Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7


1391 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 583


  Reply # 1555560 19-May-2016 13:08
Send private message

idle:

 

What a great idea! I have always wanted a government to control my life, and when they do look after my health, perhaps I will live forever. And let's not just stop at cigarettes, think of the harm that comes from all that sugar! So let's ban sweets and chocolates and ice-cream. And how about obesity? Time for the government to step in and ban KFC and McDonalds! All fat people should be put in special camps to "learn" their errors and to recant and eat green stuff. Yeah, all that would sort the country. Great idea! 

 

 

I'm not advocating for the fun police, and slippery slopes are all well and good, but currently we do ban a hell of a lot of stuff which is less addictive and less harmful than tobacco. While we're taking things to extremes, maybe we should un-ban everything, and let the tobacco or other drug companies market everything from dope to heroin or meth to whoever wants it, just make sure we tax it enough to cover any adverse health effects so the users are paying for the down sides of their fun.

 

An alternative, raise the smoking age year on year to 'grandparent' in the current legal smokers. The legal age to buy smokes is 18 right now, make it 19 next year, 20 the year after, and so on until the last smoker has given up (one way or the other). That way anyone who currently enjoys the habit is free to continue to their heart's content, but the rate of new smokers will decline.

 

 

 

 


18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5249

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1555563 19-May-2016 13:11
One person supports this post
Send private message

idle:

 

What a great idea! I have always wanted a government to control my life, and when they do look after my health, perhaps I will live forever. And let's not just stop at cigarettes, think of the harm that comes from all that sugar! So let's ban sweets and chocolates and ice-cream. And how about obesity? Time for the government to step in and ban KFC and McDonalds! All fat people should be put in special camps to "learn" their errors and to recant and eat green stuff. Yeah, all that would sort the country. Great idea! 

 

 

Umm are you serious? You understand you NEED fat AND sugar to live?

 

 


7396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 1555565 19-May-2016 13:12
Send private message

networkn:

 

100% support the banning of smoking. Disgusting habit with zero positives from either a social or health perspective. 

 

We discriminate on it as part of our recruitment process.

 

 

 

 

I can see where this could go...

 

There are actually a few "paradoxical" medical correlations with tobacco.  It seems to be slightly protective against Parkinsons, ulcerative colitis.  It was thought that there was also a negative correlation between tobacco use and Alzheimers - but I believe that one's been discredited as the studies showing this were funded by the tobacco industry.  I just mentioned that one, because my father in the mid stages of Alzheimers must have heard about this, so decided to take up smoking.  Alas he could never remember where he left his smokes, then couldn't find his way to the shop to buy more.  It was the least of my worries that he'd decided to become a smoker.

 

Anyway, when it's banned, there might be a case for dispensing tobacco for "medical use".  


282 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 1555566 19-May-2016 13:13
One person supports this post
Send private message

Isn't one of the reasons smoking is still legal is because prohibition taught us that banning things simply doesn't work?

 

Take sex ed as another example. There are some states in the US where the education system has opted to teach abstinence instead of safe sex. Well guess what? Teen pregnancy rates are higher in those areas. Surprise surprise! To think you can impose moral values on a bunch of teenagers, who by their own admission do not consider those moral values to have any relevance, is never going to work.

 

On another front, Richard Brand's documentary on drugs issues raises some fascinating points (it's on Netflix if you want to take a look). He proposes decriminalization of any and all drugs and his reasoning is essentially that in the UK they are putting users in jail for a few weeks, after which they are back on the street without any attempts at helping them towards rehab, and the cycle repeats. It's heartbreaking to see individuals going through this. I think decriminalization of all drugs might be a bit far personally, but something's gotta give. The imprisonment approach is never going to work. These people need a doctor, not a punishment.

 

The reality is we have many public health fronts to combat these days. Smoking, binge drinking, obesity, drugs, even our housing problems and hungry kids. None of these problems have silver bullets available, and stricter rules are definitely not the answer. They each need holistic plans which take into account their many factors. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can get on with real solutions.


7396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 1555568 19-May-2016 13:15
Send private message

networkn:

 

idle:

 

What a great idea! I have always wanted a government to control my life, and when they do look after my health, perhaps I will live forever. And let's not just stop at cigarettes, think of the harm that comes from all that sugar! So let's ban sweets and chocolates and ice-cream. And how about obesity? Time for the government to step in and ban KFC and McDonalds! All fat people should be put in special camps to "learn" their errors and to recant and eat green stuff. Yeah, all that would sort the country. Great idea! 

 

 

Umm are you serious? You understand you NEED fat AND sugar to live?

 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't "need" any sugar (sucrose) at all. 


2853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 798

Subscriber

  Reply # 1555570 19-May-2016 13:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

networkn:

 

SepticSceptic:

 

networkn:

 

100% support the banning of smoking. Disgusting habit with zero positives from either a social or health perspective. 

 

We discriminate on it as part of our recruitment process.

 

 

Do you also discriminate against overweight people on the same principle ?

 

If not, then you are discriminating against your discrimination ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

We discriminate against smokers because they smell terrible and when you work side by side with people, how you smell affects how those people perceive you. Along with the health benefits. 

 

Before we didn't employ people who smoked, I would offer staff $2000 to quit. I had one person quit and when he left my employ, he gave me $2000 by cheque and said I saved his life and he didn't want to take my money for it. 

 

 

 

 

Yep. I was served by a young guy in Bunnings 'timber & Gib' section recently and he totally stank of stale cigarette smoke. It must have been in his clothes and they hadn't been washed for a while. I could smell it even two metres away from him and it was very off-putting and unpleasant. I seriously considered looking for another assistant.


2347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 676


  Reply # 1555580 19-May-2016 13:34
Send private message

Is vaping even remotely bad for you? My understanding is that nicotine, while addictive, is actually not harmful (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

That's why I just don't understand all the hate out there towards e-cigarettes.

 

I'm not a smoker, but wouldn't have a problem with bars etc allowing e-cigarettes.


13149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6171

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1555582 19-May-2016 13:39
Send private message

I have no issue with folks who want to commit a slow self induced very unpleasant death, however I do have an issue with it affecting others through passive smoking and contaminated surfaces. The other habit associated with is discarded butts everywhere which put carcinogens into the environment and the smoke residue damaging property.

 

Smokers you say it their life so be it but, everyone picks up the cost. They don't want the government telling them what to do but quite happy for the government to pick up the tab for their health costs.

 

Grow your own tobacco and smoke at home where you are only wreaking your life and damaging your property.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


918 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 279

Trusted

  Reply # 1555586 19-May-2016 13:44
One person supports this post
Send private message

Let the smokers smoke. Personally I don't care, mainly because I don't smoke. Put the price up to something astronomical so new people don't start the habit, and we can pay for the healthcare of the people who got addicted to this filthy habbit in the past. 

 


Stop trying to ban this, ban that, nanny state blah blah blah... Maybe we should ban cars within 200 meters of a school because a small child might get run over.

 

Come on, get with it people... Educate, Educate Educate. Since when did banning anything increase the overall intelligence of the general population. 






3372 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 652

Trusted

  Reply # 1555588 19-May-2016 13:47
Send private message

same camp as most i think, its a disgusting habit, and you've got to be complete idiot to do it IMO. 

 

 

 

however, policing this is just wrong.  As suggested, if this is made illegal, then whats next? fastfood? one day eating meat?  

 

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking.  If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it.  but no, don't out law it.   Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol). 


13149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6171

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1555590 19-May-2016 13:49
Send private message

darylblake:

 

Let the smokers smoke. Personally I don't care, mainly because I don't smoke. Put the price up to something astronomical so new people don't start the habit, and we can pay for the healthcare of the people who got addicted to this filthy habbit in the past. 

 


Stop trying to ban this, ban that, nanny state blah blah blah... Maybe we should ban cars within 200 meters of a school because a small child might get run over.

 

Come on, get with it people... Educate, Educate Educate. Since when did banning anything increase the overall intelligence of the general population. 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't increase intelligence but it stops the affect on OUR COMMUNITY. 

 

And using ridiculous arguments "Maybe we should ban cars within 200 meters of a school because a small child might get run over." does not enhance the no ban argument. And if you haven't noticed

 

there are strong restrictions on the use of vehicles around schools or do you think that is too nanny state as well... aaarrgghh I hate that old "nanny State" falsehood





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


282 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 76


  Reply # 1555591 19-May-2016 13:53
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4:

 

It doesn't increase intelligence but it stops the affect on OUR COMMUNITY. 

 

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. That's like saying theft is illegal and therefore does not affect our community.


Meow
7907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3929

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1555596 19-May-2016 13:58
Send private message

Paul1977:

 

Is vaping even remotely bad for you? My understanding is that nicotine, while addictive, is actually not harmful (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

That's why I just don't understand all the hate out there towards e-cigarettes.

 

I'm not a smoker, but wouldn't have a problem with bars etc allowing e-cigarettes.

 

 

I know the exact ingredients in all the liquid I buy and know it is far far far less harmful than smoking. I have not had a smokers cough since switching, my sense of smell and taste have come back and I no-longer stink or have a hole in my bank account. Not to mention is is actually pleasant to vape. I've just lowered my nicotine intake over a course of 4 months to the point (now) I am not doing it for the nicotine.





7396 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3863


  Reply # 1555597 19-May-2016 13:59
Send private message

reven:

 

 

 

I'm all for increasing tax on it to FULLY COVER the costs the medical costs etc the country needs to pay for people who get sick from smoking.  If that means a box of cigarettes becomes $200 so be it.  but no, don't out law it.   Also perhaps restrict their sales so they're not easily available from diary's, supermarkets etc but maybe need to go to a specialty store (like west auckland does with alcohol). 

 

 

 

 

I believe that's a non-starter as an argument, tax on tobacco more than covers medical costs for treatment of tobacco related illness.  

 

Sad but true that you're going to die from something, unfortunately "peacefully during sleep" at great old age with no prior medical intervention isn't a choice you get to make.  If all smoking was banned, we won't be closing down all the hospitals and putting grave diggers out of work.


937 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 235

Trusted

  Reply # 1555633 19-May-2016 14:45
One person supports this post
Send private message

Why are people suggesting a ban on nicotine.  Although it is extremely addictive it is otherwise relatively benign.  It's the tar and other carcinogenic substances in cigarettes that will kill you.

 

I don't smoke, I gave up a few years ago.  I also don't like the smell, but I struggle to see that as grounds for not employing somebody.  Are you going to fire someone for starting smoking after you employ them or if they suddenly develop poor personal hygiene habits.  Good luck with that one.

 

Tourism, especially from Asia (including India), is a strong and growing market for NZ.  It is common to smoke in that region of the world (as it is in Europe).  Do you think the tourists would come if they couldn't smoke?





Kirk

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.