Smoking ban leads to further conversation
(archive.is)https://archive.is/BL8sfLet's start by making some simple points that I'm going to assume most can agree on. Smoking is bad for your health, like drinking, eating ultra-processed food, sedentary lifestyles and breathing in silica, etc. Not really definitve but it's likely the previous statement is all true.
In a place like UK, Canada, Australia... Anywhere with publicly funded healthcare really, the aforementioned activities create a burden on the taxpayer. Therefore, as a taxpayer, should you be responsible for funding the health problems created by poor decision making?
If not, should those that participate be excluded from public healthcare? If so, then should those that are unvaccinated be excluded? Or what about those with low social-credit scores? What about people that have 14 abortions? 11 children?
The government says "smoking is bad and we're going to eliminate it." Not because smoking is bad but because the money they make off cigarettes is less than the cost on healthcare. The same reason they'll sell a kid a bottle of Pepsi in elementary school but not a cigarette. Both addictive, both killers, both a burden on taxpayers... But the government makes more selling high-fructose corn syrup to children than it costs them in the long run.
The government says, get the jab, stop smoking, eat like shit, sit around, be stressed out, fight EACHOTHER and then die.
A smoking ban is good for people but bad for liberty. Although the UK doesn't have a well-established history of standing for liberty it's an interesting discussion because once a globalist plague starts spreading it becomes hard to subdue.
