Tasmanian smoking ban?

[Mao]

The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.

1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc

point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

1. we all agree same sex marriage should be allowed, the government is being stupid
2. I argue that illicit drugs should be legalised, I think the government is also being stupid here, but that's another can of worms
3. child pornography severely affects children, this choice does not come without harming the children, so naturally it should be banned
4. same as above
5. same as above

Regardless of the things you listed, the government should be REMOVING the number of stupid laws it has, rather than increasing this number. And by stupid laws, I mean laws where the government is making my life choices for me.

I can smoke all I want without forcing second hand smoking onto you. As far as I'm concerned, me smoking does not affect the rest of the public. What good is that achieving then? A law that makes my health better? We go back to the original point, the government doesn't have the right to make my life choices for me.

[JellyDonut]

At least they are honest about it. Better than heavy taxation on a product with an inelastic demand fueled by addiction

[Bhootnike]

Anyone can do whatever they want, regardless of what the government dictates. They just have to face the consequences of their actions, should it conflict with laws.

yea..
so if smoking is banned, then as per the law, you dont have the 'authority' to smoke. - legally.

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

1. we all agree same sex marriage should be allowed, the government is being stupid
2. I argue that illicit drugs should be legalised, I think the government is also being stupid here, but that's another can of worms
3. child pornography severely affects children, this choice does not come without harming the children, so naturally it should be banned
4. same as above
5. same as above

Regardless of the things you listed, the government should be REMOVING the number of stupid laws it has, rather than increasing this number. And by stupid laws, I mean laws where the government is making my life choices for me.

I can smoke all I want without forcing second hand smoking onto you. As far as I'm concerned, me smoking does not affect the rest of the public. What good is that achieving then? A law that makes my health better? We go back to the original point, the government doesn't have the right to make my life choices for me.

Ooo haha , what i meant to say was... the government does have the authority to tell us what to do or what not to do. technically.

take my examples from before, say drugs - ok yeah for sure, have some eckie pills, but if you get busted with them, the law will turn on you.  why? cos' the government has had the authority to make the law, and the coppers have enforced this law by chuckin you in jail. in turn, the government has had the 'authority' to tell you what you cant do!

with same sex marriage, the gvt has the authority of telling me, no, you cant do that.

if i wanted to smoke weed right now, i could. but the government has imposed a ban on it, and technically they have had the authority to do that. so, in turn they have the authority to tell me what i cant do.

.. if you get what i mean?!

if they ban smoking, then the government will technically, perhaps in a more legal perspective, have the authority of telling the kids born post 2000 that they cannot smoke.

[Surgeon]

@Bhoot- I smoke. I'm under 18. What's the government doing?

[Starlight]

@Bhoot- I smoke. I'm under 18. What's the government doing?

Zilch, they'd argue that they have more pressing priorities.

[Bhootnike]

There is no law against minors smoking in victoria afaik...?

[Surgeon]

Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.

[thushan]

Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.

Curse. Not a big fan of EtOH tbh...or agonists at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors...

[Bhootnike]

Should have said I purchase alcohol and cigarettes and I'm under 18.

if thats the case, then my point still stands.
the government has still somewhere, at some point had the authority to tell you what you can or cannot do.
to do, or not to do, is your choice however.
and if you didnt get caught, i guess its negligence on their part, or your luck (even tho like everyone does it, but for arguments sake!)

[Mao]

Ooo haha , what i meant to say was... the government does have the authority to tell us what to do or what not to do. technically.

take my examples from before, say drugs - ok yeah for sure, have some eckie pills, but if you get busted with them, the law will turn on you.  why? cos' the government has had the authority to make the law, and the coppers have enforced this law by chuckin you in jail. in turn, the government has had the 'authority' to tell you what you cant do!

with same sex marriage, the gvt has the authority of telling me, no, you cant do that.

if i wanted to smoke weed right now, i could. but the government has imposed a ban on it, and technically they have had the authority to do that. so, in turn they have the authority to tell me what i cant do.

.. if you get what i mean?!

if they ban smoking, then the government will technically, perhaps in a more legal perspective, have the authority of telling the kids born post 2000 that they cannot smoke.

No, you are not understanding my point.

I'm not talking about the powers of law. Of course, if someone disobeys the law, they are punished. That is not the point of the argument.

The point of the argument is the validity of some laws. We are questioning whether or not certain laws should be made. And I argue that certain laws, including a possible law which bans smoking for an entire age bracket, is inherently stupid and should not become a law.

[Surgeon]

(I don't actually smoke but said I did for illustrative purposes. I'm almost 18 an have seen 13-14 year olds puffing away)

[Starlight]

The government does not, and will never, have the authority to tell me what life choices I can and cannot make.

1. same sex marriage - gov. doesnt recognise it
2. illicit drugs - jail
3. child pornogaphy - jail
4. having sex with a minor - jail
5. bashing someone up -jail
etc etc

point is, the government sort of does... lol.
if theyre banning smoking its for the good!

I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

1. we all agree same sex marriage should be allowed, the government is being stupid
2. I argue that illicit drugs should be legalised, I think the government is also being stupid here, but that's another can of worms
3. child pornography severely affects children, this choice does not come without harming the children, so naturally it should be banned
4. same as above
5. same as above

Regardless of the things you listed, the government should be REMOVING the number of stupid laws it has, rather than increasing this number. And by stupid laws, I mean laws where the government is making my life choices for me.

I can smoke all I want without forcing second hand smoking onto you. As far as I'm concerned, me smoking does not affect the rest of the public. What good is that achieving then? A law that makes my health better? We go back to the original point, the government doesn't have the right to make my life choices for me.

Mao, Can I ask why you actually started in the first place?

[Mao]

Mao, Can I ask why you actually started in the first place?

Sure.

I wanted to experience it initially out of curiosity. I have chosen to continue because I find certain social interactions are smoother, and it also reflects on my attitude that I don't take most things that seriously. But neither of these are 'good' reasons. If you want the simple answer, I do it because I can, because of the shock value, and because I am willing to face the consequences.

I have quit cold turkey several times to make sure the addiction is under control, and I am keeping a close eye on my health so to make sure no serious damage is dealt (though if there is, it's my own bloody choice and I'll live with it). I take care in checking with people in my immediate vicinity that they're okay with me smoking. I think all in all, I'm pretty responsible when it comes to this particular lifestyle choice.

[brenden]

Mao, your reasons are heavily base on your external world - do you only smoke in the presence others? Your choices don't seem to apply to when you're alone.
I'm unsure on my position on the legislation, I'll think more and reply later.

[Bhootnike]

No, you are not understanding my point.

I'm not talking about the powers of law. Of course, if someone disobeys the law, they are punished. That is not the point of the argument.

The point of the argument is the validity of some laws. We are questioning whether or not certain laws should be made. And I argue that certain laws, including a possible law which bans smoking for an entire age bracket, is inherently stupid and should not become a law.

oh nah, i understand - what i said was only in reference to when you said that the gvmt. has no authority over what you do or what you dont do.

but ok, regarding the actual issue .
if they did ban smoking for people born post-2000, wouldnt it lead to a decrease in smoking?
im talking about the future here.

If this bill is passed, i wouldnt say its getting rid of our freedom, because in the end, these are the types of things i'd like to see from our gvmt.
(and smoking is not comparable to the gvmt. banning like... curries! curries dont destroy us (unless theyre spicy as hell)).

on the other hand, smoking kills. classic case - we know it. most of us have somehow, directly or indirectly been affected by cancer which was influenced by smoking - , so taking that into perspective, isnt the government going to be doing something beneficial? the cost of tobacco - its something to think about. once someones hooked onto it, the addictive nature of it will mean you keep on spending precious money on it.
economically it'd favour the people of tasmania?

yes, its the persons choice to smoke in the end.
but if we ban it, then we'll be not be doing anything bad imo, and so in turn itll be a more positive outcome..