Anti-Smoking Law in Greece a Lost Cause

[El Presidente]

it is no surprise that even doctors and nurses smoke in public hospitals.

 

Smoking health Minister, Smoking in Parliament. Smoking Doctors and nurses in hospitals.......

http://greece.greekreporter.com/2017/05/31/anti-smoking-law-in-greece-a-lost-cause/

[luv2fly]

I love it!  Reminds me of the old advertisements the 9 out of 10 Doctors smoke Camel

[stogieluver]

Now that's my kind of antismoking law.

[Fairlight]

It is very hard to impose such a law here since the vast majority of the population are smokers. When you're out for a drink and 9 out of 10 people in the bar are smokers it becomes impractical to say the least. However there are some places which is strictly forbidden. We're also the first country in the EU to ban public use of e-cigs as far as I know. 

That being said, imho Polakis is a horrible person and a terrible minister. 

[OZCUBAN]

I think most things in Greece are a lost cause ? You wonder how they ever got an empire together ?

[GasGuy82]

So El Prez, did your accountant send you that? The running joke among all my friends is how everyone's dad has been forwarding that story.

[El Presidente]

21 minutes ago, GasGuy82 said:

So El Prez, did your accountant send you that? The running joke among all my friends is how everyone's dad has been forwarding that story.

close .....not Artie but a Greek friend of mine 

[PigFish]

Whether it is Greece or elsewhere this is where the marketplace should have the freedom to work out this problem for itself... As every issue becomes more and more a public policy issue (see rant about pushing for centralized governments on the other thread... -LOL) and NOT a private property issue, which it surely is, a market driven compromise is almost always possible if the damn central planners simply leave free people to work out some of these issues as society ebbs and flows around it.

There is room in the private sector for both the smoking and non-smoking bar... Neither side need 'win' when both can at the same time!

-Piggy

 

[JR Kipling]

Democracy: voting to ban and/or tax what the Other guy likes to do.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[gweilgi]

7 hours ago, PigFish said:

Whether it is Greece or elsewhere this is where the marketplace should have the freedom to work out this problem for itself... As every issue becomes more and more a public policy issue (see rant about pushing for centralized governments on the other thread... -LOL) and NOT a private property issue, which it surely is, a market driven compromise is almost always possible if the damn central planners simply leave free people to work out some of these issues as society ebbs and flows around it.

There is room in the private sector for both the smoking and non-smoking bar... Neither side need 'win' when both can at the same time!

-Piggy

 

The public policy issue has always been two-pronged: to safeguard the health of other members of the public, and to protect the health of staff.

The first can easily be addressed by restricting entry to smoking-permitted places to consenting adults.  

The second is trickier but could also be resolved with a bit of imagination.  Given that our governments never willingly say no to another stream of revenue, I have always advocated a licensing system for smoking venues.  If your local town has 100 hospitality venues (bars, restaurants etc) then why not issue 10 licenses annually and auction them off?  The marketplace could then decide how much value to place on accommodating smokers, and the town would receive a nice wedge of dosh every year.  Add in some reasonable regulations such as requirements of high-spec air filtration (surely also welcomed by smokers) or mandated healthcare insurance for staff, and we'd be on to an equitable resolution for all.

But then, what do I know?  I am just a filthy evil smoker...

[PigFish]

3 hours ago, gweilgi said:

The public policy issue has always been two-pronged: to safeguard the health of other members of the public, and to protect the health of staff.

The first can easily be addressed by restricting entry to smoking-permitted places to consenting adults.  

The second is trickier but could also be resolved with a bit of imagination.  Given that our governments never willingly say no to another stream of revenue, I have always advocated a licensing system for smoking venues.  If your local town has 100 hospitality venues (bars, restaurants etc) then why not issue 10 licenses annually and auction them off?  The marketplace could then decide how much value to place on accommodating smokers, and the town would receive a nice wedge of dosh every year.  Add in some reasonable regulations such as requirements of high-spec air filtration (surely also welcomed by smokers) or mandated healthcare insurance for staff, and we'd be on to an equitable resolution for all.

But then, what do I know?  I am just a filthy evil smoker...

... while I appreciate the creativity, licensing is capitulation. There is no need for it. Begging back freedom with revenue is surely a sign of a government all too powerful. Governments should be starved of revenue, if for not other reason that they can only perpetuate this non-sense, the departure of their primary mission, protection of the homeland and protection of freedom (from hostile government), with excess revenue!

Cheers! -Piggy

[gweilgi]

38 minutes ago, PigFish said:

... while I appreciate the creativity, licensing is capitulation. There is no need for it. Begging back freedom with revenue is surely a sign of a government all too powerful. Governments should be starved of revenue, if for not other reason that they can only perpetuate this non-sense, the departure of their primary mission, protection of the homeland and protection of freedom (from hostile government), with excess revenue!

Cheers! -Piggy

... while I appreciate your idealistic stance, I fear it is fated to fail.  My proposal may not find favour, but it has one big advantage: it is realistic.  It is a reasonable compromise for all but the most diehard anti-smoking nazis, and above all it offers a more powerful lure to governments than virgin pheromones for unicorns.  National or regional governments always have other sources of revenue, but local government does not have these possibilities.  

Furthermore, I would accept that public health is a legitimate concern for governments, both as a matter of principle and ideology, and because we all share the cost of healthcare.  Reducing harm reduces pressure on our tax bill.  This goes for 'flu vaccinations and car exhaust pollution as much as for tobacco.  Thus, I have no problem with reasonable restrictions, or with provisions -- equally reasonable -- to minimise exposure and deleterious effects of tobacco smoke.  Put simply, a waiter/waitress has a hard enough time on the job and it's no unreasonable hardship for me to repair to a  suitable fumoir to indulge in a smoke and a wee dram.  OK, not so wee a dram.  

Also consider that at least in the UK, pubs are under severe pressure.  They are disappearing fast.  Giving them the chance to be competitive by offering a desirable feature such as smoking facilities would help their chances of survival.  It would preserve jobs -- particularly important in the countryside.  In short, this would be yet another fillip for government, one which they can implement and shout about without having to spend money while increasing their take through sales and business taxes.  

It is the anti-smoker brigade who are the totalitarians.  It is they who are absolutist in their demands and fanatical in their cause.  To respond in the same vein is not viable, IMHO.  Decades of anti-smoking propaganda has established the "fact" that smoking is harmful in the public consciousness, and there is no changing that.  So the alternative is to try for compromise, to appeal to the instinct in the public mind to live and let live.  The more we are reasonable, the more they look bad.  

Just my tuppence...

[MIKA27]

I read the title of the thread, knew immediately what it would be all about and started laughing.

Having read the article, my assumption was spot on  we COULDN'T get away with that anywhere else in the world, especially Australia where EVERYTHING seems to be Monopolised. 

[Shaunster]

I for one support the smoking ban in the UK. No more coming home stinking of smoke and having sore eyes because its thick in the air. Sure UK pub scene has changed, many drinking only pubs closed down but that also coincided with a decline in the amount we drink, in their place the pub restaurant scene has blossomed and is on the up so its not simply a case of smoking ban = bad for pubs. If you look at the figures pubs where closing for decades before the smoking ban, its also a change of culture, we no longer go to the pub every night and get drunk while the wife cooks dinner at home, times change. 

The problem with supporting a ban like this is the campaign groups get too big, they are now pushing for voluntary smoking bands in outside places to 'protect the kids' so its not all good.

[PigFish]

9 hours ago, gweilgi said:

... while I appreciate your idealistic stance, I fear it is fated to fail.  My proposal may not find favour, but it has one big advantage: it is realistic.  It is a reasonable compromise for all but the most diehard anti-smoking nazis, and above all it offers a more powerful lure to governments than virgin pheromones for unicorns.  National or regional governments always have other sources of revenue, but local government does not have these possibilities.  

Furthermore, I would accept that public health is a legitimate concern for governments, both as a matter of principle and ideology, and because we all share the cost of healthcare.  Reducing harm reduces pressure on our tax bill.  This goes for 'flu vaccinations and car exhaust pollution as much as for tobacco.  Thus, I have no problem with reasonable restrictions, or with provisions -- equally reasonable -- to minimise exposure and deleterious effects of tobacco smoke.  Put simply, a waiter/waitress has a hard enough time on the job and it's no unreasonable hardship for me to repair to a  suitable fumoir to indulge in a smoke and a wee dram.  OK, not so wee a dram.  

Also consider that at least in the UK, pubs are under severe pressure.  They are disappearing fast.  Giving them the chance to be competitive by offering a desirable feature such as smoking facilities would help their chances of survival.  It would preserve jobs -- particularly important in the countryside.  In short, this would be yet another fillip for government, one which they can implement and shout about without having to spend money while increasing their take through sales and business taxes.  

It is the anti-smoker brigade who are the totalitarians.  It is they who are absolutist in their demands and fanatical in their cause.  To respond in the same vein is not viable, IMHO.  Decades of anti-smoking propaganda has established the "fact" that smoking is harmful in the public consciousness, and there is no changing that.  So the alternative is to try for compromise, to appeal to the instinct in the public mind to live and let live.  The more we are reasonable, the more they look bad.  

Just my tuppence...

I respectfully disagree with your analysis. Your 'village' approach is simply the newest way to invite unnecessary government into every aspect of your life. As you have opened that door, there is in fact no end to it. What then is the end to the 'village, we share our healthcare costs' approach? Where is it written, where is the law that says 'enough is enough?'. It does not exist. You are now in a box. You are a victim of government, and while you might agree with all or part of it today, your realistic approach has made your government the sovereign where you are just another 'subject' of the village.

The idealism here is that 'individuals' are all part of a group, the village, the communal state. That through the state all can be equitable and fair.

If the world is full of risk and inequity, how can a state which is comprised of people then be equitable? It can't... That my friend is fact... The idea that the 'state' can be comprised of imperfect parts and then be pure, that is the ideological fantasy. I am not the ideologue here, those that believe the hungry hound of government can be caged by "reason and good will," those are the ideologues.

I am an empiricist. All of the strides that free people have made undoing all powerful topdown governments, the freedom and power to move from one station in life to another is being undone by those that believe that governments are angelic, that freedom is to be bartered with, that their 'masters' are reasonable. You have made this very argument. "We share," means "government controls..." If not, please tell me what it means in reality. Your state, has proven that the power of the state, the power of the 'majority' is more important that an individual over his/her private property. You therefore only play at having private property. The state governs it....

This is a classic example of how you and others have rationalized the abuse and the persecution of a minority group... You think you are talking about smoking, and I understand that you have successfully been convinced that your state should persecute minority groups... If you colored the skin of all smokers it would become obvious to you, but since their actions define their nature and skin color is not a part of it, "smokerism" is willfully accepted and tolerated. It is amazing how easily the state discriminates and abuses a minority and how the 'village outlook' has branded minority abuse simply okay and 'reasonable' for the sake of safety.

The argument that people of a certain color, or religion are a danger to the village can be made with the very same arguments you just made. They have been in other 'statist' regimes as a matter of fact...

Based on your notion it is not unreasonable that all the pubs be closed! I can find plenty of reason for that. I can find reason that 'village' people need not convey themselves. Look at the risk, and one injured villagers must be paid for by the village... correct? Then every "villagers'" business is everyone's business and you now live in a state of the supremacy of the village. It is unfortunate that you cannot see this as soft tyranny, not just the 'smoke Nazis' but the flawed mindset of the all powerful state.

No my friend, you live the idyllic dream not I. I think your healthcare is your business, and your row to hoe... not your neighbor's nor the state's! We have only gotten along, and made real progress for mankind for hundreds of years without the statists idyllic perfection of the process. People have surely died along the way and they always will. Where has the idyllic 'village' state stopped people from dying? It has not... It has only promised a group of very shortsighted people that they have a solution for it and a way to get something for free.

Have you been following Baby Charlie?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/charlie-gard-high-court-hearing-latest-parents-storm-out-connie-yates-chris-terminally-ill-baby-a7839091.html

This is your (rhetorical) state, stripping the child, and any chance for life from the rightful place, his parents, and bringing it into the 'village' court just where you have argued it belongs. According to your argument above, this is a village decision, not the parents' to make. This is what has happened to independence and a free people when the ideology of the village has infected the public. This is a 'death court.' Men and women in robes, or wigs or other such garb making the decisions of life and death for the 'villagers.'

Man has made huge strides without the 'village.' Yet people lured by fear and the thought of something 'free' are enticed to take steps backward because one has relabeled tyranny and called it something modern. They have put a smilie face on what our forefathers new as serfdom... based on an 'ideal' that life is equitable and fair, that the 'ideal' state can bring it about.

Enjoy your agreement with the transition 'state.' When it finally gets to your threshold of pain, your basis for argument will simply be used against you, yet again. This is but a taste of being a minority in your state. Mine too, I might add.

Your argument above is not reasonable to the 'statist.' The reasonable argument has already been made and proven to work. You have argued for it... The state has condemned smoking as bad and therefore it is bad. There is no going back... not without the removal of the state, and those that believe exactly what you believe.

You (rhetorical, meaning your mindset) have been the 'master' of your own undoing and frankly mine as well. This is why, listening to 'the statist' bemoan lost freedom is sadly amusing.

Take your licensing argument to the 'statists' in charge and see where it gets you... When you suggest a license, a tax he will love it (as you indicated)... and he will simply raise it on tobacco.... He might be a statist, but he likely already knows that taxes end up at the consumer level anyway, and you have just told him that there is further room to squeeze you! Go to the city council and recommend it... In a matter of time you will simply find that they have levied a 'local' tobacco tax. That is what your position of 'reason' will get you!

Alcohol causes health problems too by the way. If you think it is 'off limits' you simply have not given the statist enough time to work out his campaign. Levels of unemployment do not concern the statist. That is why we have a 'state' program for that!!!

Your solution then is not reasonable. It simply displays a lack of understanding of the creature called your government that you have let off the chain, the same chain it now uses to bind you! I have to laugh here again quite sadly... Do you not realize that those that you call totalitarians (and I agree with that label) have the exact same mindset you do, the village mindset? They believe that they are doing good!!! They believe exactly as you do and use the very same arguments you do... They are just not smokers! 

It is not my 'ideology' that as governments that grow in strength over the people that they govern they commit crimes against those in the minority. This is not ideology... These are facts of history... The ideology that 'your government' will be different, that is the 'open argument, the ideology' here, that only time will unwrap... My ideology you say...! History is on my side mate, I have no such ideological view of governments. I see them from an empirical view of what history has shown them to be...

-Ray

 

[JR Kipling]

@PigFish


+1000

IMO this is a major reason politicians & bureaucrats seek to 'give' people various products & services. It is a means of controlling them and/or bribing them for support. Moreover, these same politicians & bureaucrats do not produce anything. All they do is take from the productive, while skimming off heavily from the top first.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro