SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the all-those-in-favour,-please-cough dept.
Austria has one of the highest rates of smoking and youth smoking among high income countries, and that might not be changing anytime soon:
Many Western countries have banned smoking in bars and restaurants, but Austria is bucking that trend. Under a law passed in 2015, Austria was due to bring in a total ban this May, but now its new government of the conservatives and the far-right Freedom Party have scrapped the plans.
The move was spearheaded by the leader of the Freedom Party, Austria's Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, himself a smoker, who told parliament last month that it was about freedom of choice. He said restaurants should be free to decide if they want to have smoking sections, where "a citizen has the possibility to decide perhaps to enjoy a cigarette or a pipe or a cigar with their coffee".
The move has horrified Austria's medical establishment. Dr Manfred Neuberger, professor emeritus at the Medical University of Vienna, says it is "a public health disaster".
"The decision is irresponsible. It was a victory for the tobacco industry. The new government made Austria into the ashtray of Europe."
Meanwhile, the country is considering buying more jet fighters, recruiting more police, defunding its public broadcaster, and examining its past.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:34AM (12 children)
Kind of makes sense I suppose, when the non-smoke won't let you huff white plumes of smoke over his food and into his lungs. That might take away your immediate enjoyment of dinner while your mind is busily craving the next drag.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @05:40AM (2 children)
I have the same position when it comes to flatulence. After all, it is just a gesture of appreciation of the meal! Outside of the microscopic bits of fecal matter.
(Score: 3, Touché) by theluggage on Friday February 16 2018, @01:12PM (1 child)
...but then most civilised people do make an effort not to fart profusely while in polite company (and can expect not to be invited back if they do). Its also an unavoidable biological function - unlike shredding up leaves and setting fire to them, which is completely avoidable.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday February 16 2018, @05:50PM
Most restaurants are totally rude and do not let me operate my leaf shredder indoors. I keep telling them that the 50HP version is clearly the most efficient and therefore, in the end, the best solution for the planet and the fastest at getting me a nice pile to set on fire. But all thy ever answer is "WHAT? TURN THIS THING OFF!"
(Score: 5, Troll) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @06:10AM (8 children)
Also I have to say that people who smoke while eating are just disgusting; even when I was a heavy smoker I wouldn't do that. One should eat first, then smoke, and one should either wait for everyone else at the table to finish eating or else excuse oneself from the table and step outside if one simply cannot wait.
That said, as uncomfortable as I am with people smoking around me at any time, and particularly when I'm eating, I'm still less comfortable with the idea that the legislature has any business making laws about it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:23PM (6 children)
Are you also uncomfortable with the government making laws about attending public events nude?
How about laws preventing people from exposing themselves to people at work? If they work at a school?
The point is, that government has always had laws about public conduct. That is kind of the point of government. That and providing for the public defense.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @04:27PM (2 children)
Frankly, yes. We got by for thousands of years without puritans and I think we could get by just fine without them again. If you're not actually harming anybody (yourself excluded), the government has zero business telling you what to do. Ever.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:01PM (1 child)
Second hand smoke, TMB just clinched the deal. Smoking bans remain, triggered libertarians please exit backstage.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday February 16 2018, @11:17PM
I think you need to look up the definition of triggered.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @06:41PM
I'm not too far from TMB on that one either. Definitely there are plenty of people I'd rather not appear in my field of view nude *but* guaranteeing my comfort (or anyone elses) is NOT a legitimate use of force. And please, let's get away from this inane and inaccurate assumption that just because something is not illegal that there's no other way to stop it either. That's just not true.
With apologies to Dave Barry, this is fundamentally what he calls the 'sex with dogs' argument. We have to make sex with dogs illegal, you see, because otherwise people will be having sex with dogs and that's really nasty. While it is really nasty, it does not follow that it must be illegal or people will do it. I'm not going to do it! Are you? So what makes you think we need a law? To stop you from doing something you aren't going to do anyway?
I reckon making a law about something like that is going to mean it happens more often, not less. Because now people have a reason to talk about it, and people that had never thought of the possibility and likely never would have suddenly are forced to contemplate it. Most of them are going to go yuck but like with anything some small percent will have a different reaction. So it's actually the law, whether actual or proposed, that creates the very problem it's supposed to address (a very common theme when you analyze the effects of laws btw.)
If the idea is to reduce or prevent bestiality, then a better approach would be to forbid mention of it, rather than the act, but that would obviously fall afoul of the first amendment. And it wouldn't really work either. Nothing motivates people to discuss a subject like forbidding discussion of the subject.
"The point is, that government has always had laws about public conduct."
A private restaurant is not really a public space, though the state of course prefers to pretend they are. But the public square and the public roads are public in a strong sense - there's not really any reasonable way to avoid them or find alternatives. Restaurants are nothing like that at all. If you don't like one there's another, and another, and another.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:16AM
Absolutely. Why should the government force people to wear clothing just because some people are offended by nudity? You posed this question without even once stopping to think if the laws you're referencing are valid to begin with, as if you just implicitly accept the status quo. Wearing particular articles of clothing is an act of expression, so I don't see how wearing no clothing is not. Prohibitions on public nudity violate the first amendment and basic ethical principles.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @05:24AM
If the workplace is a private institution, they can set their own rules regarding this.
I do not believe in the supposed value of public schools.
The example given in the summary is regarding the choice by private establishments:
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday February 16 2018, @08:05PM
Congratulations, sir, you have have achieved the holy grail of comments.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh