Grandad.Malky Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Having spent a week in Scotland I was amazed at the numbers of obviously seriously ill people who continued to smoke. . You don’t need to go to Scotland, just go to any hospital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Thing is that most long-term smokers are thoroughly addicted to nicotine. A common thought that smokers have is that they'll quit immediately if dignosed with cancer. However, for decades they've got into the habit of dealing with even normal everyday stress by smoking. To be diagnosed with cancer is perhaps the most stressful thing that can happen to anyone, so, in many cases, it's highly unlikely that they'll quit at that point. I am not doubting the fact that nicotine is addictive.What I am questioning is whether the state and the taxpayer have ultimate responsibility for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 You don’t need to go to Scotland, just go to any hospital. I know. This is very demoralising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I am not doubting the fact that nicotine is addictive.What I am questioning is whether the state and the taxpayer have ultimate responsibility for it. Like you said earlier, the problem with Liberalism and the Welfare State (the NHS in this context) is that where does one draw a line? Should a young kid playing rugby have his knee repaired? He knew the risks - Sport can be dangerous. Then we move on to the home, the kitchen is a dangerous place. Should the state be responsible for a child who burns his hand on an oven? Pure Liberalism is an ideal like Pure Socialism is. It'd be lovely if everyone was responsible for themselves, but in practice it is difficult to implement. The harm principle can be applied to driving laws, or health and safety laws. I know the risks when I don't wear a seat belt, so if I get hurt I can only blame myself. The same with drug laws; liberalism would wipe them out. T'is a complex issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 Like you said earlier, the problem with Liberalism and the Welfare State (the NHS in this context) is that where does one draw a line? Should a young kid playing rugby have his knee repaired? He knew the risks - Sport can be dangerous. Then we move on to the home, the kitchen is a dangerous place. Should the state be responsible for a child who burns his hand on an oven? Pure Liberalism is an ideal like Pure Socialism is. It'd be lovely if everyone was responsible for themselves, but in practice it is difficult to implement. The harm principle can be applied to driving laws, or health and safety laws. I know the risks when I don't wear a seat belt, so if I get hurt I can only blame myself. The same with drug laws; liberalism would wipe them out. T'is a complex issue. I agree and cant imagine we will ever get to pure liberalism but there are things we can do to encourage more of it and I see this is the way that we will go, even see that this is actually already happening. The harm principle is difficult to apply in the seat belt incident as if you were carrying passengers and you didn't wear a seatbelt then may you be also putting them at risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Like you said earlier, the problem with Liberalism and the Welfare State (the NHS in this context) is that where does one draw a line? . One is an accident and the other is almost inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 there are things we can do to encourage more of it and I see this is the way that we will go May i ask what is it that you would like to see more of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 One is an accident and the other is almost inevitable. I don't understand you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 What I am questioning is whether the state and the taxpayer have ultimate responsibility for it. When the government relinquishes the tax on cigarettes, only then will the argument regarding whether the "tax payer" pays the bill become valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I don't understand you. You wanted to know where to draw the line ………. I thought the difference between an accident and a prolonged self induced condition might be a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.