But just to return to this matter of “happiness”

(and from the perspective of monitoring/maintaining/enhancing the prerequisites of “happiness” to fortify one's Self against the “slippery slope” of substance and other forms of abuse)

Much could be said obviously so I'll just flip and chuck in my “2 cents” worth.

One way to monitor, possibly stabilise and even restore “happiness” would just be a broader application of that which is already practised in the education sector, which is that they are, at least in theory, very sensitive to any disturbances in the self esteem levels of those over whom they watch and that can lead all the way to “Child Protection” cases.

(Yes folks, it is a reasonable bet that well before the kiddies start banging their heads on the wall for relief that there'll be positive and assertive intervention and the less published and broadcast than it ought to have been (but on Compass) “sit in” by religious persons resulting in Police attendance at that wretched t.abbott's office is to be applauded, as if the guvment treated a member of the school community in the way in which they treat the children of others then they would be binned for sure, assuming some of the parents didn't get to him first. )

To hear some people suggest that the matter of child abuse and detention is just so complicated that others simply fail to understand and should hold their tongues is laughable, and is but part of the veil that draws down around the worst of the guvment 's “Evil” behaviour.

In Race Science, it is not that noting certain differences is the problem per se, but rather when these differences are used to ferment views such as:

" ... we are superior therefore we should treat those that we consider to be inferior to us in ways other than the way that we treat our own, or indeed other than the way in which we would like others to treat us is.

For Adults too, perhaps the Child within all of Us, caring is required in the mix.

Yuyutsu,

You "assume" that smoking really only affects the individual and "assume" there won't have impacts on others - and to put it simply, this is a load of garbage. I know from experience.

I have Epilepsy and I take (seven) medications per week, (which also includes an Epilepsy related bone condition). Subsidies total $10,000 per year. One medication around $5000 and lasts for three weeks at a time.

Read what can happen in real life. I know because I have seizures. One year I had five large seizures in a weekend, I couldn't walk without a walking frame - spending nine days in hospital. I needed Ambulance officers, doctors, a Neurologist, Nurses, a Physiotherapist (to get back to walking), food staff and cleaners for toilets (and no doubt other staff) - all costing a fortune (probably more tax than I pay).

Read the following and see why smoking is 100% stupid and why people should stay away from it - and if using the product get off it.

I get annoyed when I read totally misinformed comments about smoking. People underestimate the damage and costs.

http://epilepsy.med.nyu.edu/living-with-epilepsy/epilepsy-and-lifestyle/smoking-and-epilepsy#sthash.uPT8khJO.dpbs

From the site: Consider what happened to a patient and her daughter. The patient, a 35-year-old woman with absence and tonic-clonic seizures, shared an apartment with her lively 5-year-old daughter. One evening, the woman had a tonic-clonic seizure while smoking. When she awoke in the hospital, she had first-degree burns on a large part of her arms and body. Her daughter suffered severe smoke inhalation and brain damage. The girl, now 18 years old, is severely retarded, uses a wheelchair, and is in an institution. The woman stopped smoking and went through a long emotional process of dealing with what happened.

Epilepsy can come on at any time - including at ages like 35. Vehicles also put out a lot of "smoke" - but we won't be getting rid of those will we? I know as I can't drive having Epilepsy. Waiting to cross at a street corner, with so many cars there one day - I felt totally ill.

Dear Nathan,

<<You "assume" that smoking really only affects the individual and "assume" there won't have impacts on others>>

I wrote exactly the opposite. Care to read what others write before commenting back?

Yuyutsu,

I do read other people's comments - otherwise I would not have referred to yours.

"Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others." These are your words not mine.

The comment above (from you) however is an "assumption", because if you look at the story I mentioned, the woman in question clearly had a "belief" that such an horrendous activity, (like what happened in the story) would never occur. If she did, she would not be smoking - and the story refers to how the mother quit smoking, after the incident - being emotionally affected and the impacts left on her daughter.

So a belief, is just that - a belief and not necessarily a fact. So with that in mind people should not "be able to do whatever they like."

So lets properly look at some of issues that directly relate to smoking and the impacts on our health system and others (like in the story I mentioned) - based on facts. From the Cancer Council of Australia for example:

"Overall, health care costs have increased at a rate exceeding the Consumer Price Index. This is due to a number of factors, including the availability of more expensive and complex procedures, resulting in patients consuming more resources."

So with this in mind we need to consider the need for services for people affected by smoking and their increasing costs in areas like:

1. The provision of 24 hour Ambulance and emergency services;
2. Specialists needed, in which patients may need to see various;
3. Subsidised medications like the costs I referred to;
4. Ongoing costs to institutions like the article I referred to;
5. Economic and public service costs with people in hospital;

Finally references to immigration, I would argue that is the real form of "bullying", compared to those who advocate against smoking. I have health conditions myself and believe prevention is better than cure.

Dear Nathan,

Certainly, prevention is better than cure. Therefore, don't smoke.

I believe we already agree that smoking is extremely bad for one's health as well as for others who happen to be around the smoker.

I also believe that we agree on the high costs incurred by the health system when dealing with the aftermath of smoking. However, I think that this is offset by the fact that smokers die earlier (and dead people cost zero to the health system). Almost everyone in the West spends their last few years costing heaps to the health system: ambulances, specialists, medications, institutions, hospitals. Smokers simply do it earlier than others, then they are gone, good riddance.

Regarding immigration, you call it "bullying", but I call it self-defence: I just want to prevent entry of more people who would be likely to emit this disturbing and harmful substance into our environment. By forcing me to breath that poison, they would be the bullies, not me, so I believe that it's reasonable and moral for me to want to nip that in the bud.

Perhaps what we don't agree about, is whether people should be allowed to harm themselves, knowingly or otherwise. It seems that you think that those who are about to harm themselves should be forcibly stopped by the state, while I say that the state should have no place in our lives unless we voluntarily invite them in.

If you want the state to protect you against your own foolish actions, then by all means tell it that this is your wish, then sign off to them your freedom to behave foolishly and enter into such a contract whereby the government can stop you in your tracks. However, myself and others have not signed away our freedom, so any attempt to stop us from harming ourselves, but especially from doing whatever [is not really harmful, but] the government believes is harmful to us, is sheer immoral violence.

I defend Yuyutsu's statement "Anyone should be able to do whatever they like, including poison themselves, unless by doing so they hurt others".

I think much the same way - People are entitled to live however they choose unless it affects someone else in an adverse manner - when it does something has to change.

That's the fine line between freedom and tyranny.

Smoking does affect non-smokers and in a perfect world they shouldn't have to put up with it, ever.

But say I'm allergic to seafood and cant stand it's smell.
Does that mean seafood shops should be banned because I don't like the smell when I walk past?
I think for everything that exists in the world some people would oppose it.

So if you don't like the smell of my cigarette, too bad.

If smelling it affects your health, then we have a difficult discussion because by that ideology trucks and cars should be banned so that people who don't drive them aren't affected by them.

If you're forced to breathe in my smoke, then you have cause to complain and I'd be obliged to accept your complaint and change my behavior.

Smokers already pay a huge price for their own right to freedom and liberty, and government has taken advantage of us financially, and for political gain.

Smokers die, Non-smokers put up with our smoking and the government profits.

Morally if government and non-smokers seek change in the way society treats smoking, and seeks to stop people taking it up and help others quit, there's more it could do rather than leave us fighting amongst ourselves, while it makes off with bundles of cash.

If this is a topic within society marked for change, governments shouldn't be getting rich off it.

Excess revenue from smoking tax should go back in cheap patches (a box of patches should be a few dollars max), cheap medication, better educational programs.

Victimising smokers, who government has profited off nicely, as well as profited from advertising (historically) which only helped people take up smoking and become addicted, isn't right either.