Nanny state or Facism?

[ParanoiA]

they`re going TOO FAR now!

 

there has been proposed' date=' a License to Smoke now!

you`ll have to pay 10 GBP and fill in a Deliberately over-complicated form once a year just to buy Cigs!

 

not only that but: "The paper also proposes incentives for large companies to provide a daily "exercise hour" for employees and a ban on salt in processed food."[/quote']

 

All I can say is, you open the door to this crap when you rationalize yourselves around principles by using good intentions. Freedom isn't free. True liberty means that you give up any control of other's behavior unless it DIRECTLY harms your person or property.

 

When you allow ANY kind of behavior legislation based on subjective analysis, then I hardly see why this kind of thing would surprise you. What did you think was going to happen? You thought the government was just going to stop? You thought their line and your line was the same point?

 

And notice how many in here don't really have much of a problem with it - because it's effecting "smoking", not the unhealthy stuff that THEY do. They allow government intrusion for the stuff they don't like, but then throw their hands up in the air when legislation starts in on the stuff they DO like - and then act all surprised and indignified at the arrogance and / of authority.

 

the ACT of smoking maybe stupid yes, but then that WASN`T what was said.

 

No, don't let them perpetuate this crap. Smoking is not stupid. It depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to live as long as possible, then yes, smoking is stupid. That's not a smart way to reach your goal.

 

If your trying to live as rich as possible, enjoy crazy and self-dangerous behavior, fortifying a quality lifestyle with little concern over longevity, then smoking isn't stupid at all. It fits right in.

 

Why do we have this propensity to make value judgements about everyone? Why are we STILL judging lifestyle choices?

[YT2095]

that was quite well written and very powerful!

 

and you`re right, most thus far seem to miss the point entirely until it`s THEIR TURN to be Micro-Managed by the .gov

 

 

it`s Funny in a way, as this is why Germany won`t abolish smoking or make it difficult, for the simple reason is that it`s Exactly! what the Nazis did.

[iNow]

The Nazi's banned smoking too? Man, and all this time I thought it was just the Jews.

 

 

They really were monsters!

[YT2095]

well HERE if you don`t believe me: http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm

[iNow]

Wow. My level of respect for them will never be the same.

 

Thanks for bringing to my attention the interesting tidbit, YT.

[YT2095]

You`re quite welcome.

[Severian]

I agree. That is just outright fascism. It is time we got rid of this government.

[Pangloss]

Are the laws against doing illegal drugs "nanny-state" rules? It seems to be about making sure we know that they are not only bad for us, but that they have no redeeming worth whatsoever. It's pure demonization.

 

That's a different subject. We're not talking about illegalization, we're talking about licensing. Different rules apply.

 

As much as I disagree with the approach of this proposal, to call it demonization completely misses the mark. It's about making it more difficult for smokers, not impossible.

 

I think this hits the mark squarely, and I would add that the emphasis should be on helping people kick their nicotine addictions, not "licensing" them so they can just continue to do the same.

 

I had no idea about the Nazi smoking ban either, btw. Thanks for passing that along, YT.

[ydoaPs]

that`s either the Worst strawman arg EVER or the finest example of non sequitur equivocation this forum`s Ever seen.

 

Well done!

 

How? It's poor etiquette to throw down the Strawman card without explaining why you think the argument is fallacious.

 

That's a different subject. We're not talking about illegalization, we're talking about licensing. Different rules apply.

 

How is it critically different? "Illegalization" and licensing are both methods of restricting use. One method merely restricts it more(should that be more fascist?). It seems like the licensing is merely part of a gradual move toward the "illegalization" of smoking.

[Pangloss]

How is it critically different? "Illegalization" and licensing are both methods of restricting use. One method merely restricts it more(should that be more fascist?). It seems like the licensing is merely part of a gradual move toward the "illegalization" of smoking.

 

Well maybe I misunderstood your last post, then, because we're on the same page here. I was trying to point out that it was incorrect for them to call it "licensing" because what they're doing doesn't seem to fit the definition of that word. It seems to really be about further restrictions.