A Socialist View from Outside the Box

Smokers choose to smoke, non-smokers choose not to. Smokers should therefore pursue their habit in a way that shows respect for those who don’t. I am not against a smoker’s right to smoke. I am not against any legal act of freedom or expression of autonomy. Tattoos for example are an expression of ones thoughts as is body piercing.

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 smoking debate has taken another focus, this time centred on a TV commercial designed to portray what a child loses if their parent dies as a result of smoking. The commercial in question centres around a boy who loses his mum at a train station with the reflection focused on losing the boys mum for a few minutes compared to losing her for life. In the commercial the boy is realistically upset at losing his mum in a crowded train station.

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

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.