KennyR wrote:
The pollution of cars has no bearing here. It's a necessary evil - although we can tax needless drivers and more polluting cars off the road. Smoking is not necessary. It doesn't transport people. It doesn't keep Britain moving. And the taxes it generates could come from something else just as easily.
Exactly which goods do you suggest we tax, if smoking were to be banned, and don't forget you would need to cover the extra social security payments to those who were made redundant when shops turnover declines.
The pollution of cars is exactly right here, you are arguing that my smoking is irresponsible and causes you and others harm by my actions. How does this differ from me deriving benefit from driving my car fast and polluting the atmosphere, either way you are harmed.
You cannot stop your argument when it begins to infringe upon the things you enjoy - either you believe your argument or you don't - which is it??
KennyR wrote:
Government vs. capital, government wins. Which is how it should be. I'm damn sure I never voted for any investors.
Are you suggesting that the Government should intervene in all aspects of business.....you are going down a very long road there and there are many examples I could cite to you which would prove the road is a dead end.
Leave the market to decide, if the non-smokers are so confident of their argument and vote with their feet it won't be long before business follows and bans smoking.
KennyR wrote:
No, just plain, totally wrong. The unions don't get money from claims made, and never have. My father is a union secretary AND a safety executive and has never made a penny from what he does. It's his job and he's proud to do it.
And I'm sure he doesn't recieve a penny for his time, and I admire him for giving up his time so freely, it should be actively encouraged (no sarcasm intended).
But that's not to say that his union doesn't recieve anything for recruiting the people to claim through a particular agency. I have a friend who works for the "official" claims company for the NUM, and he has seen the monies they have paid to the union for the access to their membership lists and the right to advertise as the "recommended partner".
Don't let yourself be disillusioned, the unions are in this to make as much money as possible for themselves. I'm sure the members and activists have the same ideals as your father - and that's to be commended - but please don't put your head int he sand over the realities of life.
Kenny R Wrote:
For a start, there's the NHS bills...
Over my lifetime any NHS bills I incur I will have paid many times over through taxation of my hobby (incidentally I have PMI but that would kill your argument even more as I'm paying for the privilidge twice!!).
KennyR wrote:
The very idea of you smoking when you know what it can do to you and people around you provides me with an excellent example of why you cannot be considered to be totally reponsible for all your own decisions.
Do you drink, do you drive above the speed limit, do you eat too much/too little??
What about these decisions they can all affect you and others around you, do I claim that you cannot make those decisions knowing the consequeces? No. We all have the right to make our own decisions about our choices in life (before you say that the non-smokers don't have a choice they do, they are not forced attend areas where smoking is permitted).
Alternatively, to follow your reasoning, who do you suggest makes the decisions as to what I can & can't do?? Because again we are going down roads which have been tried & failed in the past.
KennyR wrote:
In the same way people would be pretty offended if I decided to use my chemistry knowledge to make poisons and bombs. There are laws against that too. Laws for a reason.
Slightly extreme argument don't you think??
KennyR wrote:
There's always a thin line between social responsibility and freedom, and allowing tabacco companies and pubs and clubs to profit on our death and misery is well over that line.
I enjoy my habit, no one forces me to do it, and I accept that there are risks involved. Why should I let you make decisions about my life??
If I want to buy a legal product what is wrong with someone providing a service to allow me to buy that product, that's not wrong, thats capitalisim and it works. If no one wants to buy that product then Government bans will not be needed but whilst the majority of the public visit smoking bars it is clear where the UK stands on the issue.
