It is everybody's very own right to deal with their health as they like.
I didn't say anything contradicting.
My point is simply smoking is bad, not only for one-self, but for others, too.
All my point here was to support those who want to quit,
and further more to prevent people to start in the first place.
I never ment to 'manipulate' you.
You're absolutely free to do the opposite of what your common sense seemed to figur out of it.
If you feel the need to defend yourself by something you may seen in my words, then it's your business, not mine.
We don't need to discuss the point telling you what to do, or not - I can't remember where I did.
If I'm using the term 'you' I mostly mean the 'royal you' not you personally.
If you take it personally then I'm sorry for my bad english, and it
may be also up to you, how to take the words you read here.
I am not trying to tell you to stop. I clearly said it's ones own choice.
To me you can smoke ten cartons af cigarettes, hook up on a crack pipe, and drink six bottles of Wodka every day.
Again no need for contradicting you won't need no permission to do so by me.
I don't give you permission.
I simply don't care.
As long as you don't endanger anybody else but yourself. This exactly is the limit of everybody's freedom, when the freedom of others are endangered.
When you hit the road drunk, then I care.
If you stay within a private area I don't care if you drink 3 gallons of gasoline, and then light a cigarette.
Simply saying in general that might set one on fire is not telling you not to do so.
If any I'm concerned about the neighbours may will have their homes burned to the ground.
But if you are alone in your own lonesome house... - need a light?
To me bikers not using a helmet, or drivers not fasten seatbelts shouldn't pay no penalty.
They only endanger themselves.
Telling my experiences serving on ambulances having an accident without a helmet brings significantly more and worse injuries than with wearing one, and telling this is a scientific proven fact, is neither telling you have to wear a helmet, nor is it defeated by you telling me that's my experiences only, you never wear a helmet, never had an accident, never going to use a helmet.
But in my eyes they should lose insurance coverage on doing so. Because if they consciously decide to endanger themselves by willfully act against what's the law by being proven right, it's their own business, not society's.
It's not my business to pay higher insurence fees for higher expenses because of more medical treatment for others willfully endanger themselves, which was avoidable.
Since this ain't the law, and also helmet-, and seat-belt deniers are getting cobbled together after an accident on society's payment, in my eyes is prove law also covers the stupid, and irresponsible - or one can say, more fair than right.
Before you object: On cigarrets I see it a bit different. Since it's a highly addictive drug, not that easy to get those lost as fasten a seat-belt, or wear a helmet. And smoking was promoted for decades to have it in society, sometimes even with government's support. But I applaud ideas by insurance agencys to rise the fees for those who don't want to quit, who refuse any help to get off that shit. Because - again - if it's their business, then so it's their business. Others then don't have to pay for that.
And before you may come with some:'Haha! But they cannot prove the cause of a desease!' No. But there are a lot of statistics elborate the amount of costs smoking has on insurance expenses.
Again:
This is not I'm telling you not to smoke.
This is I tell you you're not telling me to pay for its propable outcomes.
Anarchy was the best form of society, with most freedom, and most justice possible for every one
if everybody is acting responsibly, respecting anybody else (Kant's categorical imperative)
which presuppose everybody is capable of doing so.
Most are not.
Anarchy is the form of society which requires highest form of sapience imaginable.
Even in anarchy there
are rules. The rules of respect, and love. If not, that's not anarchy, that's chaos. That's way before the first humans organized themselves as tribes. That's called animals: The physical stronger always wins.
This theoretically can be fixed by enough education.
But how to ensure everybody gets the sufficient amount of education required to live in such a society without having again a system of 'forcing' people to be teached, but relying on everybody getting its eduction by itself - while facing the current reality that never in history so much knowledge, so many possibilities of education have been easily available and accessible for free, and not being used?
Anyway
only a single person not playing by the rules, only one get the idea to win more by mock others, brings down the whole system.
So like communism anarchy is a pure theoretically experiment of an idealistic world.
So, unless we reached that state - and we are far, far away - we have to have some system with rules.
And that means, unless we figured how treat every single case absolutely individual, we still have to live with some are not treated fairly - which also is no charter to treat people willfully unfairly.
I am so very thankful we also have the laws to prohibit smoking in public areas, such as restaurants, or trains.
Not because I feel 'endangered' by smokers in my presence, but I simply like to enjoy the taste of my meal - especially in expensive restaurants, and not get my taste buds blocked by someone blowing his stinking blue smoke into my face.
...or trying to imagine an transatlantic flight with almost every third is smoking in the cabin.
In the 70's quite normal. Today unthinkable. You couldn't see the end of the cabin
A crucial experience I once had (I still was a smoker back then) was many years ago in Ireland.
Ireland is (was?) one of europe's countries with highest smokers percentage.
They got the law to prohibit smoking in pubs many years before germany.
And they all simply respected it. The majority of pub visitors in Ireland were (are?) smokers. They smoked outside.
Same in Italy.
Italy seems to be a country people do not fully respect the law when they don't believe it's right.
But by the day this was law nobody smoked inside any bar, restaurant,... ever again.
That's not 'I take me my freedom whatever!'
That's simply respecting others.
I found that exemplary.
To me it seems you are fighting something you may project into what I said, but I didn't.
It seems I hit a nerv
Well, that's also not religion. That's psychology.
But I didn't ment that either to put on you.
Simple fact is, worst non-smokers are ex-smokers,
'cause they know where and how to push the buttons.
As you said yourself:
every sinner "deeply knows" he's a sinner.
Oh, come on,
PMc !
I suggest you simply had a bad day.
Get yourself a beer - bring me one, too, if you be so kind.
Light up a cigarrete!
No, honestly, I mean it.
You're a smoker.
And I once was one, too.
It took me ten years to quit.
I know that's anything but easy.
Now I'm trying to manipulate you personally to stop smoking:
If you really deeply openly honest to yourself, you admit you would be happy if you won't smoke anymore.
I
may be wrong, but if not, that's also possible,
by my expierence [that doesn't mean it's neccessarily true, especially not THE truth] for most [that means not everybody] that's just an excuse not to stop (now).
It's hard. I know that.
You need the right time to do it.
If you are under stress, that's not the time.
And it
seems, you are, at the moment
So,
honestly:
Light up cigarette, relax! get us both a couple of beers,
and let's talk about something else, okay, please?
Of course that is not ment you were 'not allowed' to answer on this anymore.
But I close my case in this thread; already said more than enough.
'Money rules the world'])
