USD College Republicans
- All
- Climate Change/Global Warming
- Affirmative Action
- Freedom
- Medicare
- No Child Left Behind
- Economics
- Media
- Taxes
- Ridiculous!
- Trade
- Democrats
- Telecom
- The Courts
- Neo-conservatism
- Presidential Race 2008
- Libertarianism
- Earmarks
- Student Government Association
- Congress
- University of South Dakota
- State and Local Politics
- General
- Republicans
- Grassroots conservatism
- Iraq
- Education
- USD Political Science League
- Afghanistan
- SCHIP
- Subsidies
- Spending
- Health Care
- Social Security
- Africa
- Labor unions
- Political Philosophy
- Hyperion Oil Refinery at Elk Point
- Foreign Policy
- War on Terror
The UK dislikes smokers; freedom
The UK's leaders obviously have no concept of freedom.
"Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way."
Their arguments for partially rescinding the freedom to smoke? Ask Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair.
1) " He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit - as much as the cost - that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit.
"You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph.
"It's a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker."
2) "He added: "70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking. "So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference."
My rebuttal to 1) The cost and inconvenience of getting a permit may stop people from smoking. However, why impede someone's free choice? Suppose I have a habit of eating a bowl of ice cream each evening after dinner. Should the government impede my freedom to eat unhealthy food? Of course not.
My rebuttal to 2) Suppose I actively want to quit my habit of eating that extra bowl of ice cream. This is my choice. The government has no right- or obligation- to step in and "help" me kick the habit.
Le Grand's bragging that he wants to increase bureaucracy in the UK makes me happy that I don't live there- and that I don't smoke.
Let's hope that this needless red tape and regulation is voted down- for the sake of the freedoms of all citizens of that nation.
-Matt Hittle
Posted at 06:07PM Feb 16, 2008 by College Republicans in Freedom | Comments[2]
Sorry, but had to comment as someone living in the UK.
Let's start by saying, I doubt this will get close to passing. Just because a handful of bureaucrats suggest a law, doesn't mean the rest of the government is going to agree. Same thing happens back in the states all the time - sometimes legislators introduce impossible laws just so the issue gets attention.
Second, the government has already done much to deter smoking. Tobacco prices are high, with a pack of twenty cigarettes costing around £5.50, or roughly $11. Smoking in public areas is widely banned, including all pubs. Even private student accommodation doesn't allow smoking in the residence.
The government has done much to assist smokers to quit, even providing free anti-smoking medication through the National Health Service (NHS). For many, this medication works perfectly.
As for the right to smoke, the UK has done away with other rights Americans take for granted, including the right to bare arms. And let me tell you, I have yet to meet a Brit who regrets this decision - especially when we get a spree of public shootings back in the states. Culturally, Britains are willing to sacrifice certain 'rights' for the greater good. When your health system is socialized, preventing serious health risks becomes paramount.
That is where the tender issue arises. Where does one person's right to smoke end and the right of another person's to not pay more than necessary to government for health care? In the states, if you ignore possible effects of second-hand smoke, the only person effected is the smoker and possibly his or her insurance company. Here, everyone pays for everyone else's health care. Resources are being drained into treating people with preventable diseases.
Posted by Jill Brink on February 17, 2008 at 06:57 PM CST #
I think that those hundreds of thousands who have died on waiting lists for surgery would disagree with you.
Posted by Matt Hittle on February 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM CST #