EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Pressured by the EU, Bulgarian lawmakers are once again vowing to ignore the personal freedom and property rights of each of us.
The Parliament is about to vote on amendments to the Health Act, which would lead to a ban on smoking in establishments, workplaces and playgrounds. Pressured by the EU, Bulgarian lawmakers are once again vowing to disregard the personal freedom and property rights of each of us. The republic, which does not like our rules, has long resisted the Eurocratic drive to forcefully save the lungs, but it is time to break our resolve – after all, sovereignty is not transferred to Brussels just like that.
According to NSI data, 40.5% of men and 18.9% of women in the country who actively use tobacco products will be prevented from satisfying their need for nicotine in public places from June 1. Worse, thousands of owners of establishments and offices will not be able to dispose of their property. The state will fine and punish them if they do not introduce an internal order in their properties that it likes.
We have already talked about the importance and inviolability of personal choice in our article on the legalization of drugs. Everything said there applies with equal force to tobacco – no matter how harmful it is, its use is a matter of personal decision. In this text, however, I will focus on an additional argument that is used against cigarettes, but almost never when it comes to other types of narcotic substances. I am referring to the thesis about the harm of smoke produced by the smoker and harmful to others (especially in closed and poorly ventilated spaces) or from the so-called “passive smoking”.
When we add the danger to others, the ban begins to take on a different meaning. It is not so much to save smokers from the harmful effects of tobacco, but rather to protect the innocent victims who find themselves in the same cafe or restaurant with them. It seems logical, after all, I did not make the person at the next table light up, he did not even ask my permission, but his smoke is destroying my health as well. To a reader with an economic background, this may sound like a classic case of negative externality [1], which for many is a “market failure” and requires the intervention of a state regulator.
In fact, there is another possible point of view. The price is not paid without the consent of both parties, because if a visitor does not like the atmosphere in the establishment, then he is free to leave. Advocates of state intervention forget that people visit bars, pubs and cafes of their own free will and have the right to stay or leave. At the same time, each owner has the right (or at least should) to decide what is allowed on his property. After all, what is the difference between inviting guests to your living room or to your five-star restaurant? The rules are imposed by the owner, and just as the state cannot tell you whether to smoke in your home, it should not tell you about your other properties.
The same can be said for those working in a smoke-filled environment. Both the salary and the working conditions are part of the contract concluded between the employer and the employee. If the employer has an intolerance to smoking, he can either directly refuse to work with a smoke-free employer or demand a premium on his salary. The heavy hand of the state does not need to interfere.
The best solution in the situation is, as always, the market. Left free, it will most correctly take into account the preferences of all consumers, not just a vocal minority. If there is demand, restaurants will appear for smokers only or for non-smokers only. Other establishments will separate the two groups through insulation and ventilation. The wishes of the people and the ideas of entrepreneurs will lead to an answer that satisfies all parties without trampling on anyone's rights.
[1] A cost or expense incurred by a party who did not consent to the action that gave rise to the cost or expense.
Bad stat, Stoqne, many rightly thought and good arguments. I don't push but I'm afraid of being banned for these reasons.
I don't smoke either 🙂 Thanks for the positive opinion.
Are you normal? If you didn't like smoking in the office, you should have quit your job... Have you heard of healthy and safe working conditions? There's a whole law about that. I can't even get a word out of it about the inequality between employers and workers. The author claims some hot-and-cold stuff about the freedom of the market, a liberal economy without state intervention, and other nonsense that he reads about in university textbooks, but he doesn't have any experience. So let's dissolve the state, who needs it to continue to exist when it only causes harm. I don't care at all who smokes and who doesn't, who gets stoned and who gets laid with men, but when it comes to protecting important public interests like public HEALTH, state intervention is absolutely necessary to finally stop the terrorizing of visitors who might prefer to dine without being exposed to the poisonous smoke.
How do you know how much experience the author has and in what? The other topics are answered very accurately in the article
Well, let them have dinner at their place. For example, I really hate it when someone has dinner for me while I'm smoking!
What kind of equality is that, "boss"?!?!? I'll create a business, I'll work day and night to get it somewhere and then you'll come to me as a worker and start asking for - a salary, rest, clean air, more light and I don't know what else, while you're picking your nose all day long! There you go! Equality!!! Actually, you're not right when I listen to you - you're not the OWNER of the establishment to want there to be no smoke, or for your walls to be less blue, or for more likeable people to gather - the kind that you like. It's like going to a party and forbidding the host to smoke or drink or eat whatever he eats. If you don't like it - you leave, that's what elementary upbringing requires. However, people like you, as well as a large part of Bulgarians, think that their opinion is the only authoritative one. And hey, enough with your health, you've been yelling at me until I'm sick - let the smokers think about it, and you, since you don't smoke and are so delicate to me and can't last half an hour in a restaurant - make your own for non-smokers and since there are so many non-smokers - you're welcome, you'll become a millionaire!
State intervention means mass ignorance, violence, lawlessness, hunger, death, bankruptcy and other benefits raised on a pedestal by regimes loving the boot of strong statehood. The opposite is a state in which human rights and freedom come first. If we want to be free and wealthy, we must limit regulations. A quick look at the world economy immediately shows a direct relationship between great freedom (little regulations) and prosperity (high GDP per capita).
I absolutely agree.
And a deeper and not so quick look will show that the market is not a panacea. Especially the labor market, which is far from perfect and in which workers often do not have much bargaining power. They are squeezed by economic realities, are vulnerable to abuse and are more likely to put up with one cigarette smoke. And only the state, with its 'heavy hand', is able to protect the rights of these people. Good article, but there are some gaps and I think that shefche's arguments were not completely justified in ignoring.
Quite the opposite would show a deeper look at the market. In an economic crisis, not only workers are more vulnerable, but also people who own and use capital. If they are willing to put up with it, then it is not such a big problem for them. Everyone has their own pyramid of priorities and follows it.
Изключително слаба статия..пълна с глупости.
Първо, 'В крайна сметка, каква е разликата между това да поканиш гости в хола си или в петзвездния си ресторант?' Ресторантът е фирма да вади пари от хората, за което се плащат данъци на държавата. Не е като в хола ти, тъй като не е жилищна сграда, където живееш за постоянно...
Второ, супер абсурдно е да се твърди, че държавата трябва да даде на хората пълна свобода да правят каквото искат. Твоите права свършват там, където започват правата на другите хора! В тоя ред на мисли никой не е длъжен да се трови от дима само защото на теб ти се пуши (просто е абсурдно).
Трето, държавата трябва да се грижи за общественото здраве на хората.Утре тия пушачи ще хванат рак и къде мислиш, че ще отидат да се лекуват?? Отговор - в болницата, която се издържа от данъците на всички! След като държавата поема разходите ти за лечение е нормално да те насърчи да не се разболяваш...Пушенето си е типичен пример за negative externality(както беше споменато в статията), където държавата трябва да се намеси и да го разреши.
Четвърто, горните два коментара за държава без регулации е просто смешна. Мога да ти гарантирам, че в САЩ има много повече регулации от Индия и са милион пъти по-богати.
Пето, аз съм пушач и се опитвам да спра цигарите. Не виждам как като отида в ресторант, в който всички пушат около мен, ще успея да го направя...
My answer got deleted. I'll write it again. I'm driving fine.
1. Companies don't "make" money, they provide goods and services. Customers value them more than their monetary cost, and that's why they pay for them.
2. That's right. No one is obligated to poison themselves, and if they are in my home they are free to leave at any time.
3. The state should not take care of public health. What you mention is a problem of the health system, which pays for many externalities. Example - alcohol.
4. The US became rich before regulations, and despite them. The funny thing is, you're going into this conversation not knowing enough about it.
5. I don't know if I can give advice. I've never smoked, but willpower + avoiding restaurants might help you.
1. Purchased goods for a home treat are also taxed, the difference is that in an establishment the customer receives services for which he pays, which are also taxed! Hence salaries, which are also taxed, as well as profits, which are also taxed. Establishments, in turn, pay fees and services, which are also taxed! 🙂
2. It applies to you too
3. Excise duty from the sale of alcohol and cigarettes to be used for its intended purpose
4. Whether the US is richer than India is questionable (apart from purchasing power) 😀
You are right and wrong.. 🙂
You are right because what you think is really true for you, but in practice it is not.
You discuss smoking from an economic point of view, and you think that the market will deal with the problem on its own, but you know that the market is not perfect, and you cannot let it act on its own. Why, because it will have no direction, and all people are different and have different knowledge, that is, if I know how to manipulate you and convince you that smoking is useful, what can the market do, nothing(!), because then I am the market 🙂 The market is a set of principles that are different in different situations, the market does not respond to certain principles, why, because they change. Today people know one thing and act one way, tomorrow another. And what is the market then? A collection of people's choices and actions, but when one person knows more than others, he can direct them where to go and thus direct the market, that is, I can convince you that smoking is beneficial, as was done in the past, and make you smoke, but is it right that the "market", or more precisely the desire of some people leads me there? It still depends on whether you care about your health, if yes, then you should stop smoking, if you don't, then something is wrong in your thoughts and logic, because the basic reflex of the human body is to protect itself from dangers, from dying, and cigarettes kill it. And whatever logics and justifications are found regarding why smoking should not be banned, they will be wrong, because the main thing is to stay alive.
And the fact that some people are manipulated, lie to themselves, or are misled, they need to be helped by others to understand why they are doing wrong.
It's not a matter of choice, because do you know how many smokers want to quit, but can't because they don't know how?
They are addictive and a person needs help to quit them. Few people will manage on their own.
You say it's a matter of personal choice?
That's right, but when you are addicted to them your thinking changes, you don't think soberly and rationally. You talk as if people know everything and can do everything, as if a person is informed about everything, as if a person is not wrong, but we do it impartially. And that's exactly what our friends, comrades, acquaintances, society and the state are for, to show us where the right path is.
If you think the market is perfect, then there is still a lot to learn about economics, I do not have an economics education, but I know the principles of life. And you know that economics is built on game theory, which is created on the principle of selfishness, and its creator even admitted that this is wrong and incorrect. We have survived thanks to the principle of mutual aid, if it were not for it, we would not be here now. And please, when you read something and even learn something, check whether it is true by comparing it with reality, because theoretically every logic is correct, in order to know which one is really correct, we must see reality. And economics is fundamentally a wrong science, there are some correct observations on people's choices, but it only makes us selfish, which is destructive for society, if we do not help each other we will perish, because if I ask you, will you soon have rediscovered the car, no, and electricity, no, they were given to you by people, and paying for things is wrong. Yes, indeed, there must be some kind of exchange, but it should not be considered wealth to own paper. Wealth is knowledge, the qualities of individual people, and the things achieved, that is wealth!
And I hope you really study economics and understand why it's wrong. Many savvy economists have had the knowledge to look past what they're teaching and see that it's wrong. And it needs to change.
Your logic is very wrong, but I understand that it is due to incorrect knowledge, logic, assumptions, and other things.
I hope you understand someday why you are wrong.
Sincerely, Kala
You make a fundamental mistake with your first paragraph. You think you know better what is good and bad for a person than he does. As for how to understand what a person wants, it is best seen when he is left free to make a choice. It is noble to help a smoker give up his addiction to cigarettes, but to force him through the repressive apparatus of the state is a manifestation of evil.
In the second paragraph, the same mistake. There is no kind of rational thinking. The decision to smoke, despite the dangers, as well as to drink, have unprotected sex, swim in a stormy sea, etc. are rational choices. I see that you are proud that you do not have knowledge, but sometimes it helps.
I couldn't possibly deal with the last part of what you wrote. I'm not sure how to approach such naivety and ignorance, if you'll excuse me.
Greetings,
Stoyan
Well done!
Finally someone to oppose me!
Do you understand what my logic is based on? Well done for that! But that doesn't mean you're right 🙂
"You make a fundamental mistake with your first paragraph. You think you know better what is good and bad for a person than he does."
Now how do you know that I don't know which is better? 😀
Do you understand, you are opposing me that I don't know and you think that you are right because you think that I am wrong, but how do you think that you are right? You are using logic, if I am wrong then you are right, but we can both be wrong or we can both be right.
Do you understand? You're using my logic. But from your perspective. And that logic is supported by the things you think you know, the things you think are the way you think. 😀
Are you confused? Or did you get it?
You say that I am wrong because I think I know what is better for a person, but how do you know that I don't?
But keep in mind that I'm not saying I know everything, or that I know anything at all. I'm just showing you your logic. Don't draw the wrong conclusions from what I say, because I can say the opposite and they could be true.
"As for how to understand what a person wants, it is best seen when he is left free to make a choice."
Free choice? There is no such thing? 😀 What does this mean? There is no free choice, something always matters for our decision, that is, I want to be rich, but why do I want it? Because they think they will live better, but there are people who are rich and suffer internally, they are not happy. Our choices are reflexes and conventions.
When making a choice, how do you understand what to choose? Well, by what you like, what is useful, what they have recommended to us, etc., that is, our choice is known, if these things are known, it is clear how you will act. You think that you decide, but you do not decide, you simply drift along with the flow of life, and you think that you choose. I have not seen you fly recently? 😀 Or have you invented something great, the choice is a mirage. Are you saying that you do not want, and even if you want, you cannot at the moment? 😀
You can do one, the other or nothing, and those are our choices. Well, you will say that there are many choices, but tell me how you understand how to act? Well, no, you act in a certain way according to what you want to achieve. Is that a choice? Well, yes, we do choose something, but in principle we have no choice.
"The decision to smoke, despite the dangers, as well as to drink, have unprotected sex, swim in rough seas, etc. are rational choices." Yes, they are choices. But are they right?
If you see your friend making a mistake, wouldn't you stop him? If you see that there is a hole in front of him that he could fall into, wouldn't you warn him?? That's what it's all about. Let's show them that they are wrong. You know that smoking is harmful, but your vision is blurred by the fact that you think that choice is more important than helping and showing the other person's mistake.
"I couldn't deal with the last part of what you wrote. I'm not sure how to approach such naivety and ignorance, if you'll excuse me."
Very good and restrained answer. Bravo.
You have to keep in mind that any logic is correct, but it is important that it corresponds to reality. That is, you have to know the world and interpret it correctly, because otherwise you will get entangled and use logics with incorrect conclusions about the world. We do not know what reality is, we simply interpret and assume.
And another thing, you are right, because you know so much and if you knew more you would understand more. Therefore, your logic is correct for your knowledge, but it is wrong in principle. And in principle, from the point of view of what needs to be done.
Congratulations again for opposing me.
Greetings: Kala
Oh, I'm sorry, you know it's noble to help a smoker, but the problem with you is the state.
You are prejudiced against her and don't think she can handle it.
"It is noble to help a smoker give up his addiction to cigarettes..."
"... but to force it through the repressive apparatus of the state is a manifestation of evil."
"...a manifestation of evil" hehe, very extreme words.
I understand that you are concerned about the problems and absurdities of the state, we all know about them, but do you know what the state's problem is?
Me, you, the person walking down the street, and all the people of this country.
Who is the state?
The rulers? The ministers, which in Latin means servant? The president? NO, the state is all the people who live in it. The state was created so that so many people could live in one place, it is the organization that is necessary for people to be united and work together.
The state is a great discovery. And you shouldn't blame the state itself. You shouldn't blame those who govern it either. Because imagine that you are the president, the minister and the deputies, etc., what rules will you make to fix the state? The rules are clear and that's not the problem, the problem is when someone challenges your rules because they don't understand them and don't know. Like people do. They don't understand many things, but they give their opinion as if they are aware of it and what's worse is that they don't learn from their mistake. And I want to tell you that the problem of the state is the people in it. Everywhere in the world, states have a problem, all states have problems with corruption.
If you want our country to improve, you have to change!
You, me and every person.
Because when we learn not to throw our trash outside, but to recycle, when you stop smoking, when you give up alcohol, when you understand that there are worse things than death, when you are ready to give your life for a friend, when you understand that every person is your friend, because on this Earth we are alone, when we learn to learn and improve, when we take life into our own hands, and not blame others and make excuses, when you overcome your shortcomings and correct your mistakes because everyone makes mistakes and it is because of our mistakes that our country is at this level.
The state cannot make you do anything, only you can.
There have been many countries that have tried violence, slavery, selfishness (capitalism), but it doesn't work, the best principle is mutual aid, because thanks to it we are at this high level of development. When someone discovers something, they share it with others, when they make a discovery it helps everyone. Free of charge, like the cells of our body. There is no logic in saying I will do this, and you do that for me, everything is free, because we are one common organism and if we are not united and don't help each other, we will all die, each person depends on the other. I cannot survive without you and vice versa. I don't know how an airplane or a car works and I am not an engineer, people's knowledge is scattered among different people and it depends on these people to have these amenities.
You need to understand some things, and discover others.
You need to realize your faulty logic.
You need to learn that you make mistakes too, everyone makes mistakes, but learn to correct yourself and admit that you made a mistake not to someone else, but to yourself.
You need to see the other person's point of view, understand why a person says something and what their statement is based on.
You need to understand the real things in life!!! And it's not money (paper as much as you want), it's not power, etc. It's your friends, it's the moments you've experienced, it's life itself!
You have to understand that we know nothing.
You need to understand that the world is contradictory and nothing makes sense, it only makes sense to you.
I am not a Christian and I do not believe in religion, I am a person seeking the truth...
And I apologize for not understanding you and being hasty.
But the logic he uses is wrong. Understand it and find out why.
Regarding your view of the state as a manifestation of evil. The state is what we make it.
The state is a collection of people who live in it, and as they are, so is the state.
If you don't like it, change it! But don't blame it, because we make mistakes too. When we correct ourselves and learn, the country will also improve 🙂
Change yourself, change the world.
Greetings: Kala
postscript: this will be my last novel because I'm tired of explaining the same thing every time.
The main thing is to understand where you are wrong and where you are using wrong logic and blind belief without coverage. To understand what you are saying.
I used a lot of those too, but now I'm taking it upon myself to find and fix them, you can do it too...
For some technical reason, I can't post it directly under the penultimate post - that's why it's here.
No matter how much you play with words, my idea is crystal clear. You certainly don't have a shred of the information you need to know who should, wants and can make what choice. My logic has nothing to do with yours. And I certainly know that you don't know, it's absolute nonsense to claim the opposite.
Regarding free choice, I would agree to some extent that it is limited by circumstances/situations. This does not prevent a person from having the opportunity to freely take one path or another within the context of the situation.
I agree about helping others, it is indeed right to help. The difference is that when this "help" comes in the form of state interference in personal and property rights, we are on a completely different plane. Today it will be about smoking, tomorrow the state will "help" us not to eat unhealthy food, the next day not to "waste our time".
Greetings,
Stoyan
"No matter how much you blunder with words, my idea is crystal clear."
Good rebuttal to my question and logic, but such tricks don't work for me 🙂 With these words, you are simply saying that you don't understand what I wrote to you and wanted to tell you.
When you oppose and comment with someone about something, you have to oppose them with arguments and if you are right you will be able to point out where the other person is wrong, and the other person should, when he understands that something is wrong, stop arguing and understand where he is wrong and what he still doesn't know. Because there is no point in simply arguing, I am already above that level and my goal is not to argue, but to show mistakes and learn. I argue a lot pointlessly and aimlessly, I have a lot of experience in this 🙂 That is why I can now see what they are telling me and where they are wrong, and if I see that I am wrong I admit it. But in order to admit that I was wrong you have to refute my logic and arguments, and you simply dismiss them and pass them by.
"No matter how much you blunder with words, my idea is crystal clear."
You don't accept my logic and idea, but why is it a question?
You have to justify yourself to be right and not be influenced by your own delusions. When you argue with someone, there will be many things you will be wrong about and you have to be ready to see and correct them. I have been wrong a lot and I know that feeling sucks, but in order to grow you have to overcome it and learn from your mistakes and not persist in your words just because you think it is so without coverage, because the words are not yours, it is your opinion that you must be able to defend with arguments, and not use logical fallacies that I have learned to detect because they are the basis of many mistakes in discussion.
You have to learn to discover your own misconceptions, and this becomes easy when you try to defend your opinion and if you fail to argue it, you simply believe it, and almost always this is just a misconception and misunderstanding caused by ignorance.
Saying I'm right because I'm right is not an argument or proof 🙂
You say that your idea is extremely clear, Yes, that's how I see it, but look at it too... but from my point of view.
You can't see the other person's point of view unless you admit you're wrong. Just let it be and see how things work out.
DON'T BE INSPIRED BY EMOTIONS!
Don't think with emotions, if you are feeling any emotion, remove it by relaxing your muscles, especially your face.
Emotions lie and deceive. Faith also lies and deceives.
And Hitler believed he was doing the right thing. I really like this example 🙂 And you believed and thought you were right the last time you were wrong 🙂 Everyone has experienced it, but no one has understood it.
"...my idea is crystal clear."
Yes, it is clear and I have shown you and argued with two novels where you are wrong and why it is not correct. I am not saying that you are wrong, but that it is not correct. That is, it is correct for you and therefore it is not wrong that you expressed it, but it is incorrect if you want to fix society by showing it that it is wrong; if you know that the state can cope, but the people who build it cannot.
"You certainly don't have a shred of the information you need to know who should, wants, and can make what choices."
And the two novels I wrote, what were they, a fairy tale? 🙂
Whenever you use absolute words, you are lying, like - always, must, certainly, etc., because you have to answer why or how you know 🙂 And this applies to everyone who uses them 🙂
"You certainly don't have a shred of the information you need to know who should, wants, and can make what choices."
How do you know for sure? 🙂
If you really know, answer me.
I have knowledge of marketing and manipulations and I am aware that the choice you make especially in a store is almost clear, that you will choose something familiar and that you know, you will choose something unfamiliar only if there is nothing familiar and you have no other choice, like looking in another store and you are in a hurry. When choosing from 3 different prices you will choose the middle price, at least most people, because people don't think they are poor (not the right word, but I can't think of another). I can say more about the choice, I am also familiar with manipulations, which also influence the choice.
Regarding the fact that I don't know who should make what choice,... you're right, I don't know, I admit it, I'm just guessing until someone refutes it and shows it to me. Or I don't realize it 🙂 But you're guessing too 🙂
"My logic has nothing to do with yours."
You just don't understand it and see it.
It was on the same basis, just the conclusions and premises were different. And I realized this recently. And I started to see logics that are used by both sides for their own purposes. It's like a comedy sketch once you understand it 🙂
"And I certainly know that you don't know, it's absolute nonsense to claim otherwise."
Well, okay, explain to me how you know that I don't know? Show me. Don't just say I don't know, but argue your case.
A statement in itself means nothing without supporting it with arguments.
"And I certainly know that you don't know, it's absolute nonsense to claim otherwise."
There's no point in me claiming the opposite, that is, you're saying that I can't convince you otherwise 🙂 This way you're not convincing me, but defending your unfounded belief...
"The difference is that when this "aid" comes in the form of state interference in personal and property rights, we enter a completely different plane."
Well, this state is still your fault, and aren't the others also to blame? Is only the state responsible? If you think the state is responsible for everything, why do you blame it when it does its job poorly?
If not, and help fix it!?!
But you will make the same mistakes as them if some things are not understood.
"Today it will be about smoking, tomorrow the state will "help" us not to eat unhealthy, the next day not to "waste our time"."
🙂
Why do you think he'll start banning these other things?
You think this way because of your faulty logic and logical fallacies.
Just because they ban something now doesn't mean they'll ban everything 🙂 🙂
You hold on to your opinion and that's your choice, but if you can't argue it and answer my questions, you should think about whether your opinion is correct...
It's up to you to mature and understand where and why you're wrong. And if you don't want the choice and your life is yours, I can help you that much, the rest you have to figure out yourself... Good luck....
Sincerely, Kala
It's hard for me to respond to such long nonsense, but I've caught on to the dance. Proving to you that you don't know the right decisions for each individual is as absurd as your very claim that you do. The same logical nonsense as making me prove to you that there is no god or aliens.
I didn't see a single argument in the novels that would show me I was wrong.
I am not saying anywhere that my state is guilty of anything. I do not want to hold "it" responsible, just that it does not interfere with personal and property rights. Plain and simple.
To understand why I think so, there is a book by Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek - The Road to Serfdom. It is explained very well there.
I stand by my opinion and have presented my arguments. You simply stand by your opinion and write.
The smoking ban is a direct consequence of people's distorted understanding of rights. They believe that they have the right to be in someone's establishment and if they don't like the atmosphere, to stomp their feet and insist on providing them with the conditions they want, even using the repressive apparatus of the state. In the same way, they believe that the right to work means that someone is obliged to provide them with a job that meets their qualifications, the right to travel, that someone is obliged to provide them with cheap transportation from the place they want to travel to the place they want to go, etc.
I'm glad there are still people who understand what rights mean 🙂
You're right, I guess I really was talking nonsense to you.
So please accept my apology for that.
Sincerely, Kala
And here's what happened after the fact. They passed the health law in such a way that the part about open spaces already discriminated against smokers. And don't tell me that at 11 o'clock in the evening there will be children on the playground in front of the apartment building. Or at noon, if there is no one alive, it will still be a nuisance to someone if I light up...
And regarding Bulgarian politics, here is a picture of how laws are passed. http://snimki.be//store/1/261337334846.JPG
If 90 people or 37% of the members of parliament are in favor, then the law can pass.
I'm not in favor of intolerance towards non-smokers, but here the parliamentarians have already gone to great lengths in the most pathetic way.
To Baba Yaga,
Baba Yago, people get sick for various reasons. Mostly because of being overweight - they have the most diseases - "The state should ban overeating by law!" There should be fines for those who chew near childcare facilities - they give a bad rep to children who will become fat hypertensives. Malicious people should also be excluded from health insurance - they often have ulcers or roadblocks and should be prescribed very expensive sedatives. And what can I say about drivers who park on the sidewalk and I walk on the road, if I get distracted for a moment - let's go for expensive procedures in Pirogov! Let's negotiate ....... huh?
The smoking intervention in establishments will work on the same principle as the HEI's intervention for cleanliness and the tax on cash registers. Just as a uniform standard of cleanliness is imposed to preserve the life and health of the establishment's visitors, so too will the law against smoking be enforced.
The imposed "laws" for cleanliness are the same as the smoking ban. Things that the state should not be involved with.
The law banning smoking in public places is DISCRIMINATION,
which makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
The number of smokers in Bulgaria is nearly 3,000,000 out of about 4,800,000 people.
of legal smoking age or not yet old enough to afford it (18 to 64 years old)
Regarding ... health-minded people - every day you eat carcinogenic nitrite salt, which is put in sausages,
and with that, scientists inject experimental mice to cause them to have CANCER
and they are researching them, so stop your healthy thinking......you guess where!!!
And here we are talking about the right to CHOICE!!!
The whole case is resolved with an ordinance for establishments for smokers and non-smokers,
and not through
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION!!!
Look at the genius without smoke what the brain has born "Smokers should pay higher social security contributions and have their wages deducted for the working hours lost due to vice". The freshman wrote an extremely smart proposal. And those who smoke for three get fat like scoundrels and catch a bunch of diseases thanks to their gluttony, shouldn't they pay social security contributions for three? How come I, who smoke and don't get sick, have to pay for the repairs of some excrement factory from my health contributions. They should withhold their wages because they are crammed in during working hours. If one cigarette is smoked for 10 minutes, their smoking sometimes lasts for an hour.
By the way, if there was a free market for health insurance, smokers would pay higher premiums, and so would fat people, most likely. But that would depend on the agreement between the client and the service provider.
Countries in Europe are starting to relax their anti-smoking measures. And they had started so abruptly with bans, saw that it had no effect and relaxed the regime. France, Germany and Italy, and now Sweden already have a lighter smoking regime - there are places only for smokers and places for non-smokers. This is what we insist on, everyone should know their place and the end of the arguments.
Bulgaria is probably one of the few countries left where the market Taliban preach their madness so shamelessly. The above article is yet another proof that "freedom" as understood by liberal extremists represents a brazen imposition and disregard for the elementary public interest.
"will be prevented from satisfying their nicotine cravings in public places from June 1st."
You may feel inhibited from masturbating in public, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to. Practicing a harmful habit is not part of human rights and freedoms, especially when it creates discomfort and endangers the health of others. At least because of that nice Protestant principle "my freedom ends where yours begins." Libertarians supposedly invoke it, but only when it comes to them.
Apart from that, nicotine addiction can be satisfied in many different ways - electronic cigarettes, nicotine gums and patches, and even chewing tobacco. You don't stink yourself and others, and you don't swallow the carcinogens in cigarettes.
I see some nicotine addicts who have fallen into withdrawal screaming that it was discrimination. No one was born a smoker - they chose to practice a harmful habit themselves. Moreover, no one prevents them from practicing it, only from imposing it on others.
"Worse, thousands of restaurant and office owners will not be able to dispose of their property"
When you use your property for commercial purposes, you have to comply with the relevant requirements and norms, especially when it comes to hygiene and safety. That's why there is a huge difference "between inviting guests to your living room or to your five-star restaurant". Do you charge money to the people you invite to your living room? By the same logic, restaurateurs should be allowed to serve in unwashed dishes and sell products with expired expiration dates - because it's their place and they can do whatever they want.
"he can either directly abandon relations with a smoking-friendly employer or demand a premium on his remuneration"
This is the kind of talk I love the most. What most propagandists of this type of idea have in common is that they have no real experience in the labor market, which is why they are unaware of the real options for choosing between employers in the current economic conditions, and the likelihood of setting any requirements on the part of the employee. Not only is no employer going to start paying damages to its employees - most of them don't even pay insurance, let alone taxes. But they have the audacity to justify their bankruptcy with the smoking ban...
"The best solution in the situation is, as always, the market"
This case is one of the most obvious proofs that the market is not a solution to anything, even more so than various global crises that "self-regulation" has led to. Even the statistics cited in the article show that non-smokers are the majority, and the "vocal minority" that imposes itself are precisely smokers. Previous regimes have led to the fact that practically any establishment you step into smells like a foxhole. The few real places for non-smokers are stuck in attics, basements and in the hallways of toilets and kitchens. The market obviously does not create conditions for more than half of potential, and even real, consumers. Many psychological factors also influence this - for example, a non-smoker is more inclined to give in than a nervous nicotine addict. Separately, there are establishments such as clubs and concert halls where separation is even theoretically impossible. Come on, explain to me why, for example, a non-smoker should sacrifice his comfort and health to hear his favorite band? How does this fit into the talk of freedom and rights?
And the current initiative to repeal the ban does not even come from the minority of smokers, but from the lobby of cigarette manufacturers-smugglers, who have nowhere to sell the cigarettes without a tax stamp that are being exported to the Middle East.
Your tirade begins by throwing around definitions that you certainly cannot explain. I would be happy if you would try to tell me what "public interest" is, how it is formed, and how it is recognized.
Everyone has the right to be a drug addict, a drunkard, an athlete or a vegetarian. And with their choice, they in no way interfere with others. I see that you do not distinguish between "in a public place" and "public property", which certainly leads to some of your misconceptions.
You wrote that when you offer a restaurant service, you have to comply with regulations, which tells us nothing about the subject. The monopolist of violence can invent whatever regulations he wants and impose them. Taking money does not change the voluntary nature of the exchange - both parties have agreed to participate. One provides a place to eat, and the other eats and pays.
Regarding the "sacrifice" of a non-smoker's comfort to hear a band, that's a personal decision. If a band wants to play in a place where they smoke, maybe we should ban them because one (or more) smoker(s) will be uncomfortable. If you can't feel what nonsense you're talking about, I don't think it's worth explaining any further.
Every time I talk to a market Taliban or a neo-Bolshevik, I am left with the feeling that I am either talking to a mentally ill person or to a person who is a total hypocrite and plays the clown, just to not give up on his ideological positions. Somehow I cannot believe that someone is so indoctrinated that he really writes off even the most elementary life logic in his reasoning. Because it is precisely elementary logic that clearly shows what the public interest is in this case. Stimulating drug addiction is definitely not included in it, although a great business can be turned out of vices.
The "personal choice" of the drug addict and the drunkard has enough direct and indirect effects on others - if you really don't understand the difference between these things and vegetarianism, which you gave as an example, then you deserve to be beaten by a drunkard, robbed by a drug addict, and get cancer from passive smoking. Let's see how you console yourself with Ayn Rand then.
The "monopolist of violence" argument is touching, but also laughable. Leaving aside the fact that the state is far from a monopolist - in practice, and often in theory - in the case of smoking, violence is expressed in the imposition of business interests on the majority of people who have decided not to poison themselves. This is being told to you by a man who keeps Proudhon, Bakunin and Kropotkin in a place of honor in his library.
"Some provide a place to eat, while others eat and pay"
It is precisely de - smoking that has no place in this case. By agreeing to leave your money in an establishment of any type, you presumptively believe that the service includes the appropriate standards of hygiene and comfort. Just as you do not expect to catch salmonellosis, hepatitis or something else from unwashed dishes or sick employees, nor should other visitors be allowed to have sex or defecate on the table whenever they feel like it, you should not be poisoned and stinky by addict smokers. A completely natural hygiene measure.
Your explanation about the concerts is so absurd that it really doesn't deserve an explanation. I see that I've inspired you to separately spit out a large version of your above outburst, but I'll reassure you - I won't continue this conversation. I know from experience that arguing with a tape recorder spewing out ideological quotes is annoying and pointless. Besides, some people have real jobs 🙂
A pretty flat opinion.
The smoking ban aims first and foremost to make smoking "unpopular." Find statistics on how much smoking among minors has decreased over the years in countries that have introduced such strict measures.
I personally believe that cigarette smoke is a poison and is harmful to people's health, and it would be best if it were completely banned. But since there are too many people who smoke (and die from it), that is not possible.
Therefore, the state does what it can to protect the health of the people. Why wasn't it banned in Germany and Austria? Well, there it is so vile to smoke and they look at you with such disdain that there is no need for such measures. There, people smoke in Turkish cafes and in establishments for the lowest strata of society. That is, the goal has been achieved there - there is no need to tell children "it is ugly and vile to smoke", because the Germans know it.
And unfortunately, that's not the case here, here we have Rado Shisharkata, Pepa Sexa, Volen Siderov, etc. and here we need to take measures and set examples for children that smoking is a bad thing.
And you smoke as much as you want at home, teach your children that it's okay, but give me the opportunity to teach mine the opposite.
A main argument of the type "whoever doesn't like it - get out" is only a minus for the article. It reveals the weak, if not completely lacking persuasiveness. Hygiene standards and fire safety conditions, for example, are also imposed by the state and are developed and enriched with the progress of society. I believe that this intervention in the private sector is completely justified and that the smoking ban is part of these hygiene standards. Moreover - in simple words: visiting an establishment where it doesn't stink and smoke doesn't spread, in our culturally underdeveloped society, happens only when we are legally forced to stop "smearing our cigarette everywhere".
The topic is very modern and everyone is looking for oratorical victories against its backdrop. However, I believe that the ban is imperative among a people who would pee in a museum or church as long as they knew they wouldn't be fined.