According to "public smoking ban" the report said that China has more than 300 million smokers which is the biggest tobacco market in the world. The government has not limited place for smoking, so they can smoke everywhere such as indoor: public place, offices and outdoor area like school hospital hotel restaurant and so on. As a result, today, China has serious air pulltion and many people got serious diseases. For example: emphysema lung cancer. Average per year more than 600,000 people .So, China government realized that public smoking and pollution problems, it want to ban public smoking and every kind of tobacco advertising such as scene in film and TV shows for decreasing the smokers but the policy cannot reduce the smoker. Why? Because China has a big population and before 1949, they have one slogan is " If men don't smoke, they are not real men." China government does not pray attention to limited the smoking, it was just talking but not doing about controls on smoking, China is a big manufacture cigarettes in the world and it made a lot of income.
I think, China should educate their people about healthy and have a strict rule to prohibit public smoking and will arrange some place for somker.
__________
Reference
I'm afraid I must disagree with Tip and the Chinese government, just as I disagree with my own government and with the Thai government.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do agree that smoking should be banned on public property, to which all should have equal right of access without risking their health or having to suffer the filthy smell of cigarette smoking, the owners of private property should be free to determine the smoking policies for their property. By treating all public spaces as public property, the law fails to respect important differences between public and private property.
Smoking should, therefore, be banned on footpaths, in government offices, in public parks, and so on, but it should not be banned in restaurants, in privately owned hospitals and in night clubs.
I've finished my coffee now, and with that daily hit of my preferred addictive drug working on my brain, I'm also wondering about another point Tip makes. How strong is the evidence, what is the evidence, that cigarettes "can be the trigger which leads people to try out [harder] drugs"?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds reasonable, which is a perfectly good reason to write it in a blog post where we aren't stopping to cite the support for every claim, but we can still be called on to support such claims. And I'm not sure that cigarettes do cause other drug use.
Although it is an addictive drug that has fairly strong physiological and psychological effects on its using addicts such as myself, I'm sure that coffee is not "a trigger which leads people to try [harder] drugs," or am I wrong? Am I at greater risk of using heroin and yaa baa because of my decades long addiction to coffee and the addictive drugs in it? Is my morning coffee one day going to trigger cocaine use?
Morning coffee time again, and having connected a bit of quick blogging to my drug addiction to coffee, I'm prompted to write something.
ReplyDeleteBut it's Monday morning after a tiring Sunday in a Buddhist temple, so perhaps a quick review of the posts and comments already here will stimulate a response.
Actually, there was an article in The Bangkok Post/ about Buddhism this morning that stimulated some strong disagreement, so perhaps I should write a new blog post on "Protecting monks from themselves", (2014, December 1, http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/446334/protecting-monks-from-themselves
DeleteThe Bangkok Post isn't on my list of suggested reading sources because its writing isn't always that great, but we can be flexible.
And strong disagreement is usually a good thing in response writing. Strong disagreement is also a good thing if we care about discovering truths - suppressing free speech is always done to enforce ignorance on a topic, and that is usually the unethical option as well as being an irrational one for any topic we think is important.
I have some nostelgia about smoking because my passed away maternal grandmother always smoked in my mories. I heard, in the past, smoking is a kind of relief from hardness of a daily life. Even now, some smokers say it releases their strees. I think, such as teas, cigarettes consumption depends on consumers' tastes without relating with how they are harmful and addcitive. Public smoking ban must be needed considering effects of it, but smokers also have their right to choose within that category. Governments should supply them proper places where smokers can smoke because they impose taxes on purchasing cigarettes, and should extend enlighting how smoking could be harmful for smokers and others. After people know the harm of smoking, they choose smoking, then we should respect their choice and should allow their smoking in limit of not effecting others.
ReplyDeleteKatie's proposal seems reasonable to me. It stops people smoking at random on public property, but acknowledges that as part of the public they should be given some consideration to use the space in the way that they want, including indulging their addictions that are unpleasant and unhealthy for others.
Delete