New Tasmanian Smoking law

There is no doubt that Tobacco smoking is harmful to your health. Since the 1950s, there have been conclusive studies that link smoking to several fatal diseases such as lung cancer, mouth cancer, kidney cancer, emphysema, cataracts, strokes, and many others. On the television, on print advertisements, as well as on cigarette packs themselves, there are warnings about the fatal risk that smokers take when they light up. As true as these warnings may be, are they really necessary considering all the knowledge our society has about the risk of these diseases? Only a moron in this day and age is unaware of the fundamental consequences of cigarette smoking. Furthermore, why is the attitude towards smokers (at least in North America) so negative? If someone wants to smoke and endanger their health, it is an individual choice they have made and one only they must take responsibility for. We have every right as consumers to choose whether or not to start smoking. Tobacco is not the only harmful product that is available for purchase by far. Alcohol, foods high in saturated fats, and even candy are all harmful to the health and some of which have been shown to foster dependence and addiction in a similar manner as tobacco. Therefore, it is very hypocritical to insult someone for smoking a cigarette while you guzzle down a thirty-ounce Coca-cola. There are not nearly as many warnings and advertisements against alcohol or hamburgers, so it is unreasonable that there should be so many against tobacco.

Tobacco advertising is one of the most regulated forms of marketing in North America. In 1988, the Canadian government banned all forms of tobacco advertisements and ruled that tobacco corporations must place warning labels on all their products. In 2008, retailers are no longer allowed to display tobacco products in their stores and must be kept under the counter. The ability to smoke in restaurants and workplaces is also prohibited in Canada.

These laws are absolutely ridiculous. They only enforce the notion that man is not responsible for his own actions and must rely on government regulations to save him from the danger of his own decisions. The restaurant smoking ban is particularly unethical. It should be the decision of the individual business owner regarding whether or not people may smoke inside his establishment. Those who wish to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment are free to go elsewhere. Just as the individual should be at liberty to smoke a cigarette if he/she pleases, bar and tavern owners should be at liberty to choose whether or not their patrons may smoke in their establishment. Why should the government tell people how to run their businesses and their lives?

The law prohibiting tobacco companies from advertising is equally asinine. The government assumes that people who are subjected to any advertisement are under a helpless spell which forces them to buy whichever product or service is being advertised. Of course this is not the case. People must learn to think critically about what they see in the media and on commercials instead of absorbing all information like mindless consumer zombies. Rational, self-sufficient men know how to perceive what they are being advertised and do not need government regulations to shield them from the dangers of tobacco. Most people are perfectly able to pass judgment on a commercial without the nanny state having to filter the content of commercials based on the safety of the product. Anyone who starts smoking for the sole reason that a print ad in the magazine told them to is likely a highly-suggestible personal anyways and is likely prone to similar moronic tendencies with or without government regulations.

 Most disturbing however is a recent law that has been proposed in the Australian state of Tasmania. The article which describes the bill in detail is posted in a link below. In a nutshell, the bill gradually seeks to raise the age at which one may purchase tobacco products until eventually smoking would be banned for everyone outright. The goal of the bill is to prevent children from starting smoking. Children however, are similarly capable of making decision for themselves based on their own rational faculties. Not every child starts smoking. In fact, smoking rates have nearly halved in the past three decades according to a study done by the World Health Organisation 2002.

 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tobacco-ban-backed-for-next-generation/story-fndo471r-1226471374394

Such displays of complete batshit as the one in Tasmania are a result of the prevalent socialist and statist philosophies of our culture. No demographic of individuals, regardless of their size or political influence has a moral right to vote away the rights of others. If you don’t like smoking, that’s fine. Don’t smoke. Only a tyrant and a bully would seek to take away someone else’s right to smoke if they so please.

Obviously these people have not learned from past instances of prohibition. When something is prohibited for which there is a demand, a black market will be created. A ban on tobacco outright will not get rid of smoking; it will just turn smokers into criminals, which further entails an entirely new set of problems for that society. Just look at alcohol prohibition in the twenties. It is utterly sad how people refuse to learn from past mistakes.

The anti-tobacco lobby in Canada, Australia, and the United States has grown so over-bloated and conceited that they will not be satisfied until tobacco has been outlawed completely. People must always be mindful of the risks that smoking entails, but that should never mean taking away other people’s right to do so.