Tattoos can look extremely artistic when applied by a professional tattoo artist. I wouldn’t get a tattoo myself because I don’t personally believe in the chemicals used in them. But I admire some of the images I see. It doesn’t effect anyone else in any way. They are an individuals free right to express their autonomy.

Besides Ear piercing, I think body piercing looks terrible. But it does not effect anyone but the individual. If those who do body piercing are comfortable with the look, good on them for expressing their individuality.

Graffiti is a major cause of vandalism around the world. The damage cause by graffiti artists costs taxpayers millions of dollars to eradicate. Graffiti on private properties can cost the properties owners thousands of dollars.

Like body piercing and Tattoos, Graffiti is an act of expression of an individuals autonomy, the problem now, however, is that an individual is expressing their autonomy on property that does not belong to them. These individuals are committing vandalism by damaging others property.

Anyone of legal age can purchase cigarettes. They are legal in most countries. Besides personal health issues there is no problems associated with cigarettes if they are used in an environment away from non-smokers.

If a non-smoker is forced to breath in cigarette smoke simply by waiting for a bus, walking into a shop or sitting having a coffee in an Alfresco setting they are forced to consume the smoke of smokers enjoying their autonomy in the same environment.

Is there a difference between smoking and graffiti? Spray paint is legal, Graffiti is illegal. Just because a product is legal and freely available does not automatically give us the right to spray it around. Is there a difference with smoking other than damage we see verses damage to our health?

The owner of a property has the right to expect their property will not be vandalized by graffiti. Non-smokers have the right to ensure their health is not vandalized by cigarette smoke.

With any hobby or lifestyle choice we make, we should do so in such a way that shows at least some respect for those who don’t do it. If that happens, by default, we won’t need laws to make sure it does.

The local newspaper has run several letters to the editor focusing on why the commercial is wrong. Its not fair to do that to a kid, even if it is only for a few minutes some people have said.

The commercial in question uses a real life mother and son acting team. The boy, around 4 years old, knows the commercial is make believe and that his mum has only disappeared around the corner. The commercial is realistic but I don’t see any long-term problems for the boy in making it.

One particular letter in the local newspaper focused on the fact we are all going to die one day and we should be left alone to enjoy the pleasures of life until such time as its our time to leave.

This particular letter put many thoughts in my head and spurred me to write this article today.

The question in my head is why so many people look at life only as a precursor to death? As a people, do we really have such a low opinion of our abilities and ourselves.

Yes, we are all going to die some day. There is not much we can do about that. We are, however, not born only so we can die. Death should be the result of a long lived, full life – not forced upon us by actions we know are going to kill us.

Our kids look upon their parents for guidance. If it is all right for Mummy and Daddy to do it, it must be ok for me. We can attempt to live a do as I say, not as I do education pattern with our kids, but in the end, our kids will copy what we do more than what we ask them to do.

We all have the potential to leave a legacy to our own families and our community. I don’t believe we should belittle life to the point that we look upon it as an unnecessary precursor to death.

I think Tony Robbins put it best when he said “…It is not what we get. But who we become, what we contribute… that gives meaning to our lives…” not a packet of ciggies.

Eric J. Smith

When looking at the concept of freedom, we have to do so with the point of view that the traditional idea of freedom requires that someone must be put out for another to achieve or receive their own personal freedom. That’s how the democratic system works. Smoking is a good example of this.

In most countries smokers have the right to engage in their “hobby” knowing they have the freedom to do so. Those of us who do not smoke have to put up with the ghastly smell of smoke while a smoker expresses their freedom to light up.

The major down side to the freedom concept is in the lack on personal responsibility.

A Lack of Personal Responsibility and accountability for individual actions is where freedom takes a fall. Our society teaches us to avoid taking responsibility for our actions. For example, these days we can keep our No Claim Bonus even if the accident was our fault.

Individuals have the freedom, whether legally or not, to drop coins into slot machines, open their veins to drugs and consume excessive amounts of alcohol. When addiction sets in society must pay for the avoidance of individual personal responsibility.

As a society we should be given the freedom to do what’s right, in fact we shouldn’t be given the right to something we already possess. If our actions cause no inaction to others we should be able to express our autonomy within the bounds of governing law.

We do however need to be given less freedom to do what’s morally and ethically wrong. If our individual actions cause the loss of freedom to another individual, then we need to reconsider those selfish actions from the point of view of the person being put out.

We should have the freedom to be right and just. That doesn’t mean we should be free to be unjust.

The democratic system was set up to give individuals the right to express their individual freedom. There was no major emphasis put on doing what’s right by others. We have therefore grown into a society who grasps onto personal freedom but forget that our actions may be putting others out.

Zig Ziegler was quoted as saying… “We can have anything we want in life, simply by helping others get what they want…”

I think that sums up what this article is about.

Eric J. Smith

My reflection on the debate is more on the issue of what constitutes Dignity.

Dignity reflects basic human rights of virtue, respect, self-respect, autonomy and enlightened reason (be that religious or intellectual).

I have known several people who have fought, won and lost their battle with cancer and never have I seen more dignity in a person than when a single tear runs over the cheek of terminally ill friend while holding a photo of his family.

Just because you have cancer and fight the battle to the end, does not mean you do so without dignity.

I am NOT a Euthanasia supporter. But I am a believer in Autonomy within the bounds of governing law. From a legal perspective, The rational individual has the right to make decisions for themselves based around their own personal beliefs.

Those who don’t do a particular thing will usually suffer at the hands of those who do. I think they call it democracy, don’t they ?

Those who choose not to smoke will suffer by those who do.

Those who smoke will suffer by those who choose not to.

Non-Smokers have the right o enjoy a meal in public without being choked by nearby smokers.

Smokers pay their taxes too (even more since they pay for their smokes). So one can only say that since the product is currently legal, smokers have the right to enjoy a smoke in public too, don’t they ?

I have never smoked, but my dad did for years. He would never light up in public because he didn’t want to offend those who didn’t smoke.

He would always say that because HE chose to do it (smoke), it was HIS responsibility to do so in a way that was respectful to those who didn’t.