Tobacco laws vs "rights",familiar?

**curious george** · 03-07-2012, 09:49

http://www.peherald.com/news/article/7099

The draft regulations on smoking in public places and certain outdoor public places are too restrictive, the Tobacco Institute of Southern Africa (Tisa) said on Monday (02/07/2012).

*...and there are plenty other articles out there.

Now,I'm one of those ex-smokers types,so this legislation doesnt necessarily affect me,or does it?Why do I feel slightly conflicted?

Funny how everyone is making a noise of how "rights" are infringed and words like "unconstitutional" get thrown around,etc.Legislation going too far,"not in the spirit of"....,etc

Where were they with the FCA,when legal firearms owner's "rights" were infringed and unconstitutional sections remain where they are?

Ok,maybe they're only concerned now that it affects them,do we support their cause?Pity,they wont throw some money towards ours? Is there's a "dirty" cause,or wait, maybe ours is more "evil"....?

Your thoughts?

**Logan Bruwer** · 03-07-2012, 10:00

Originally Posted by curious george

Where were they with the FCA,when legal firearms owner's "rights" were infringed and unconstitutional sections remain where they are?

They are in the same place the anti-Apartheid activists went when the priviledged/white/Boers/Farmers/ people started being murdered in record numbers.

Don't you know, only politically convenient people have rights.

**afzals1** · 03-07-2012, 10:28

The tobacco laws are not drafted by parliament, I know the individual who is drafting them and it is based on over 40 years of research! Where as the FCA had no real thought process nor took the law abiding citizen into consideration

**curious george** · 03-07-2012, 10:35

Ok,deliberately playing devil's advocate,an individual(with/out an agenda) can also select what "research" backs his/her objective/desired outcome?

Agreed on FCA btw,but in principle arent all "rights" "rights" surely?

**Proudprado** · 03-07-2012, 10:42

Problem is the state makes a bundle out of the sale of cigarettes and alcohol. Therefore these drugs will never be completely banned, despite the cost to the health care system. Despite all the noise by the other side. I'm an ex-smoker myself ... I now spend the money on guns and toys and gun toys.

**Logan Bruwer** · 03-07-2012, 11:30

Look, personally (in theory) I have no problem banning cigarettes entirely as I don't smoke. But banning stuff doesn't work, ask the South American drug cartels and the underground gun salesman in the UK.

But yes smokers have made a choice, a bad choice, but a choice nontheless. Isn't that the foundation of a free society?

Smoking inside is obvious, its not a rights issue, its occupational health and safety. Think about the poor teenager who has limited options for cash and NEEDS to work in the smoking section in the local restaurant.

In the broad perspective I really think more laws are silly and will probably be ignored by the majority and authorities. SA has much bigger issues then smokers. Yet again goes to show where our beloved government's focus is....

**Bushboy** · 03-07-2012, 12:35

I don't smoke, but I believe smokers have a right to choose as well. Provided they don't force me to smoke, have at it as far as I'm concerned.

Rights are rights, as far as I'm concerned so we should also help them where we can, even if they didn't help us. I also read some research that showed that tax raised on smoking over recovers the cost to the fiscus of medical expenses. In addition, as they reoprtedly die younger, they cost less than healthy people do in terms of state pensions.

**afzals1** · 03-07-2012, 13:45

He isn't wanting to ban smoking rather get it out of areas where non smokers are not affected by ill harms of second hand smoking! He believes to smoke is your choice an ill advised one but yours nonetheless!

**curious george** · 03-07-2012, 14:03

Fair enough,but if we use that train of thought ala gfsa,then the fca is there to protect us from ourselves,and others from the likes of us...?

Also like Logan's post "Smoking inside is obvious, its not a rights issue, its occupational health and safety. Think about the poor teenager who has limited options for cash and NEEDS to work in the smoking section in the local restaurant."

Think of them poor victims of (gun)violence.......,see where I'm going with this?

Bushboy's "Rights are rights, as far as I'm concerned so we should also help them where we can, even if they didn't help us. I also read some research that showed that tax raised on smoking over recovers the cost to the fiscus of medical expenses. In addition, as they reoprtedly die younger, they cost less than healthy people do in terms of state pensions"

So if we get to protect ourselves from criminals through unfettered gunownership,we release preesure on the fiscus,eg less stress on saps/ npo and prisons,etc.

Those "evil","its bad for you" smokers,gun nuts,(insert group here).........

Where are we drawing the line,we have all sort of things thrust upon us because of "safety/health/whatever" reason by the state,"nanny state" for sure? How many more "freedoms","rights",etc are we willing to offer up?

Something to think about maybe.

**yusuf_b** · 03-07-2012, 14:05

They were discussing this on 702 this morning and what seems to be the general belief is quite simple. If you give a smoker a section where he may smoke, he will make the effort and go and smoke there. If you take away all spaces where a smoker can smoke he/she is inevitably going to break the law and smoke wherever he is