Ban Smoking in Cars

[greatbritishhoney]

Just out of interest, do we think that this kind of ban would really cause the furore that the press suggest it will?
The same was said about seatbelts, smoking in pubs etc. I don't know many people who are in the slightest bit bothered about either of those issues now. Infact, I have a few friends who managed to give up smoking precisely because of the pub smoking ban.
For better or worse, people just tend to adapt to the prevailing situation don't they?

 

[Storm™]

For better or worse, people just tend to adapt to the prevailing situation don't they?

That's the point though isn't it. Or rather that's missing the point. If you say get a law that says you cannot use a credit card any more you have to use cheques from now on. That would cause uproar. But as you say people have to adapt whether they like it or not because there is no choice. Remember that no choice. Choice has been removed by force.

Now if the law was that you could no longer use anything but a pay chip injected into you there would be riots. Again choice has been removed by force and you would be forced to undergo pain to fit in. Choice removed by force and forced physical abuse.

Now the smoking ban is removing your freedom of will by force. Law. Because of what - debate. So because "some but not all" have decided a choice for you you must obey. Fine if it's morally wrong but smoking in your own property on your own is not morally wrong. It effects no one else and you have paid for all aspects of that privilege. And because of "some but not all" you must obey. You cannot even say the majority. And that is wrong. A faceless mass of unknown number has decided your fate. You don't smoke so it effects you not. How about if those same faceless numberless mass decided you must live in a council house in a town. Would you "adapt".

Stupid rules will always get by when it effects a minority but that does not make the rules right. And it looks like it my have already started according to the papers - accusations of ridiculous nanny state ideas abound.

 

[The Cumbrian]

A faceless mass of unknown number has decided your fate.

Surely that is the way with all law. Somebody decides and it becomes law, irrespective of how large the minority or even if the majority are against it. Many governments (most) have been making laws for decades with a minority of people having voted for them.

 

[Storm™]

I agree Cumbrian that is usually the case. But where as that works fine in some circumstances (income tax) it does not work in others (poll tax). The trouble is the British public are less as GBH suggests "adaptable" and more apathetic. Unless it involves their wages or freedoms of choice. And this is a freedom of choice.

 

[JamezF]

Many people seem to labour under the illusion that they have some set of inherent freedoms and rights due to them merely because they exist. This is not true. Every single right or freedom that you have exists purely because the society in which you live chooses, implicitly or explicitly, to grant it to you. If that society chooses in the name of the good of society (though whether that's genuinely the case is clearly open to debate) to remove a freedom that you previously had then you lose that freedom. That's the way it is. You aren't having your basic rights interfered with, because you just don't have any. If you don't like it, you can learn to live with it, choose to live in a different society, or try to change society itself.

James

 

[Monsieur Abeille]

Smoking in cars is great for the environment as you can recycle your empty beer cans as ashtrays.

 

[greatbritishhoney]

Just to be clear.....I'm not suggesting that people being adaptable/apathetic is a good thing. It just is what it is.
The reason I mentioned it is because it is a major factor in the way governements make policy - i.e - how much fuss will the electorate kick up about this issue?
I think that will be the deciding factor in whether this ever gets into law.

 

[Storm™]

Many people seem to labour under the illusion that they have some set of inherent freedoms and rights due to them merely because they exist. This is not true. Every single right or freedom that you have exists purely because the society in which you live chooses, implicitly or explicitly, to grant it to you. If that society chooses in the name of the good of society (though whether that's genuinely the case is clearly open to debate) to remove a freedom that you previously had then you lose that freedom. That's the way it is. You aren't having your basic rights interfered with, because you just don't have any. If you don't like it, you can learn to live with it, choose to live in a different society, or try to change society itself.

James

That's perception not fact and it's fluidic in nature not a constant as you are implying James. You have the inherent right to exist, you have the inherent right to do to your body as you wish. A law changes the legal position but not your choice should you wish to choose against that law. What a law does is remove your free choice and limit your choices to those that the law makers see fit. And that is not necessarily right. It just is until enough people complain. And that has happened throughout history and will continue to happen... thankfully.

 

[Storm™]

Apathy will be our demise......

You agreed to this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49544334@N05/6352441655/http://www.flickr.com/people/49544334@N05/


And in the end when they have hounded smokers to death you will agree to this. And when I say agree, you will let it slide because it effects you in no way:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49544334@N05/6352444711/http://www.flickr.com/people/49544334@N05/

 

[JamezF]

You have the inherent right to exist

How do you know this?

you have the inherent right to do to your body as you wish.

How do you know this?

James

 

[greatbritishhoney]

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

James

It's one of the central planks of JS Mill's 'On Liberty'.
However, things have moved on a bit since Mill.

 

[JamezF]

It's one of the central planks of JS Mill's 'On Liberty'.

AFAIR, and I admit my knowledge of philosophy is sketchy at best, Mill took it to be axiomatic though, didn't he? Perhaps axiomatic isn't the right word. I mean it was a basic assertion that a person could not be "free" otherwise. I'm not aware that he said "this is an inherent attribute of mere existence" and justified why, but as I said my understanding of philosophy is not as broad as I'd like it to be.

James

 

[Storm™]

How do you know this?

How do you know this?

James

How is it that you don't?

 

[greatbritishhoney]

AFAIR, and I admit my knowledge of philosophy is sketchy at best, Mill took it to be axiomatic though, didn't he? Perhaps axiomatic isn't the right word. I mean it was a basic assertion that a person could not be "free" otherwise. I'm not aware that he said "this is an inherent attribute of mere existence" and justified why, but as I said my understanding of philosophy is not as broad as I'd like it to be.

James

Yes, I think you are right (it's 20 years since I read Mill !). But his basic assertion is that without this understanding (that man is sovereign over his own body and mind) society cannot function properly.
I am sure he puts it in a much clearer way than I could ever hope to!

But, more importantly in terms of this debate he says that man should be free to do what he wishes as long as it does not cause harm to anyone else.
So, Mill and the Utilitarians would doubtlessly come down in favour of this ban.

 

[Storm™]

NO nononononononono i'm sorry but your putting words in Mill's mouth. AS long as it DOES not cause harm to anyone else.

NOT - Unless it MIGHT cause harm to anyone else...... so I am afraid your being a bit Christian headed there GBH and reading your own wants and needs into something that was written differently.

 

[JamezF]

How is it that you don't?

It's a basic principle of logical reasoning not to assume something is axiomatic unless it can't be proven by other means.

You have stated that you have the inherent right to do with your body as you please. I am asking you to demonstrate how you know that to be true. Either you consider it axiomatic or you have reached that conclusion by some method of reasoning.

James

 

[greatbritishhoney]

NO nononononononono i'm sorry but your putting words in Mill's mouth. AS long as it DOES not cause harm to anyone else.

NOT - Unless it MIGHT cause harm to anyone else...... so I am afraid your being a bit Christian headed there GBH and reading your own wants and needs into something that was written differently.

Err - I thought that's what I said... "AS long as it DOES not cause harm to anyone else".
I thought the whole point of the GMC's call for a ban was that smoking in cars causes damage to the health of children, based on medical evidence I guess.
It's not my view - it's theirs. Personally I don't really care what other people do in their cars as long as it doesn't affect me or my children.
I can only guess, but I reckon Mill probably would have accepted the opinion of the GMC as to whether something causes harm. Just a guess though.

Also, I'm not sure what Christian headed means. I have never heard that expression before.

 

[Storm™]

The GMC's recommendation is not to just ban smoking in cars that have children and vulnerable adults in them (MIGHT cause harm to another human), it is to ban smoking in cars full stop empty or otherwise (CAN'T cause harm to another human)... but you'll say chemicals that have soaked into the fabric of the seats and avoid the points brought up by Hivemaker about the rest of the traffics car fumes.... Pandora's box.... but anyway no one could identify damage done to another human by smoke exposed furniture (a car previously smoked in) and isolate it from ordinary exposure to other traffics fumes. My god if they say they can then no car that has ever been smoked in will be allowed to be sold and you will have to have your windows on your existing car sealed up professionally to prevent other fume exposure. Or stop everyone driving in case it DOES harm another human. Again I say as have others .... where would it end. And anyway you cant speak on behalf of what Mill would decide. You can only assume.

Christian headed - bible says one thing they interpret another way to suit their position.

 

[greatbritishhoney]

The GMC's recommendation is not to just ban smoking in cars that have children and vulnerable adults in them (MIGHT cause harm to another human), it is to ban smoking in cars full stop empty or otherwise (CAN'T cause harm to another human)... but you'll say chemicals that have soaked into the fabric of the seats and avoid the points brought up by Hivemaker about the rest of the traffics car fumes.... Pandora's box.... but anyway no one could identify damage done to another human by smoke exposed furniture (a car previously smoked in) and isolate it from ordinary exposure to other traffics fumes. My god if they say they can then no car that has ever been smoked in will be allowed to be sold and you will have to have your windows on your existing car sealed up professionally to prevent other fume exposure. Or stop everyone driving in case it DOES harm another human. Again I say as have others .... where would it end. And anyway you cant speak on behalf of what Mill would decide. You can only assume.

Christian headed - bible says one thing they interpret another way to suit their position.

Why would I say anything about chemicals? As I said before it's the GMC's view and their recomendation not mine.
I am not speaking for Mill. I am doing what everybody else does - giving my understanding of what he said. And, as I pointed out some of it was a guess (just like your assertions of where it will all end etc).
And, finally, I'm not interpreting anything to suit my own position. I've already said I don't really care whether there's ban or not.

The reason I mentioned Mill was in support of your assertion about basic human rights. I felt that a discussion about liberty without mentioining Mill was a bit like a discussion about Buckfast bees without mentioining B.Adam.

 

[Storm™]

A clumsy way of putting something there James

It's a basic principle of logical reasoning not to assume something is axiomatic unless it can't be proven by other means.

So .... I am assuming that my right to do with my body as I wish is a for gone conclusion because I say so......

Prove I have reached that conclusion by some other means other than that assumption.

Do you believe there is a law that prevents me James.....?