Hacker News Reader

Comment by wereHamster | Hacker News Reader

The people in Schwyz (around Muotathal), Uri (Oberes Reusstal), and Luzern (Entlebuch) are like: Let us encourage our kids smoke that shit! https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/2/m

Very often you also see which municipalities correspond to big cities and which are more rural areas: https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/4/m (Bern, Zurich, Winterthur, Luzern voted differently than all other municipalities in their respective cantons).

And on this map you kindof see where the rich people live (Zürcher Goldküste, Zug): https://abstimmungen.tagesanzeiger.ch/2022-02-13/3/m. They voted against this proposal because it would have negatively affected them.

View on HN

> Let us encourage our kids smoke that shit!

Or - maybe there are still folks who believe freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.

Smoking, in particular, has significant effects on third parties so you're freedom to smoke takes away other people's right to clean air. For example, parents that smoke on the house with their kids who have no choice to leave.

That is not what we're talking about here.

We're talking about regulating ads.

I think this depends on whether or not you agree on the premise:

less smoking ads -> less smoking

Assuming you accept this premise, this legislation leads to a reduction in smoking which leads to a reduction in second-hand smoke. It follows that this legislation prevents the harm of other third-parties.

Note: I am implicitly assuming that:

less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders

is true (which it obviously is).

> less smoking ads -> less smoking

Maybe, and so what? Let other people do what they want, as long as it doesn't affect you.

Unless of course you're the standard do-gooder who can't bear to see others do things you have decided is wrong for them. If that's the way your brain is wired, there nothing left to say.

>less people smoking -> less harm to bystanders is true (which it obviously is).

It don't think it's obvious at all.

A smoker polluting other people with their second hand smoke is a smoker infringing on other people's freedom and right not to be poisoned.

And this is one rare area where government are actually supposed to be useful: defending your freedom not to be subjected to other people's stupidity.

That can perfectly happen without preventing people to poison themselves should they decide to.

You're not responding on-topic. People can still smoke, their "freedom to poison themselves" is fully intact. Ironically, stopping advertisements for cigarettes would give the consumer more freedom of choice free from corporate influence.

Less people smoking means less second-hand smoke. Also just fyi smoke residue clings to interiors so when things get sold the new owner inherits a gross smell and some carcinogenic exposure :)

It's not just people blowing smoke in your face outdoors

It seems all but impossible to fully "ban" second hand smoke: * how do you prove it? * how do you measure the amount in case you've proven it? It seems such a minor individual offense that courts would hardly accept cases.

So we probably have to rely on smoker's good will to not smoke near others instead of on the law.

Every population consists of nice people and inconsiderate people, with something like a normal distribution of niceness. Assuming that smokers follow this distribution, there will always be inconsiderate smokers which don't care and stand in front of doors blowing clouds of tar into other people's faces. The amount of such people will be governed by the rate of smokers. Hence, the best way to reduce second hand smoke is to reduce the count of smokers. Note that this even applies if we assume that smokers are much more considerate than the regular population.

>less smoking ads -> less smoking

Can you proof that or is that the same hoax like "same salary for men and women"

Hint..have a look at France.

I can't prove this part which is why I've explicitly stated the assumption.

Freedom is when children of all ages can enjoy a nice cigarette after school. 1984!

Yes, freedom means everybody is allowed to do whatever they want, even if I don't personally agree with their actions and even if some will elect to do stuff harmful to themselves.

Thanks for trying, but the meaning of the word freedom is slowly being changed and the fact that being free is actually a good thing is not something that's as obvious as it once was to the next generation.

Maybe because the previous generation's idea of "bringing freedom and democracy" meant glassing the Middle East. The "freest country on the planet" has been at war for the entire lifetime of all but the oldest zoomers born at the turn of the century.

As soon as freedom stops meaning "freedom of consequences for corporations and our military industrial complex" maybe it'll get some broader buy-in

You mean free to be advertised to by multibillion non-governmental organizations?

They can still smoke when they reach legal age. But I guess you're right, freedom to do anything without consequences is the only standard. We should let people sell and market heroin to 7 year olds if it turns a profit, even if they choose to do things that harm themselves they fully came to that decision alone and 100% understand all of the consequences without a developed prefrontal cortex

Or maybe some choices should carry consequences? You can't have both

That is an overly broad definition of freedom. Surely there are some actions which can be prohibited (e.g. murder, scam robocalls, and trying to get kids hooked on drugs) in a free society.

Yes, I should've said legal and as long as they're not impinging on somebody else's freedom.

> freedom actually matters and a citizen's duty is to keep government interference in people's lives at a healthy minimum.

Close to 100% of people would agree with that as a guiding principle and would quibble rather about the specifics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com