PDA

View Full Version : UN seeks world ban on indoor smoking



Silverbackman
30-05-07, 10:17
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2007/05/30/un_seeks_world_ban_on_indoor_smoking/


UN seeks world ban on indoor smoking

By Associated Press | May 30, 2007

GENEVA -- The United Nations health agency yesterday issued its strongest policy recommendations yet for controlling tobacco use, urging all countries to ban smoking at indoor workplaces and in public buildings.

"The evidence is clear. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke," said Dr. Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization.

Tobacco use is the world's leading cause of preventable death, accounting for 10 percent of adult fatalities, according to the WHO. It is responsible for 5.4 million deaths each year, a figure that is expected to rise to 8.3 million by 2030, the agency says.

Increasing numbers of nonsmokers will also die unless governments take action, the WHO said in its 50-page report. It said governments of both rich and poor countries should declare all public indoor places smoke-free, by passing laws and actively enforcing measures to ensure that "everyone has a right to breathe clean air, free from tobacco smoke."

"This is not about shaming the smoker. This is not even about banning smoking," said Dr. Armando Peruga, who heads WHO's anti tobacco campaign. "This is about society taking decisions about where to smoke and where not to smoke."

He cited Ireland and Uruguay as governments that have successfully tackled smoking by creating and enforcing smoke-free environments.


Once again, the UN is acting more and more like a world government. And not a world government based on the enlightened principles or liberalism, but the irrational principles of socialism and/or fascism. It's policies like this that make it hard for a country to reform soft drug laws......an example of this is the Netherlands. The Netherlands can't legalize weed or shrooms completely because other countries and international organizations will attack it (albeit economical or not). The the head of this "Govern like we say" movement is the UN and surprisingly the US.

The UN knows that they can't place tobacco in the list of illicit substances because too many people smoke tobacco. It's the same thing with alcohol and tobacco. So now they are slowly trying to sneak legislation in, until they can sneak prohibition laws.

And if they move towards tobacco prohibition, all the hard work of limiting tobacco use through proven methods like education will go to waste. As we all know, when a substance is banned or even severely limited, the use of it will go down for some time until the red-black market has been established, then use will skyrocket far above pre-prohibition use. And if this happens, expect to see many addicts robbing stores and people to get money for their fix. Remember that tobacco is more addicting than even heroin and cocaine (90% addiction rate)!

Now then, is this worldwide smoking ban desirable? Let's put aside the UN centralization argument and instead focus on the law itself. This law is wants to basically ban smoking in indoor places......mainly in business. What's wrong with this law?

The problem with this law is of course that whether or not smoking should be allowed indoors is up to the people that own the indoors. It doesn't matter if its residential or commercial, it is up to the people in charge of their business to decide on smoking and non-smoking. Let the free market (backed by the science of economics) decide whether smoking will be allowed in public places.

If enough public awareness is raised about the dangers of breathing tobacco smoke, then many people will start to go to businesses with non-smoking policies, and these businesses will then prosper more than the businesses that permit smoking. Or maybe not.......maybe some people believe that second hand smoke is bs and want to smoke in a restaurant. They should have the right to do so if the owners of the business permit it. It's as simple as that. Prohibition and regulation never work and create more problems than they solve. And whose to say whether these bigot regulation/prohibition policies work?

I personally hate tobacco smoking myself. But I'm not going to stop you from smoking tobacco and doing whatever you want......it's your life......just keep your goddamn tobacco smoke outside my house/indoors! ;)

What are your thoughts?

Kinsao
30-05-07, 16:33
whether or not smoking should be allowed indoors is up to the people that own the indoors.

^ That is my view. :)

I can appreciate that people with chest/lung problems or who simply dislike to breathe the smoke would prefer to sit in a pub or bar that has no smoking... alternatively smokers would prefer the chance to be indoors... so I don't see why there wouldn't be a market for both non-smoking and smoking pubs, bars and clubs. As for other spaces, like work places and other places where the public are... it should be up to the owner of the business.

Maciamo
31-05-07, 11:08
Personally, I agree with the bans on smoking in enclosed public places and work places. It is not because one person (the owner) smokes, doesn't mind the smoke or doesn't understand the danger of passive smoking, that all the people working there (e.g. waiters in a pub) + the customers have to suffer from it.

With the logic of "the owner decides", then anything could be allowed in private establishments (drugs, illegal activities...). It's not because you own a place that you own the people in it !

Alma
31-05-07, 15:18
^ That is my view. :)
I can appreciate that people with chest/lung problems or who simply dislike to breathe the smoke would prefer to sit in a pub or bar that has no smoking... alternatively smokers would prefer the chance to be indoors... so I don't see why there wouldn't be a market for both non-smoking and smoking pubs, bars and clubs. As for other spaces, like work places and other places where the public are... it should be up to the owner of the business.

I agree with you, but last part is bit too complicated. it is not like society is divided on smokers and non-smokers. I smoked for years (but I quit) and had non-smoking friends then. and now is opposite, of course.

there is places smoking should be banned, definitely. but it think, this world wide ban is impossible. cannot be controlled, anyway.

ArmandV
31-05-07, 22:21
Typical of proponents of "nanny government."

misa.j
01-06-07, 19:24
I like the idea of it, but I think it's very difficult to enoforce. Some people chew on tobacco which sometimes more disgusting than smoking cigarettes, and there is no law on that.

Silverbackman
14-07-07, 18:27
Personally, I agree with the bans on smoking in enclosed public places and work places. It is not because one person (the owner) smokes, doesn't mind the smoke or doesn't understand the danger of passive smoking, that all the people working there (e.g. waiters in a pub) + the customers have to suffer from it.
With the logic of "the owner decides", then anything could be allowed in private establishments (drugs, illegal activities...). It's not because you own a place that you own the people in it !
I thought you were a classical liberal like me ;). What happened? Remember, the definition of liberal is liberty. Thomas Jefferson would not support this smoking ban. Why? Because he knows that Reason leads to trust in the free market, not government. And prohibition, whether it be banning smoking in public spaces......ect. ect. only fuels the crime itself.
Atheists must understand economics, or our philosophy will fail.

Arahari
30-08-09, 13:57
The Englishman is lord of his own castle.Now I am no longer a smoker but woe betide anyone whether he be English or Johnny Foreigner who tries to tell me what to do in my own home!

Maciamo
30-08-09, 14:33
The Englishman is lord of his own castle.Now I am no longer a smoker but woe betide anyone whether he be English or Johnny Foreigner who tries to tell me what to do in my own home!

A ban on indoor smoking would not apply to people's homes, only public places and businesses.

Invictus_88
20-01-10, 21:00
A ban on indoor smoking would not apply to people's homes, only public places and businesses.

But it applies to his Club, whether the Club will it or not.

Which is, I think, pretty appalling.

Wilhelm
20-01-10, 21:52
I thought you were a classical liberal like me ;). What happened? Remember, the definition of liberal is liberty. Thomas Jefferson would not support this smoking ban. Why? Because he knows that Reason leads to trust in the free market, not government. And prohibition, whether it be banning smoking in public spaces......ect. ect. only fuels the crime itself.
Atheists must understand economics, or our philosophy will fail.
That's a stupid reasoning. WHere is the liberty of those who do not want to breath Smoke ??

LeBrok
20-01-10, 23:40
For me always the common sense was that smokers shouldn't smoke around people that don't smoke, either inside or outside. It's a minimum courtesy when you live around people. Also none smokers should understand that they can't avoid smoke completely. Even if cigarette smoking is eliminated, what about barbecue, or fire pit smoke, or wood burning fireplaces from neighbor's yard or house? Should we ban these too?

People as species evolved a million years around fire and smoke. Fire and smoke every day cooking food around fire pits, smoky caves, smoky tents and primitive houses. Usually it takes 30 or 40 years smoking a pack or two a day to succumb to smoke. We are quite hardy if it comes to smoke.