Do we need prohibitions?
Should we thank Høybråten and “the ban tyranny” that we live two years longer than the Danes? – Perhaps life has other qualities than to live long, “says philosopher Lars Fredrik Svendsen.
Today 31 April it is the world’s tobacco-free day.
The adopted unhealthy habits such as regulated by the Tobacco Act. It is forbidden to smoke in public places. We have age limit, “invisible” tobacco products in the store, sky high taxes and anti-smoking campaigns.
And it works. Smokers are becoming fewer and fewer.
Live longer than the Danes
Norwegians are also working longer and live an average of nearly two years longer than the Danes.
The same applies to the Swedes, who like us more than the Danes in their common safety and prevention policies. Or “prohibition tyranny,” as the Danes call it, according politiken.dk.
Is it really true that we can not look after ourselves and need rules and prohibitions to make “correct” choice?
– The State raises to the father figure
Is a long life so important that the trump everything else? Asks Lars Fredrik Svendsen.
Photo: Tor Richardsen / Scanpix
– We are moving toward a paternalistic society. State exalts himself to father figure and reduce citizens to toddlers who can not make good choices, “says Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Lars Fredrik Svendsen nrk.no.
– We must ask ourselves whether this is to live as long as possible is a value which must trump all else, or whether it is one of the many values that life has to offer, “he continues.
Svendsen believes governments should engage in proper course and objective public education, but that when they have done it, it should be up to us to choose whether we want to take a chance or not.
– Everyone knows now the dangers of smoking. If anyone still wants to continue to smoke, knowing that this, statistically speaking, it takes several years of their lives, they must be doing it. We must have the freedom to, for example, weigh up to pet health – and even prioritize what is most important for us, “he said.
– Still lots of freedom
We still have a lot of freedom in Norway, “says Asbjorn Kjønstad.Photo: Roald, Berit / SCANPIX
Svendsen is the polar opposite Asbjørn Kjønstad law professor, he is the man who led the Tobacco Act in the pen. He believes the time is overripe for smoking in Norwegian homes where children are present, especially the children’s room and car.
He would certainly not have alcohol advertising on television, and he thinks the EU’s snuff-denial is a reasonable regulation.
– We still have a lot of freedom in Norway, even though we have a strict alcohol and tobacco laws, “said Kjønstad to nrk.no.
– When it comes to nicotine and alcohol, these drugs are the highly addictive. One does not have the same opportunity to use freedom if one is addicted, “he says.
– Therefore I think it must be regulations on these areas. For decades we have known that passive smoking is a health hazard. Yet many people still smoke with children present. Then it is my opinion about time that lawmakers interferes continues Kjønstad.
Article is Google translated.
Article by NRK.no:
I wonder what this guy Lars Fredrik Svendsen is thinking about? He is a philosopher. Alright he is not a doctor, but surely he understands that smoke is not something you can steer or control in any way? When a person smoke then the smoke gets out in free air, and anyone that is around the person smoking get affected by it. The smoker got no possibility to steer the smoke other directions. They might think they can but the reality is it get dissolved in the air, and all particles of chemicals in it is spread all over. And all the particles spread everyone around them have to breathe in.
This law has come to protect those who work in restaurants and other places where the public have access. Working areas have been protected by the Working environment law from before, so that people working in any firm or business will not be subjected to health damages such as second-hand smoking.
He claim that smokers should have the right to smoke if they want. He claim it should be in their own free choise to smoke and where they smoke. But what about those who do not smoke because they are children, have chosen not to start smoking, or because they get ill from tobacco smoke – for example people with chronic lung illnesses like asthma, COLD and other respiratory illnesses and difficulties – and also because tobacco smoke is damaging to the health.
As I said before the smoker can not steer the smoke, and even if he could he pollutes the air around and forces others to breathe in the chemicals.
For me and other people who get ill from tobacco smoke this is just as bad as forced feeding. We get forced to smoke – it is lamely called passive smoking – but the more true word would be forced smoking.
And the law have come because smokers got to little knowledge about the large perspective of the damage they do to others, and often is not showing enough consideration and care about those who of any reason have chosen not to smoke. They like to do it, and therefore they do it all over and no matter what. It should not be necessary for an asthmatic person to get an asthma attack every time only to prove to the smokers that they should show consideration. Unfortunately that is the case with to many of those who smoke.
Smokers can smoke if they want, as long as they go out and sit on a root in the forest alone while doing it, then they do not force smoke anyone.
This person Lars Fredrik Svendsen… For being a person Philosophic he does not think longer than his nose reach.
Smoking is toxic, and damaging to the health, and everyone have the right to breathe fresh air, therefore smoking is regulated. If a person chooses to smoke then that person must take what comes along with it – showing other consideration, care, and smoke where it does not hurt or abuse others. That is only common sense and basic good upbringing, but unfortunately to many smokers do not have that in the case of smoking.
I am for one glad for the smoking prohitition, without that my life would be much more limited. And I have the right to work, meet people, go out and breathe without problems just as anyone else. The smoker can do that, so why should I and everyone else not be able to? That is why we got the smoke prohititions. And I hope there will be more prohibitions. There should be a law against using perfume at work and on public transportations too. And there should be a prohibitions against using perfumed cleaning products and perfume at restaurants and such places too. Even asthmatic people need to use the toilet once in a while and without getting an asthma attack.
I think people like Svendsen and others thinking like this is only making a fool out of themselves, and they really do not think of others and no longer than their noses reach.
Maybe they should try having they lung function disabled a couple of months because of their smoke? Maybe then they would understand?
To comment click comment below.