Nanny state - agree/disagree

[annR]

Room305

I take your points but don't the government also have a responsibility to do something about the 'greater good'? To a certain extent? Aren't they supposed to encourage our society to be in good health? Frankly I think they should do it more because left to our own devices we seem to be becoming being a nation of fatties. That's grand for adults if they choose to be that way but don't children deserve a little better? Remember, if smoking advertising wasn't banned, those tobacco companies would be advertising to kids.

>>This conveniently sidesteps what should be the central issue - "what right does the government have to try and control what we eat?". <<

Aren't they encouraging what we eat rather than controlling it by taxing fast food?

>>Look at the much lauded on this forum, attitude of continental Europe to drink. Note as well that they tend to have far more liberal laws in relation to drink.<<

We don't have those attitudes to drink here. We binge drink. Perhaps that's why there would be a difference in the laws. Anyway, I wouldn't laud any country's attitude to drink without knowing their statistics on liver damage.

>>How do we know smokers are being manipulated? It's not like cigarettes are even that heavily advertised anymore. <<

I think they are manipulating smokers somehow because I can't see any other rational reason that people would smoke. Think of the money involved - it's not a massive business by accident.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't view these things as random Marxist 'for the greater good' like your shoes example. Do you have examples of actual laws like that?

I see it more as the government taking some kind of interest in the health of our society. Surely that is part of their role?

 

[RainyDay]

Remember, if smoking advertising wasn't banned, those tobacco companies would be advertising to kids.

They still do advertise to kids, well teenagers anyway - everytime they go to the movies.

 

[room305]

I take your points but don't the government also have a responsibility to do something about the 'greater good'? To a certain extent? Aren't they supposed to encourage our society to be in good health? Frankly I think they should do it more because left to our own devices we seem to be becoming being a nation of fatties. That's grand for adults if they choose to be that way but don't children deserve a little better? Remember, if smoking advertising wasn't banned, those tobacco companies would be advertising to kids.

No offence but don't you think that it's the job of parents to watch what their kids eat? I know I don't want the government raising my kids. I also don't think the government has any business encouraging (read bullying) people into behaving in a certain way. These things can get out of hand very easily.

Aren't they encouraging what we eat rather than controlling it by taxing fast food?

They're still indicating what they think you should do and trying to subvert your behaviour. I want to buy a burger, I'm willing to pay a price the burger vendor is willing to accept. What's the government doing wading in with it's big boots changing the price in the hope of me buying something else?

Chaos theory guarantees that this will have unforeseen effects. Look at all the government's attempt to control the housing market.

We don't have those attitudes to drink here. We binge drink. Perhaps that's why there would be a difference in the laws. Anyway, I wouldn't laud any country's attitude to drink without knowing their statistics on liver damage.

It's equally possible that the laws being the way they are is the reason there are so many problems with alcohol. Either way, I don't think it's fair to curtail everyone's freedom just because some people see alcohol as a licence to act like an a$$hole.

I think they are manipulating smokers somehow because I can't see any other rational reason that people would smoke. Think of the money involved - it's not a massive business by accident.

I couldn't tell why either but people do irrational things all the time - practice religion for one. Do we try and legislate against them all? In fact, I'd go as far as to say that almost everyone in the country has done something irrational and illogical that's possibly not good for them at some point in their lives. Doesn't mean it should be illegal, provided it's not harming anyone else.

Smoking is a massive business because there's a massive demand for it. Just like drugs, alcohol and any number of other industries. It's a choice people make, just because it's bad for them and/or we don't approve, doesn't mean we can deny people that choice.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't view these things as random Marxist 'for the greater good' like your shoes example. Do you have examples of actual laws like that?

The list is endless - smoking ban, licensing restrictions, planning restrictions, "locals-only" property purchasing rules, helmet laws, drug enforcement laws, heterosexual only marriage, immigration laws, social partnerships ... and that's before we even get into the use of the tax system to try and micromanage people's lives.

I see it more as the government taking some kind of interest in the health of our society. Surely that is part of their role?

I see it as the government confiscating a portion of my income to fritter away on experiments in social control. At best these plans fail miserably, at worst they have consequences way beyond what was intended.

 

[annR]

No offence but don't you think that it's the job of parents to watch what their kids eat?.

I do, but look around you at all the fat kids, seems like plenty of parents aren't doing too good a job there. Don't you agree that it can be hard for parents to raise their kids healthily with the food industry peddling them junk at every opportunity? Personally I would welcome the governments help with that in some form of regulation.

They're still indicating what they think you should do and trying to subvert your behaviour. I want to buy a burger, I'm willing to pay a price the burger vendor is willing to accept. What's the government doing wading in with it's big boots changing the price in the hope of me buying something else?

I don't know. Is this something they are doing at the moment - extra taxes on fast food?

It's equally possible that the laws being the way they are is the reason there are so many problems with alcohol. Either way, I don't think it's fair to curtail everyone's freedom just because some people see alcohol as a licence to act like an a$$hole.

I don't agree that the law has made us the nation of binge drinkers and I think that is a total cop out. So how else are we supposed to stop those people acting like a$$holes except by law?

I couldn't tell why either but people do irrational things all the time - practice religion for one. Do we try and legislate against them all? In fact, I'd go as far as to say that almost everyone in the country has done something irrational and illogical that's possibly not good for them at some point in their lives. Doesn't mean it should be illegal, provided it's not harming anyone else.

Smoking in workplaces does harm others hence the smoking ban. I'm not saying we should ban smoking otherwise - is there someone saying that?

Smoking is a massive business because there's a massive demand for it. Just like drugs, alcohol and any number of other industries. It's a choice people make, just because it's bad for them and/or we don't approve, doesn't mean we can deny people that choice.

No one is saying that, I just think it's funny that none of them ever refers to the tobacco industry as having any kind of influence over them but are happy to talk about nanny states.

The list is endless - smoking ban, licensing restrictions, planning restrictions, "locals-only" property purchasing rules, helmet laws, drug enforcement laws, heterosexual only marriage, immigration laws, social partnerships ... and that's before we even get into the use of the tax system to try and micromanage people's lives.

I'm not saying all laws are perfect . . .are you saying we should have no laws at all?

 

[shanegl]

I agree on taxes on externalities from an economic point of view. If smokers clog up my nationalised health service then they should pay towards this. Similarly with obese people, pollution etc.

I've no problem with people doing whatever they wish, I'm very liberal in this regard, but if it impacts on my life or costs me money then I expect to be reimbursed.

 

[sinbadsailor]

I've no problem with people doing whatever they wish, I'm very liberal in this regard, but if it impacts on my life or costs me money then I expect to be reimbursed.

And if the govt and their legislating/controlling are the 'people' you talk about? They are definitely affecting our lives and cost us more and more money each year?

 

[shanegl]

I thought it was implicit in my post that I only agree with these "nanny state" taxes if they are fair economically.

 

[room305]

I agree on taxes on externalities from an economic point of view. If smokers clog up my nationalised health service then they should pay towards this. Similarly with obese people, pollution etc.

I've no problem with people doing whatever they wish, I'm very liberal in this regard, but if it impacts on my life or costs me money then I expect to be reimbursed.

I have a lot of sympathy for such a stance. Nothing galls me more than having to pay unnecessary taxes to subsidise the foolishness of others.

Governments know the best way to mobilise citizenry into accepting restrictions is to present them either as a cost issue (without this we'll need higher taxes) or as a safety issue (this will save lives). Typically the two will be combined in some way, a la the workplace smoking ban or laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets.

However, they never work in the way that is intended. In relation to the tax on fatty foods, there is much talk about taxing McDonalds but very little about taxing Shanahan's or Guilbaud's. So as a measure it could be construed as regressive. So perhaps we would simply tax based on the fat content of the food served? But then, some fats are better for us than others. Before you know it, there's an army of civil servants allocating different tax rates to different restaurants and food groups and we've created a huge incentive for bribery and corruption with very little benefit.

I have been reading about Canada's attempt to bring in a fitness tax credit for parents as incentive to encourage their children to participate in sports. An incentive that would on the face of it seem like a good idea. Firstly the bill was challenged as being discriminatory to parents of disabled children who had difficulty being active in a formalised sporting environment. So the definitions in the bill were widened slightly to allow more pursuits to be considered. However, they realised then they were subsidising parents who brought their children snowskiing, jet skiing and the like - not really the original intention. It now looks like they'll have to set up a permanent roster of staff to investigate cases on an individual basis to decide if they merit the $500 tax credit or not. I'm sure it would have been less expensive not to bother introducing it in the first place.

 

[room305]

I do, but look around you at all the fat kids, seems like plenty of parents aren't doing too good a job there. Don't you agree that it can be hard for parents to raise their kids healthily with the food industry peddling them junk at every opportunity? Personally I would welcome the governments help with that in some form of regulation.

Why not restrict how much TV your kids can watch (which tends to be the main source of pressure) or junk the TV entirely? If the government slaps an extra tax on McDonald's food is that going to persuade your kids to want it less? The pressure will be the same, just the cost of the food will be higher.

I don't know. Is this something they are doing at the moment - extra taxes on fast food?

It's just a proposal. Micheal Martin proposed it in 2005 and I expect it to resurface at some point. I see it as symptomatic of the government's desire to micromanage our lives.

I don't agree that the law has made us the nation of binge drinkers and I think that is a total cop out. So how else are we supposed to stop those people acting like a$$holes except by law?

I'm not suggesting that our strict licensing laws were the cause of our long and sordid history with drink, just that they make things worse than they might otherwise be. Notice how the binge drinking culture is prevalent among teens in Ireland and the UK but not continental Europe. There are probably other factors at play but I don't think it helps matters.

Trying to stop people behaving like a$$holes by restricting the hours they can purchase drink is an illogical and ineffective solution to the problem. Better to target resources on punishing people for the crimes they are committing rather than the excuse they are using for doing so.

Smoking in workplaces does harm others hence the smoking ban. I'm not saying we should ban smoking otherwise - is there someone saying that?

It seems an extraordinarily punitive measure for very little benefit. I would happily defend anyone's right to clean air but I don't see why workplaces could not have smoking rooms, or why a business proprietor cannot decide to launch an enterprise that services the needs of smokers. Don't want to breathe the smoky air - fine, do what I do - don't go in.

No one is saying that, I just think it's funny that none of them ever refers to the tobacco industry as having any kind of influence over them but are happy to talk about nanny states.

But it is a conscious choice smokers make, something that harms them but no-one else. Where they have been misled by the powerful tobacco lobby is somewhat beside the point. The state doesn't treat people addicted to fast food, sugar, caffeine, gambling or alcohol in the same way - so why the carte blanche on smokers?

I'm not saying all laws are perfect . . .are you saying we should have no laws at all?

Not at all, just less of them. Politicians are great on proposing new laws but very bad at getting rid of old ones.

 

[z108]

The state doesn't treat people addicted to fast food, sugar, caffeine, gambling or alcohol in the same way - so why the carte blanche on smokers?

Maybe because smoking is the directly proven cause of death and prolonged illnesses with billions worth of medical bills whereas coffee isnt really in the same league ?
Even saying that I'm strongly against a nanny state. It simply makes life more boring. If the state wants us to be healthier they could reduce taxes on the healthy option instead of increasing taxes on the unhealthy options. Perhaps ,annR, there should be tax relief for Church attendance

 

[sinbadsailor]

But it is a conscious choice smokers make, something that harms them but no-one else.

This is simply not true. It is the fact that smokers second hand smoke causes other people harm that the ban was introduced in the first place. If it just harmed the person that was having the cigarette then nobody would care and would let people make their own decision to ruin their health by smoking.

 

[shnaek]

I thought it was implicit in my post that I only agree with these "nanny state" taxes if they are fair economically.

Who decides what is fair economically?

I mean, if I don't agree with violence then I may not want to pay the portion of tax which pays for the army.
If I drive only to town and back, why should I pay large amounts of road tax for intercity routes etc?
If I don't use the train/bus, then why should I pay the portion of tax that subsidises them?
If I think everyone should work why should I pay for social welfare?

The government should interfere with our lives in the most minimal way possible for our civilised society to function.

But this is an age old argument, one which I think we will have to agree to disagree because people hold fairly strong positions on this argument.

 

[shanegl]

Who decides what is fair economically?

Economists

I mean, if I don't agree with violence then I may not want to pay the portion of tax which pays for the army.

You might not agree with it but you still enjoy the benefit of their protection.

If I drive only to town and back, why should I pay large amounts of road tax for intercity routes etc?

Ideally not, road tax should be pay as you use IMO.

If I don't use the train/bus, then why should I pay the portion of tax that subsidises them?

You shouldn't!

If I think everyone should work why should I pay for social welfare?

People pay for their social welfare through PRSI though don't they? I'm not an expert on social welfare myself though

The government should interfere with our lives in the most minimal way possible for our civilised society to function.

I agree, but I don't see any difference between a blanket tax and targetted taxes based on what you use in terms of interferance.

We may have to agree to disagree, ultimately I think it comes down to ideologies at a certain point.

 

[sinbadsailor]

What about this....

- Motor tax paid per car and based on mileage + emmissions
- Tax on income @ fixed % rate of annual income, regardless of amount, everyones equal
- Health system, fully state funded, everyone gets same treatment
- Roads built and maintained by Motor tax money only.
- Public transport, paid by state fully, fares based on distance and type of transport. i.e bus/luas/train etc
- Price for everything goes up a predefined amount each budget, 3%
- Wages go up a predefined amount each year, say 3%
- Devise test to find out the 'actual level of alcohol' that physically impairs driving, set that as limit. If over, lose licence for 10 years and if kill someone, 20 years in prision or some other fixed term
- Devise 'proper & realistic' speed limits, using modern cars, with fully trained drivers for each and every road in the country, with an updat each time the road changes
- Begin teaching driving at secondary level school, with theory & paractical as an hour exam , giving provisional learners licence to work from.
- Let businesses choose their own opening times

Along those lines.....

Simple & transparent.

Life is NOT as complicated as we are led to believe.

What is it they say, the harder you try and hold onto something, the easier it will slip out of your hand.

Just let things go by themselves, it wont be as catastrophic as we might think.

 

[Caveat]

What about this....

- Motor tax paid per car and based on mileage + emmissions
- Tax on income @ fixed % rate of annual income, regardless of amount, everyones equal
- Health system, fully state funded, everyone gets same treatment
- Roads built and maintained by Motor tax money only.
- Public transport, paid by state fully, fares based on distance and type of transport. i.e bus/luas/train etc
- Price for everything goes up a predefined amount each budget, 3%
- Wages go up a predefined amount each year, say 3%
- Devise test to find out the 'actual level of alcohol' that physically impairs driving, set that as limit. If over, lose licence for 10 years and if kill someone, 20 years in prision or some other fixed term
- Devise 'proper & realistic' speed limits, using modern cars, with fully trained drivers for each and every road in the country, with an updat each time the road changes
- Begin teaching driving at secondary level school, with theory & paractical as an hour exam , giving provisional learners licence to work from.
- Let businesses choose their own opening times

Along those lines.....

Simple & transparent.

Life is NOT as complicated as we are led to believe.

What is it they say, the harder you try and hold onto something, the easier it will slip out of your hand.

Just let things go by themselves, it wont be as catastrophic as we might think.

and then of course anyone for whom these proposals may be detrimental, will take a case to the European Court of human rights

 

[sinbadsailor]

and then of course anyone for whom these proposals may be detrimental, will take a case to the European Court of human rights

The only reason things are detrimental to people's human rights are because peoples human rights are ignored when making policy.

The whole idea is that change is implemented to serve everyone equally with no bias in race/colour/job & life status/where they live/whether they smoke/how mcuh they drink etc etc

If logical, intuitive, responsible and selfless choices are made then who can argue, only to serve their own selfish interests?

 

[Caveat]

Not saying I don't agree with you in principle Sinbadsailor, but unfortunately many people do argue to serve their own selfish interests.

 

[sinbadsailor]

Not saying I don't agree with you in principle Sinbadsailor, but unfortunately many people do argue to serve their own selfish interests.

Well we'll just have to have a culling before we start the change process then...joking of course!

 

[room305]

This is simply not true. It is the fact that smokers second hand smoke causes other people harm that the ban was introduced in the first place. If it just harmed the person that was having the cigarette then nobody would care and would let people make their own decision to ruin their health by smoking.

Maybe because smoking is the directly proven cause of death and prolonged illnesses with billions worth of medical bills whereas coffee isnt really in the same league ?

Coffee might not be but poor eating habits are. Heart disease is the country's number one killer. Yet people who over-indulge themselves in food are not castigated in the same way as smokers - imagine the government passing a law forcing people to eat burgers outside? It's not just the government of course, I think the law reflects what is now societal acceptance of denigrating smokers. Nobody in my office smokes but if someone was leaving for a smoke I'm sure even the smoker wouldn't bat an eyelid if I remarked "filthy habit, you should give up". Yet if we were in a restaurant and I was to pass snide remarks on the ordering choices of an overweight person ("you sure you want extra cheese?") I'd be considered a monster.

I'm dubious about some of the claims made about the negative health effects of passive smoking. If it was really as dangerous as the likes of ASH make out then why does my health insurance company never ask me if I live in a house with someone who smokes? They ask about things such as my weight, how much I drink and whether I smoke or not but they never ask if I live with a smoker. Also, why was a complete and totalitarian ban required if it was just a health issue?

a) If a business caters for smokers then it is not unreasonable to imagine that the proprietor will only hire people who are either tolerant of smoking or actually smokers. If non-smokers aren't happy with the setup then don't give that business your custom.

b) Where a business has a mix of smoking and non-smoking staff, would it be that bad if the smoking staff had a room in which they could smoke? Nothing worse than walking into a building and having to elbow your way through a crowd of workers smoking and spitting outside the main entrance. Looks bad to potential clients as it creates the impression of the place being overstaffed and unproductive. Also, smokers suffer a productivity loss as they must physically leave the building to have a smoke rather than being able to nip into one particular room.

 

[gonk]

imagine the government passing a law forcing people to eat burgers outside?

Whatever my eating a burger does to my own health, it does not consitute an environmental health risk to others in the way cigarette smoke does.

If a business caters for smokers then it is not unreasonable to imagine that the proprietor will only hire people who are either tolerant of smoking or actually smokers?

Workers may be forced through economic necessity to tolerate the risk, or may be ignorant of the risk. It is reasonable for the state to require employers to provide safe & healthy working conditions - this includes not being exposed to cigarette smoke.