a 70 year old man not to long ago because he couldn't get out of the way. He was in the crosswalk and his light was green. She ran the stop sign. Why did this woman walk away with probation. Because she was raising a family and didn't mean to do it and promised she would never do it again? She belongs in prison for taking a life and what irritates me is she isn't.

As far as smoking is concerned I have two problems. Your smoking affects my health because I have to breath second hand smoke. Eliminate that problem and I can live with it. And #2 merely sign a disclaimer that when you get sick from lung cancer or any number of other diseases our government doesn't have to spend money taking care of you. Let's spend the money on people who've gotten sick and it isn't there fault.

Thomas

With Prohibition - what did lead to really? Did the alcohol problem vanish at all or did it bring to heavy criminal issues including Mafia finding a new business? I'd like to hear the numbers here and not official ones, because nobody would probably admit in public polls to drinking bootlegged alcohol (a beautiful scene in DePalma's Untouchables was when Elliott Ness was asked what would he do if prohibition ended, he said simply "I'd have a drink"). Getting illegal whisky from Canada is a known thing, but tell me the numbers, plausible ones about the usage of alcohol in the 20s and after the prohibition. My prediction is that unoficially, the numbers were exactly the same or even worse, because as we say in Poland "forbidden fruit always tastes better". Official numbers would be biased, because most of people wouldn't admit to doing something illegal.

About smoking.

Point two - I agree with you, though it has to be handled a bit more sensitively and perhaps the burden should be put on the cigarette makers rather than users.

Point one - we are treading on thin ice here. First things first. People are allowed to smoke, period. It's their choice and in America perhaps as a part of the smokers' view of their constitutional rights, it's their freedom. They just are allowed to do it. Smoking ban in closed places, like we even have in Poland for quite a while (public closed places) is something that starts with some protests from the smokers, maybe looking for workarounds, but eventually is accepted and eventually praised by smokers. If you ban smoking on the streets then I think that's unfair for many reasons.

First, fresh air dispels the smoke that in a pub, bar, restaurant would be pretty concentrated in one place. What I am saying is the smoke you breathe in on a street is already less dense and intense than what it would be in a public place (and if your problem is that smoking in public places is allowed in the US then yeah, I think all states should have a ban).

Second, smoking is a choice and something that isn't directly illegal. And suddenly basically there is no place to legally smoke in. If I understand things well, this is well against the Constitution of the States, somehow, definitely against Polish.

Third, there are electronic cigarettes already. You smoke in nicotine, smoke out steam. In Poland, some smokers already use that. No second hand smoke and none of the more dangerous subtances like Benzene get into their lungs. Though I;ve heard it's hard to change to those, because the dangerous substances are *also* addictive. Never tried myself though.

A UK smoker who smokes 20 cigarettes a day pays approximately £5 per day in tax purely from cigarettes. That's £1800 per year. On average, if a smoker develops lung cancer (and over 80% of them do not) then it takes about 40 years. So that's £72,000 raised in tax revenues during those 40 years purely from smoking. Of five smokers, one will get lung cancer. So those five smokers have contributed £360,000 between them (about $500,000) and in return, the government has to fund one lung cancer patient and if the smoker dies early, it doesn't have to fund any more welfare payments or pension or whatever. I don't think the government's getting such a bad deal there.

OK, so I'm being exceptionally simplistic and ignoring all the many other smoking-related illnesses and the cost to society - but of the arguments to say smoking should be banned, a financial one just doesn't add up. In fact, the largest single threat to society (at least in the top two, depending on your view of climate change) is that people are living too long and we won't be able to afford it for much longer (in Britain at least, we can already barely afford it).

My mom has amazingly stopped smoking about half year ago, but she's smoked almost her entire life before that. She's the warmest and kindest person you could ever know. But if she had gotten cancer and anyone said "Fuck her, let her die, she brought it on herself", I can't think of anything more evil. There are real people behind the statistics. People filled with love, and with plenty of loved ones in their lifes as well. People who'd do anything to help you out if you needed it. People who for whatever reason ended up with an unhealthy addiction. Just saying "Screw them" is cold beyond my comprehension.

Peter

Where do you draw the line then, concerning diseases and cancer?

Here's what I wrote somewhere earlier

Oh and Tom, the fact that in America you don't take the driving license away for life for DUI is quite shocking to me. In Poland it's quite obvious.

I have this to say on the matter.

http://cheezfailbooking.files.wordpress … 7fb836.jpg

Pawel and I sort of finished our discussion on Facebook.