Federal Cigarette Tax Increase

[fukuda 351]

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

It does? I've never been dictated my personal choices on anything by the "government"

they would have a monopoly on health carequote>

There are several private clinics in the city, in spite of the existence of public hospitals...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: jmusshorn

I just want to point out one thing, on the subject of regulation on when/where people can smoke:

When someone lights up in, say, a restaurant, they are imposing on everyone who is not smoking by essentially polluting the air. The same can not be said of non-smokers.

When was the last time that someone was told to NOT not smoke because it was bothering the others in the area?

The same could be said of people who are excessively loud in public, or in housing areas. The quiet are not imposing on the loud, so why should the loud be granted permission to impose upon the quiet?quote>

I dont think most smokers are the type that go out of their way to impose thier right to smoke were ever and whenever they want too. 99% of them will go outside the resturant ect...

But that being said, how enforceable is the no smoking laws? I can see enforcement in an office building would be

if that if someone kept smoking inside they would lose thier job, but a resturant?

Will the cops come becuase some one lights up a smoke?

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

unless the business posts a notice that smoking is permitted and it is bad for customer's health (sort of like the Prop 65 notices in CA).

Barbarossa x2

quote>

Where is that in place? I thought they banned all smoking inside of businesses and public buildings. Huh. That could explain why they allow smoking hookah inside of a hookah lounge I go to.

[hamsterTK 93]

I guess the thing with sin taxes is that they are ineffective at lower levels, and once you get to the point where cost is a deterrant you often end up with a black market. Kind of like it is with alcohol, high taxes might put off frat boys, but alcoholics will pick up manschevitz wine if they have to.

As for smoking bans, personally I think bars at least should not be forced into anything. If enough customers did not like the smoke and quit coming then as a business they would take their own steps.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

if someone keeped smoking inside they would lose their job

quote>

Some companies are firing people for smoking outside work, like at home. Astra/Zeneca is an example of this intrusiveness.

Also, Japan is instituting a 'fat tax', assessing fines for overweight people. Waistlines are measured, and problem patients may be subjected to 're-education' according to the Tax Foundation.

Tell me that's not madness.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[mightygoose 92]

heh, UK we pay $8.59 a pack on a regular basis. but smoking duty alone pays for 11% of the NHS, and this covers every smoker's plus a friend's healthcare on average......

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: Jezus53

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

unless the business posts a notice that smoking is permitted and it is bad for customer's health (sort of like the Prop 65 notices in CA).

Barbarossa x2

quote>

Where is that in place? I thought they banned all smoking inside of businesses and public buildings. Huh. That could explain why they allow smoking hookah inside of a hookah lounge I go to.quote>

You have mis-read me. Smoking notices do not exist (because CA is a non-smoking State) and I am suggesting that businesses should be allowed to permit smoking if they want to, so long as they provide a health warning to their customers. You should already know that Prop 65 notices are everywhere... you know, the ones that say something like "...this establishment contains chemicas known to the State of California as causing cancer..."

Hookah lounges, and cigar sellers, as well, are excepted from the law to an extent (I think they have to buy a permit). They have to be allowed to provide smoking accomodation if that is all they sell.

Is it clearer, now? Well, besides the smoky haze?

Barbarossa

quote>

Oh! Okay then. So I was not misinformed. That makes more sense now, thnak you!

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Is there an echo in here? I already posted a reply.quote>

I know, I was on my pda when I posted it and it had MAJOR lag. I deleted the post.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Originally posted by: fukuda

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

It does? I've never been dictated my personal choices on anything by the "government"

they would have a monopoly on health carequote>

There are several private clinics in the city, in spite of the existence of public hospitals...quote>

Exactly, I've never been told how to live or what eating, drinking or smoking habits I should follow. We of course see health promotion advertisements but we are not 'forced' to do anything. I see this arguement from many in places like America to induce fear about the HORRENDOUS European system of healthcare. I won't get into a debate about it, but clear facts show that nationals in those nations with universal healthcare are healthier and live longer....go figure.

I am a very strong supporter of public health care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with private healthcare. I myself/family have private healthcare but I agree with the fundamental ideas of universal healthcare and as such will always support it. Most people in European nations have a choice in what system they are treated, hardly a communist state.

But that being said, how enforceable is the no smoking laws? I can see enforcement in an office building would be

if that if someone keeped smoking inside they would lose thier job, but a resturant?quote>

It is enforced rather well in Northern Ireland. Cases of people breaking the law are very low and last time I checked in single digits. I think people respect the law and understand the consequences. You are fined and if you continue to break the law you can be jailed.

[edmonton_stinks 5]

Yeah, Canadian provinces all have bans of some kind, and most (if not all) major cities in Canada have banned smoking in public places such as restaurants, bars and clubs, and when you go to one you don't see anybody smoking because it's just accepted that you don't do it. There are tons of people who smoke outside, because they choose to smoke and do so in a place where they won't bother the non-smokers.

Edit: Argh! What happened to my blue avatar?

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

I dont think most smokers are the type that go out of their way to impose thier right to smoke were ever and whenever they want too. 99% of them will go outside the resturant ect...

But that being said, how enforceable is the no smoking laws? I can see enforcement in an office building would be

if that if someone kept smoking inside they would lose thier job, but a resturant?

Will the cops come becuase some one lights up a smoke?

quote>

I agree. I believe most smokers are willing to go outside and are willing to not have to have you be around our smoke, but where do you want us to go? I enjoy going outside to smoke because it gives me an excuse to leave if the people I'm around are talking about something I don't agree with or are being annoying. Good relaxation time. Especially when you get the 100s, those things can last for a good 10-15 minutes. That's 10-15 minutes of silence. Sweet, sweet silence.

As for having private health insurance, I believe that example is flawed. The more smokers you have, the more you will likely have to pay out and in the end....where is that additional money going to come from? From higher premiums in general for all those being insured.quote>

No, it brings higher premiums to smokers. It's another incentive to not smoke. I believe that if we had universal health care that would happen, that everyone would have to pick up the slack of the smokers.

In addition to the litter caused by smokersquote>

Simple, you provide us a place to dispose of our used cigarettes. I'm seeing more and more places take away ash trays and a lot of places either getting rid of not ever adding cigarette disposal units, or as I like to call the CDUs. I make sure I dispose of my cigarette butts properly, but I can't when I have no where to put them!

[Meg 368]

If consenting adults want to do it in private, that's their business. If we are talking about non-consenting, non-adult, or not in private, the rest of us have the right to intervene.

I believe that applies to smoking as well as to other activities.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

If consenting adults want to do it in private, that's their business. If we are talking about non-consenting, non-adult, or not in private, the rest of us have the right to intervene.

I believe that applies to smoking as well as to other activities.quote>

Indeed, but the question must be brought up as to what level that intervention ought to take place at.

I, for one, think that any given establishment ought to have the right to ban smoking within their walls on that basis, but that it's wrong for the government to take that right to choose away from the proprietors and blanketly say that no private establishment may permit smoking under any circumstances.

Now, if they want to say you can't smoke in state-owned buildings, that's a different story, since that's their property. I'd have no issue with a statute saying you can't smoke in courthouses, public schools, government offices, etc. But a statute which extends that to privately-owned property (even if it is a "public place") is over the line.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: jmusshorn

I just want to point out one thing, on the subject of regulation on when/where people can smoke:

When someone lights up in, say, a restaurant, they are imposing on everyone who is not smoking by essentially polluting the air. The same can not be said of non-smokers.quote>

That is why many restaurants and cirties have smoking and non-smoking sections .

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Also, Japan is instituting a 'fat tax', assessing fines for overweight people. Waistlines are measured, and problem patients may be subjected to 're-education' according to the Tax Foundation.

Tell me that's not madness.

quote>

That is not madness. It is called totalitarianism and discrimination, regardless of the insanity of it.

Originally posted by: fukuda

they would have a monopoly on health carequote>

There are several private clinics in the city, in spite of the existence of public hospitals...quote>

Let me clarify. The government would have a monopoly on health insurance, in classic socialized medicine. If the government can pull the strings of the doctor/clinic's money, they would be very powerful indeed, just like Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel was in their respective markets.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: fukuda

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

It does? I've never been dictated my personal choices on anything by the "government"

they would have a monopoly on health carequote>

There are several private clinics in the city, in spite of the existence of public hospitals...quote>

Exactly, I've never been told how to live or what eating, drinking or smoking habits I should follow. We of course see health promotion advertisements but we are not 'forced' to do anything. I see this arguement from many in places like America to induce fear about the HORRENDOUS European system of healthcare. I won't get into a debate about it, but clear facts show that nationals in those nations with universal healthcare are healthier and live longer....go figure.quote>

Government does not dictate what you do. It dictates what you cannot do. For instance, incest, smoking in a "public place", how many people you can marry, your children's education, just to name a few examples. Unless you are a minority or break one of these codified social stigmas, you probably would not notice them. But the injustice is still there, even if it does not directly affect you, because, if left unchecked, it will affect you in the future.

I am a very strong supporter of public health care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with private healthcare. I myself/family have private healthcare but I agree with the fundamental ideas of universal healthcare and as such will always support it. Most people in European nations have a choice in what system they are treated, hardly a communist state.quote>

No European country is a communist state (and arguably never have been), but they are more socialist than the United States when it comes to health care, especially the UK.

In addition to the litter caused by smokersquote>

Simple, you provide us a place to dispose of our used cigarettes. I'm seeing more and more places take away ash trays and a lot of places either getting rid of not ever adding cigarette disposal units, or as I like to call the CDUs. I make sure I dispose of my cigarette butts properly, but I can't when I have no where to put them!quote>

True. If someone tells you to throw a wad of paper in a trash can, but there is no trash can, where should you put it? Non-smoking establishments should have CDUs.

If consenting adults want to do it in private, that's their business. If we are talking about non-consenting, non-adult, or not in private, the rest of us have the right to intervene.

I believe that applies to smoking as well as to other activities.quote>

Firstly, what is "it", and why do you think people below an arbitrary age should be put in a totalitarian grip by the government, since if your statement is taken to its logical conclusion, that is what we'll end up with. Without furthur information, i cannot respond furthur.

Indeed, but the question must be brought up as to what level that intervention ought to take place at.

I, for one, think that any given establishment ought to have the right to ban smoking within their walls on that basis, but that it's wrong for the government to take that right to choose away from the proprietors and blanketly say that no private establishment may permit smoking under any circumstances.

Now, if they want to say you can't smoke in state-owned buildings, that's a different story, since that's their property. I'd have no issue with a statute saying you can't smoke in courthouses, public schools, government offices, etc. But a statute which extends that to privately-owned property (even if it is a "public place&quot is over the line. quote>

I agree with you with one added point: segregation of smoking and non-smoking sections is alright where rights of smokers are concerned, as this retains the smoker's right to smoke, and the non-smoker's wish of not being around smoke. Banning smoking in restaurants goes too far in this direction.

Now, if a business wishes to ban smoking, that's up to them, but if the government forces them to, that's a different concept and discussion.

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Originally posted by: fukuda

If nationalized/socialized healthcare gives the gov't the right to dictate my personal choices on diet, smoking, etc., then that means those of us who believe in personal freedom and liberty need to redouble our efforts to stop any such system here.quote>

It does? I've never been dictated my personal choices on anything by the "government"

they would have a monopoly on health carequote>

There are several private clinics in the city, in spite of the existence of public hospitals...quote>

Exactly, I've never been told how to live or what eating, drinking or smoking habits I should follow. We of course see health promotion advertisements but we are not 'forced' to do anything. I see this arguement from many in places like America to induce fear about the HORRENDOUS European system of healthcare. I won't get into a debate about it, but clear facts show that nationals in those nations with universal healthcare are healthier and live longer....go figure.quote>

Government does not dictate what you do. It dictates what you cannot do. For instance, incest, smoking in a "public place", how many people you can marry, your children's education, just to name a few examples. Unless you are a minority or break one of these codified social stigmas, you probably would not notice them. But the injustice is still there, even if it does not directly affect you, because, if left unchecked, it will affect you in the future.

I am a very strong supporter of public health care, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with private healthcare. I myself/family have private healthcare but I agree with the fundamental ideas of universal healthcare and as such will always support it. Most people in European nations have a choice in what system they are treated, hardly a communist state.quote>

No European country is a communist state (and arguably never have been), but they are more socialist than the United States when it comes to health care, especially the UK.

In addition to the litter caused by smokersquote>

Simple, you provide us a place to dispose of our used cigarettes. I'm seeing more and more places take away ash trays and a lot of places either getting rid of not ever adding cigarette disposal units, or as I like to call the CDUs. I make sure I dispose of my cigarette butts properly, but I can't when I have no where to put them!quote>

True. If someone tells you to throw a wad of paper in a trash can, but there is no trash can, where should you put it? Non-smoking establishments should have CDUs.

If consenting adults want to do it in private, that's their business. If we are talking about non-consenting, non-adult, or not in private, the rest of us have the right to intervene.

I believe that applies to smoking as well as to other activities.quote>

Firstly, what is "it", and why do you think people below an arbitrary age should be put in a totalitarian grip by the government, since if your statement is taken to its logical conclusion, that is what we'll end up with. Without furthur information, i cannot respond furthur.

Indeed, but the question must be brought up as to what level that intervention ought to take place at.

I, for one, think that any given establishment ought to have the right to ban smoking within their walls on that basis, but that it's wrong for the government to take that right to choose away from the proprietors and blanketly say that no private establishment may permit smoking under any circumstances.

Now, if they want to say you can't smoke in state-owned buildings, that's a different story, since that's their property. I'd have no issue with a statute saying you can't smoke in courthouses, public schools, government offices, etc. But a statute which extends that to privately-owned property (even if it is a "public place&quot is over the line. quote>

I agree with you with one added point: segregation of smoking and non-smoking sections is alright where rights of smokers are concerned, as this retains the smoker's right to smoke, and the non-smoker's wish of not being around smoke. Banning smoking in restaurants goes too far in this direction.

Now, if a business wishes to ban smoking, that's up to them, but if the government forces them to, that's a different concept and discussion.

quote>

quote>

I don't know if it's a graphical error on my end or you accidently missed a quote end quote, but could you clean it up or explain it?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I disagree with the government not having the right to ban smoking in all public places.

The ban is in place to protect non-smokers in addition to staff in those establishments. Why should staff in bars, clubs and restaurants have to be subjected to inhale the disgutsing toxic smoke when serving the 'smoking section'. The majority of serving staff are young and the majority do not smoke. Why endanger their health? Rather selfish in my opinion.

Smokers can easily go outside and smoke, in the UK it has given incentive for bars and whatnot to create pleasant outside smoking areas and beer gardens. No-one seems to complain and everyone is happy it would seem. Segregated smoking areas in public spaces are just ridiculous.

Simple, you provide us a place to dispose of our used cigarettes. I'm seeing more and more places take away ash trays and a lot of places either getting rid of not ever adding cigarette disposal units, or as I like to call the CDUs. I make sure I dispose of my cigarette butts properly, but I can't when I have no where to put them!quote>

We do....

Some smokers are incredibly lazy and this is shown by the large number of litter fines handed out to smokers who can not be bothered turning round and using the cigarette bin or even the main street bin only a few steps away. As such they are punished with a fine of

[fukuda 351]

Government does not dictate what you do. It dictates what you cannot do. For instance, incest, smoking in a "public place", how many people you can marry, your children's education, just to name a few examples. Unless you are a minority or break one of these codified social stigmas, you probably would not notice them. But the injustice is still there, even if it does not directly affect you, because, if left unchecked, it will affect you in the future.quote>

It's the law that dictates what I can or cannot do, not the government. This is where the separation of powers comes into play, be it in a three powers system or other systems. There's no (democratic) government that can approve a law without the support of the other powers or a large part of the parliament. Moreso, these stigmas or taboos are deeply cut into society and cannot be solved just by using the given government as a scapegoat

[Easy Bakes 253]

Most of the resturants in the dallas area went smoke free a few years ago. Most of the only smoking places

are ,as someone mentioned earlier, outdoor patios/gardens/balconys and those types of seating, while inside the main resturant its no smokeing allowed. most of these patio areas were built after the resturant smokeing ban went into effect, it was a much cheaper alternative then the remodeling required to provide the seperate ventilation systems in the dining rooms for the smoking section. they would have had to install those systems to be up to code.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

It's the law that dictates what I can or cannot do, not the government. This is where the separation of powers comes into play, be it in a three powers system or other systems. There's no (democratic) government that can approve a law without the support of the other powers or a large part of the parliament. quote>

Yes, but the government makes law, regardless of what the government is composed of, who chose them, or whether the laws are good or bad.

Moreso, these stigmas or taboos are deeply cut into society and cannot be solved just by using the given government as a scapegoatquote>

I am not against many social stigmas. Some of them are good stigmas. The issue is them being codified into the law. I have little against social stigma, but when it is codified into a law and punished, that is something else entirely.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: fukuda

It's the law that dictates what I can or cannot do, not the government.quote>

Literally speaking, I suppose. But where do you think the law comes from? Fortune cookies?

This is where the separation of powers comes into play, be it in a three powers system or other systems. There's no (democratic) government that can approve a law without the support of the other powers or a large part of the parliament. quote>

Indeed, but there are two important things to consider here:

1) The majority is not always right.

2) If the majority dictates things to the dissenting minority unnecessarily, that's oppressive.

3) Giving the government too much power is dangerous because putting a lot of power in the hands of relatively few people has a very corrupting nature to it. Seperation of powers heps, certainly, but the problem is that each of the branches individually, even after seperation, can still become too powerful.

Moreso, these stigmas or taboos are deeply cut into society and cannot be solved just by using the given government as a scapegoatquote>

The government is not a scapegoat. They may not be to blame for the taboo, but they are to blame for the laws. And it's the laws we're concerned with here.

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Simple, you provide us a place to dispose of our used cigarettes. I'm seeing more and more places take away ash trays and a lot of places either getting rid of not ever adding cigarette disposal units, or as I like to call the CDUs. I make sure I dispose of my cigarette butts properly, but I can't when I have no where to put them!quote>

We do....

Some smokers are incredibly lazy and this is shown by the large number of litter fines handed out to smokers who can not be bothered turning round and using the cigarette bin or even the main street bin only a few steps away. As such they are punished with a fine of £50 for every but they have dropped which has been seen by litter wardens, payment of the fine is required up front btw quote>

Well, maybe in Europe, but here in Silcon Valley, California smokers are loosing a lot of areas to smoke and a lot of areas to ispose of used cigarettes. It gets rather annoying since I hate littering. I wish America was a little more open to smokers as Europe is.

[your_adress_here 11]

Ironically, the city where I live just spent $30,000 on cigarette disposal thingys. 100 of them at $300 each! I think it's a pretty good investment.

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: your_adress_here

Ironically, the city where I live just spent $30,000 on cigarette disposal thingys. 100 of them at $300 each! I think it's a pretty good investment.quote>

Agreed! The problem isn't the city, at least around here. There is a garbage can for garbage and recyclables and an "ash tray" on top on every corner. It's when you go to the businesses in the squares or malls or just ig areas of commerce that don't put those out there. It's not the cities fault, it's the businesses.

[fukuda 351]

Literally speaking, I suppose. But where do you think the law comes from? Fortune cookies?quote>

A big part of it was written in the constitution or literally copied from other legal texts (this of course depends on the country). The problem of this argument is that it talks about "the government" instead of "the governmentS", do we live in a dictatorship or what? Different governments do and undo old laws or laws put there by previous governments

Indeed, but there are two important things to consider here:

1) The majority is not always right.

2) If the majority dictates things to the dissenting minority unnecessarily, that's oppressive.

3) Giving the government too much power is dangerous because putting a lot of power in the hands of relatively few people has a very corrupting nature to it. Seperation of powers heps, certainly, but the problem is that each of the branches individually, even after seperation, can still become too powerful.quote>

1) and 2) Democracy is not the rule of majority over minority or minority over majority, that's called demagogy and/or populism. Representative democracy is about the people electing a group of people to command the country according to an ideology or a set of actions, it's not their job to satisfy the wishes of just a majority.

If you feel that this is not how your current government works, it serves no purpose to discuss it on the internet with people you don't even know personally. The government will think that you somehow approve of what it does if you don't show yourself or act in any way. Quietly and safely protesting in a place where nearly no one sees you will lead nowhere.

3) How many (really) democratic governments turned into dictatorships? Most of the recent dictatorships in the developed world were led by military officers or so called revolutionary movements who overthrown the previous democracy, not by converted democrats.

I am not against many social stigmas. Some of them are good stigmas. The issue is them being codified into the law. I have little against social stigma, but when it is codified into a law and punished, that is something else entirely.quote>

The government is not a scapegoat. They may not be to blame for the taboo, but they are to blame for the laws. And it's the laws we're concerned with here.quote>

Government and society are not isolated from each other, society actually votes the government and the latter is composed by members of the society too, so don't expect it to not try to codify social stigmas if you don't solve them in society first.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The ban is in place to protect non-smokers in addition to staff in those establishments. Why should staff in bars, clubs and restaurants have to be subjected to inhale the disgutsing toxic smoke when serving the 'smoking section'. The majority of serving staff are young and the majority do not smoke. Why endanger their health? Rather selfish in my opinion. quote>

Well, if you don't like it, don't work there. Go work someplace that doesn't allow smoking. Problem solved.

Smokers can easily go outside and smoke, quote>

When it's nice out, sure, but for the other 90% of the time where it's either scorching hot, freezing cold, windy, raining, snowing, etc... then no.

Some smokers are incredibly lazy and this is shown by the large number of litter fines handed out to smokers who can not be bothered turning round and using the cigarette bin or even the main street bin only a few steps away. As such they are punished with a fine of £50 for every but they have dropped which has been seen by litter wardens, quote>

I don't know whether to be troubled by there being a fine for such a minor offense, or by the fact that you're wasting taxpayer money to have "litter wardens" to enforce it.

payment of the fine is required up front btw quote>

...aaaand that's just wrong. For one thing, how many people carry 100 bucks around with them typically and would be able to just hand that to someone if they demanded it? Most people, no, I would think. Then what? Escort them to the ATM? Pure insanity. That's why you just hand them a summons.

The idea of handing out fines for dropping cigarette butts also seems a bit amusing considering that, around here (New York), if you started doing that there would be such a huge public outcry about how much of a waste of police resources it is... even as it is, people complain about how vigilant the cops are at handing out summonses to people who jump the turnstiles on the subway (a much bigger issue), on the same argument. In genereal, the perception is that cops are supposed to be dealing with "actual crimes" like robberies, murders, etc. - that having cops dedicated to going around handing out fines for anything is wrong. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but there are things which it's good to do it with and things which it's petty and unneccessary to do it with. Cigarette butts or litter in general would be the latter.

Originally posted by: fukuda

The problem of this argument is that it talks about "the government" instead of "the governmentS", do we live in a dictatorship or what? Different governments do and undo old laws or laws put there by previous governments quote>

Semantics.

Besides, just because one person leaves office and another person enters, doesn't mean that anything really changes. At the end of the day, there's probably still a greedy, power-hungry, lying, cheating politician there. And if those adjectives don't describe him yet, they will once he's had his job for a bit.

How many (really) democratic governments turned into dictatorships? Most of the recent dictatorships in the developed world were led by military officers or so called revolutionary movements who overthrown the previous democracy, not by converted democrats. quote>

I'm not even talking about dictatorships. It is perfectly possible for a democratically elected government to be opressive, if elected officials are granted too much power and if they abuse and/or misuse it (which, if they have it, they will. That's a given).

Government and society are not isolated from each other, society actually votes the government and the latter is composed by members of the society too, so don't expect it to not try to codify social stigmas if you don't solve them in society first.quote>

Not necessarily. You can stop a government from codifying social stigmas if you put it in your constitution. Islam is often stigmatized, but it's safe from being legislated against by the first amendment.

If our constitution limited the power government could weild over private property more than it already does, smoking bans for bars and restaurants wouldn't be possible... nor would many other laws.

[belfastuniguy 18]

...aaaand that's just wrong. For one thing, how many people carry 100 bucks around with them typically and would be able to just hand that to someone if they demanded it? Most people, no, I would think. Then what? Escort them to the ATM? Pure insanity. That's why you just hand them a summons.

The idea of handing out fines for dropping cigarette butts also seems a bit amusing considering that, around here (New York), if you started doing that there would be such a huge public outcry about how much of a waste of police resources it is... even as it is, people complain about how vigilant the cops are at handing out summonses to people who jump the turnstiles on the subway (a much bigger issue), on the same argument. In genereal, the perception is that cops are supposed to be dealing with "actual crimes" like robberies, murders, etc. - that having cops dedicated to going around handing out fines for anything is wrong. I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but there are things which it's good to do it with and things which it's petty and unneccessary to do it with. Cigarette butts or litter in general would be the latter.quote>

The police don't enforce it, litter wardens are employed by local councils and those that fail to pay or do not want to pay are summoned to court and ordered to pay, otherwise they face community service and a larger fine. Thus...people pay it.

Well, if you don't like it, don't work there. Go work someplace that doesn't allow smoking. Problem solvedquote>

Obviously we disagree on this, fact remains since the ban came into effect health issues for bar/restaurant relating to smoke have been reduced to close to nil. Their health is more important than the convenience of a smoker.

When it's nice out, sure, but for the other 90% of the time where it's either scorching hot, freezing cold, windy, raining, snowing, etc... then no.quote>

Tough for them. Smoking here is seen as disgusting and anti-social as such most don't care about whether a dirty smoker has to stand in the wind to have their cancer stick. Smokers are also provided with smoking areas outside that come equipped with canopies and heaters.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

The police don't enforce it, litter wardens are employed by local councils and those that fail to pay or do not want to pay are summoned to court and ordered to pay, otherwise they face community service and a larger fine. Thus...people pay it. quote>

If you hire someone to enforce a law, aren't you effectively making them some form of police?