New York Plans To Ban Smoking In Public Parks And Outdoor Spaces

[Mik]

New York plans to ban smoking in public parks and outdoor spaceshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...oor-spaces.htmlThey want to outlaw smoking in parks and at beaches. New Yorkers already pay over $4.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes. Next they want to tax soft drinks and "unhealthy" foods. Should the government have the power to control your personal behavior for your own good? That's what parents are for. Should adults be treated as children of the state?

[Old55]

Sadly government has no more powers than those we give them. IMO

[TheMason]

New York plans to ban smoking in public parks and outdoor spaceshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...oor-spaces.htmlThey want to outlaw smoking in parks and at beaches. New Yorkers already pay over $4.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes. Next they want to tax soft drinks and "unhealthy" foods. Should the government have the power to control your personal behavior for your own good? That's what parents are for. Should adults be treated as children of the state?

I don't think someone's right to smoke in public trumps the right of others not to breathe in second hand smoke. The dangers of second-hand smoke are pretty clear, so I don't have a problem banning smoking in public places. Setting up designated smoking areas in public areas is a good compromise between everyone's rights. However, I agree with you on the soft drink and unhealthy food taxes that are clearly coming. The key difference is that eating a poor diet or drinking sugary snacks harms nobody but you. This is the primary reason I'm against the health care reform currently being debated. I don't want the govt. to have a vested interest in what my health care requirements are. If I want to eat poorly and get diabetes or heart problems due to my lifestyle, that is my business. Once society starts paying for my health care, it becomes their business as well. I would rather not give that control to the govt.

[Mr Lee]

New York plans to ban smoking in public parks and outdoor spaceshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...oor-spaces.htmlThey want to outlaw smoking in parks and at beaches. New Yorkers already pay over $4.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes. Next they want to tax soft drinks and "unhealthy" foods. Should the government have the power to control your personal behavior for your own good? That's what parents are for. Should adults be treated as children of the state?

I don't think someone's right to smoke in public trumps the right of others not to breathe in second hand smoke. The dangers of second-hand smoke are pretty clear, so I don't have a problem banning smoking in public places. Setting up designated smoking areas in public areas is a good compromise between everyone's rights. However, I agree with you on the soft drink and unhealthy food taxes that are clearly coming. The key difference is that eating a poor diet or drinking sugary snacks harms nobody but you. This is the primary reason I'm against the health care reform currently being debated. I don't want the govt. to have a vested interest in what my health care requirements are. If I want to eat poorly and get diabetes or heart problems due to my lifestyle, that is my business. Once society starts paying for my health care, it becomes their business as well. I would rather not give that control to the govt.

I think the answer is more or less in your reply, and if a person has enough of their own insurance or the money to pay for their own care, then it should be totally up to them, but how do they check each person to see if they will not end up with the government having to pay for their care? Do they have to present their health care card to buy cigarettes or soda? Just how can government differentiate between who can pay for themselves and who cannot. I am an advocate of less government but if we have less controls of how people abuse their bodies, and less government to oversee, then how do we stop people from using government funds for their care when they get sick from those abuses. I think we need good ideas and proper controls to prevent abuses of the system which in turn cost taxpayers money.

[TheMason]

I think the answer is more or less in your reply, and if a person has enough of their own insurance or the money to pay for their own care, then it should be totally up to them, but how do they check each person to see if they will not end up with the government having to pay for their care? Do they have to present their health care card to buy cigarettes or soda? Just how can government differentiate between who can pay for themselves and who cannot. I am an advocate of less government but if we have less controls of how people abuse their bodies, and less government to oversee, then how do we stop people from using government funds for their care when they get sick from those abuses. I think we need good ideas and proper controls to prevent abuses of the system which in turn cost taxpayers money.

Well, I think the Philippines takes the proper approach to health care. If you can pay for it, you get it. If you can't, you don't. I don't see health care as a right that everyone is entitled to it. It is a service you can purchase if you have the means to do so. The govt. does not have an obligation to provide health care to its citizens. Its not pleasant to have someone die due to lack of health care but that doesn't mean I have to become my brother's keeper and pay for some fat a** to get CABG surgery.In order to avoid unwarranted intrusion into our lives, the govt. should stay out of health care. They are already talking about more taxes to modify behavior and cut health care costs. Left unchecked, the desire to save some money could easily result in taxes or fees based on your genetic makeup and propensity to have offspring with genetic defects. Anyone in favor of the sickle cell anemia tax or the alcoholic gene tax? Edited September 16, 2009 by TheMason

[Mr Lee]

I think the answer is more or less in your reply, and if a person has enough of their own insurance or the money to pay for their own care, then it should be totally up to them, but how do they check each person to see if they will not end up with the government having to pay for their care? Do they have to present their health care card to buy cigarettes or soda? Just how can government differentiate between who can pay for themselves and who cannot. I am an advocate of less government but if we have less controls of how people abuse their bodies, and less government to oversee, then how do we stop people from using government funds for their care when they get sick from those abuses. I think we need good ideas and proper controls to prevent abuses of the system which in turn cost taxpayers money.

Well, I think the Philippines takes the proper approach to health care. If you can pay for it, you get it. If you can't, you don't. I don't see health care as a right that everyone is entitled to it. It is a service you can purchase if you have the means to do so. The govt. does not have an obligation to provide health care to its citizens. Its not pleasant to have someone die due to lack of health care but that doesn't mean I have to become my brother's keeper and pay for some fat a** to get CABG surgery.In order to avoid unwarranted intrusion into our lives, the govt. should stay out of health care. They are already talking about more taxes to modify behavior and cut health care costs. Left unchecked, the desire to save some money could easily result in taxes or fees based on your genetic makeup and propensity to have offspring with genetic defects. Anyone in favor of the sickle cell anemia tax or the alcoholic gene tax?

I am not sure I can totally agree with that. We all pay taxes (VAT in the Philippines) and those taxes are supposed to be used to benefit the people and not to make the fat cats up top rich. I have no problem with big taxes on things that can hurt us, such as cigarettes, booze and any other product that might be found to be harmful to our health and those taxes should be set aside for health care related to those items. Of course that is just my opinion and I know the government collects plenty of sin taxes and spends them on themselves instead.

[Mike S]

New York plans to ban smoking in public parks and outdoor spaceshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...oor-spaces.htmlThey want to outlaw smoking in parks and at beaches. New Yorkers already pay over $4.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes. Next they want to tax soft drinks and "unhealthy" foods. Should the government have the power to control your personal behavior for your own good? That's what parents are for. Should adults be treated as children of the state?

Hallelujah .......................... to the smoking ........ and as being one of the fore mentioned fat a**ed people ..... I would gladly pay extra for my JUNK foods ........ but living here in the Phils I hardly have to worry about being junk foods being taxed extra ...... :AddEmoticons04230:

[tom_shor]

New York plans to ban smoking in public parks and outdoor spaceshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...oor-spaces.htmlThey want to outlaw smoking in parks and at beaches. New Yorkers already pay over $4.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes. Next they want to tax soft drinks and "unhealthy" foods. Should the government have the power to control your personal behavior for your own good? That's what parents are for. Should adults be treated as children of the state?

I don't think someone's right to smoke in public trumps the right of others not to breathe in second hand smoke. The dangers of second-hand smoke are pretty clear, so I don't have a problem banning smoking in public places. Setting up designated smoking areas in public areas is a good compromise between everyone's rights. However, I agree with you on the soft drink and unhealthy food taxes that are clearly coming. The key difference is that eating a poor diet or drinking sugary snacks harms nobody but you. This is the primary reason I'm against the health care reform currently being debated. I don't want the govt. to have a vested interest in what my health care requirements are. If I want to eat poorly and get diabetes or heart problems due to my lifestyle, that is my business. Once society starts paying for my health care, it becomes their business as well. I would rather not give that control to the govt.

I think the answer is more or less in your reply, and if a person has enough of their own insurance or the money to pay for their own care, then it should be totally up to them, but how do they check each person to see if they will not end up with the government having to pay for their care? Do they have to present their health care card to buy cigarettes or soda? Just how can government differentiate between who can pay for themselves and who cannot. I am an advocate of less government but if we have less controls of how people abuse their bodies, and less government to oversee, then how do we stop people from using government funds for their care when they get sick from those abuses. I think we need good ideas and proper controls to prevent abuses of the system which in turn cost taxpayers money.

The answer to that is that this is another area the government should stay out of. If you want government sponsored health care then move someplace that has it already. I already have a mother I don't need these baffons trying to be another one. If they want to tell me what is good for me ok. It should be my choice if I choose to do it or not. The only exception to that would be something that would also harm someone else. Adults should be able to make their own decisions and bear the responsibility of the consequinces.