Warning: no smoking is an attack on your personality

It is only those who want to ban smoking, which forces someone here. In this case it's just Mr. Kindl, which rises above the others, which hangs into an agreement between the two strangers an adult who unjustifiably usurps the right to tell others where and under what conditions they must work.

Retro advertising for cigarettes
Retro advertising for cigarettes

Tomáš Kindl na Finmag.cz in many of his articles he defends the need to ban smoking (in restaurants, public spaces and so on).

In the last article "It is not enough to type a cigarette"He pointed up absurdity your view on this issue. After concluding that the current legislation is unclear, a solution is reached: let's ban it everywhere!

Unfortunately, I do not understand the premise that, if smoking at work is not regulated by law, should be banned. If, at the end, he stated that the solution is to "allow smoking by law everywhere", it would probably turn out the same way.

The fact is that if we banned smoking in restaurants to 'protect workers', it would be a similar situation if, for example, managers were prohibited by law from stress at work. For proponents of a smoking ban, this is usually a "populist argument", but the fact is that the "private property" argument has earned this label mainly because it none of the prohibitors could refute it yet.

The principle is simple: as far as "my pub" is concerned, I am the one who should determine whether it is smoked or not. If I offer a job, I voluntarily offer a share of my sales to future employees who, voluntarily - based on their decision - can accept my offer or not. It's their businesswhether they want to work in a smoking or non-smoking environment. Me as pub owners, the owner of the job, the circumstances that lead those interested in the job offered to me to apply for the job may be completely stolen. If they are "forced" by some of their problems It is not my problem.

Who forces whom?

Therefore, the phrase "a person is often forced to work in a smoking environment" is not true. Human is not forced to work nowhere. Definitely not an employer. It is purely a matter of agreement between the two parties, what to agree on. Without mutual consent, it is difficult to reach an agreement.

In other words, without state intervention, we have a situation where both the potential employee and the employer either agree or not on the basis of their decision. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

However, with the intervention of the state, a gentleman, for example, enters into this private relationship Kindlwhich says:

"Not so, gentlemen! Have you voluntarily agreed to a smoking work environment? You have to change that! ”

It is only those who want to ban smoking, which forces someone here. In this case it's just Mr. Kindl, which rises above the others, which hangs into an agreement between the two strangers an adult who unjustifiably usurps the right to tell others where and under what conditions they must work. In this case, it is only Mr Kindl who is helping here - perhaps unknowingly - to rebuild the command economy.

How they differ in principle coercion of certain working conditions, the result of an agreement between the employer and the employee, the customer and the supplier, from coercion method of production, distribution or sales? It is always a matter of completely unjustified interference in foreign affairs, in a voluntary agreement of foreign persons, where both parties can express disagreement.

In contrast, however, state orders are enforced. Disagreement is not possible. So it is the state and the people like Mr Kindl who are the aggressors here attacking the judgment and actions of others.

Health (fatherhood) is not an argument

However, the alleged attempt to "protect the health of employees" is in itself nothing more than another attack. Trying to ban smoking by law due to a health hazard is equivalent to any effort to enact the obligation to be in a good mood and to feel happy, because a bad mood does not benefit people and is "contagious."

It's just about wrapped in nice words messagethat "you are all unruly fools who are ruining their health, and we which the wise will prevent! "

Just as popular "The state pays for the treatment of smokers" is not an argument to ban smoking. If the state health care system is not able to meet the individual needs of its "customers", it is not the fault of the customers, but of that system.

Blaming a smoker for not being able to meet his needs is like blaming customers for wanting a tasty pastry that a local baker is unable to deliver.

Health is everyone's business, individual. It thus requires individual care, not the state capital that we have here at the same time - and which is the result of exactly the same considerations that led to the view that 'smoking in restaurants should be banned'.

Dictatorship for excellence

So today they want to ban smoking, tomorrow it will be alcohol and then? Then, for example, dangerously slippery linoleum in children's rooms, dangerously short sleep or unhygienic biting of nails.

When it comes to "dangerous thinking", dangerous travel and the threat to the foreign exchange economy. However, the beginning is always the same - it's the moment when someone says to himself:

"I know better than they do what is good for them. I will arrange the good for them by law. "

Right, Mr. Kindle?

0 comments

  1. Reaction No. 9 from Mr. "Speego" is a textbook example of right-wing dementia at an advanced stage. Where would the pub probably get its air from? How would she ventilate?

    Whose air is on this Earth?

    Is 50 cubic meters of air in Speeg's pub "private property"? If so, let him fence them off, seal them herself and keep them. He can have them registered at the cadastral office and may not even have to pay taxes on them. But let him keep them and never mix them with the air of others again. In these and only these unique cubic meters of private air, let Mr. Speego and his friends light cigarettes and blow out the fumes. When Mr. Speego dies, the "his" nebula will be inherited by his descendants and will be able to be sold freely…

    Do you already understand what monstrosity is, this basis on the "rights" of the smoker? These rights work only and only in a situation of parasitism and trampling on the rights of others. Is it clear, or once again and slower?

  2. An attack on your (or anyone's) personality would be a ban on breathing. A total ban on smoking, on the other hand, would bring more freedom and justice, because the smoker BOARDS others of the ability to breathe air unpolluted by cigarette fumes and forcing people standing (or sitting or doing anything) to breathe, whether they want to or not.

    So where is freedom, what is non-freedom, what is logic and justice?

    Neoliberals of all countries - go stab yourself!

  3. Smoking when your angry or stressed is one thing that every smoker does. He / she finds it pleasing. But there are many stress release techniques wherein you don't need 2 use the medium of smoking to release your tensions
    for eg. Yoga

  4. The author of the article is right. When it comes to "my pub", the state should not order or even forbid anything. If I want to allow guests to kill each other, just put a sticker on the door “Murder allowed. Murder is seriously damaging to you and your surroundings. ”And that solves it.

  5. Bravo Lukas - brief and clear, although the comments I see are evident from people who do not understand what you are writing about. I would like to agree to reprint it on my blog Cesky caj, (ceskycaj.blogpost.com) - there is a contact. Good luck and write!

  6. "I don't care about a bitch, because the scum annoys me with the air that I breathe just like him and to which he has no greater right than me. And I didn't talk to him about any "voluntary air poisoning." I have a libertarian explaining that the market is an easy solution, because a market with different airs will be created and you will then be able to freely choose the air you want in the market.

  7. Mr. is Suteren and Yntelygent :-)… Dear Sir, I got to your article via mises.org, which otherwise I read regularly and I agree with them in principle, but this is very much…

    You probably have a real problem. Nothing against individual freedoms, I am a believer in them, but one of the basic rules perhaps says that "my freedom ends where I violate / nothing the freedom of someone else" or perhaps not?

    Passive smoking (smoking in general) obviously brings only health devastation, there is no (we are talking about tobacco) no demonstrable health research, (and that cigarettes producing the factual fact have tried), that smoking cigarettes is good for health and does not harm it in the long run, namely - unfortunately - even those who did not choose it, ie passive chickens. So see the post by Petr Dvorack. In other words - I don't care about meth, unless they get behind the wheel and shoot or endanger someone else, so it doesn't endanger my freedoms. I don't care about a bitch, because that scum annoys me with the air that I breathe just like him and to which he has no greater right than me. And I didn't talk to him about any "voluntary air poisoning." Dot.

    Regarding the argument about work and voluntary relationship between two subjects… Yes, if the potential employee was in writing !! informed in advance that he smokes at the workplace and then agreed, so let's say. Is it realistically? Because finding out during a job, and not knowing it in advance, it's just a stumbling block from the employer, isn't it? And an oral "agreement" can be denied or referred to at any time with non-existent / manipulated witnesses.

    By the way, when it comes to your pub, you have to meet quite strict hygiene standards regarding the operation, food. All this because it can endanger the quality of food at the customer (it really happens and happens - see Chinese bistro). Customers have the freedom not to go there and let this pub go bankrupt. But the first varka took away the damaged health and the consequences of the state applied. I myself am a supporter of the smallest possible state, but that I would violate these regulations, so it never occurred to me in a dream. One of them forbids smoking in rooms where "goods" are prepared for the customer. So you don't have much hands free as the owner of the pub.

    So the nonsense with healthcare? So to stand on the beautiful proof that hypothetically Tonda Vomacka has an increased amount of tar and nicotine and other substances formed during the inhalation of tobacco smoke, so he raises his health tax, What about the fact that Tonda Vomacka does not smoke, but works in an area where they are chickens who do not respect his wish at all not to breathe the stench and cheerfully stick under his nose… Tonda Vomacka will be punished after deserves. Because to tell you that even addicts who have avoided 20-40 cig / day can not smoke, especially if he knows that the confession will cost him more money and he will not get anything for it. That's what you want, isn't it?

    I will not discuss the nonsense with the argument "to put in a good mood" at all.

    In other words, in my opinion, the absolute ban on smoking does not solve anything at all, it caused just the same situation as with the ban in the USA, but it is ideal to smoke only at home, on your (land) and in your (not already business) car, when I do not endanger other members of the household (typically children who certainly did not freely choose to breathe the stench). In an enclosed space where I have control over who I annoy the air with. Smoking in the workplace? Yes, in dedicated cabins, seals, as at airports, not outside in the parking lot or in front of the building, because there are non-smokers there as well. But it doesn't work, they "have to give that cigarette," don't they?

    So as a dictatorship here I see your desire to dictate a non-smoker that he must "endure the freedom of smoking smokes"

  8. @ 3 - The article is not about smoking in an apartment building where the smoke rises to the window of other people - there is of course perfectly fine that the penetration of smoke into someone else's apartment is aggression and should be punished (paradoxically it is not today, so the state totally fails in the protection of non-smokers). However, the solution is not to ban smoking in the apartments, but to force the smoker to secure his apartment so that he does not bother others by smoking. Whether he solves it by not smoking or smoking in a closed chamber is his problem. On the other hand, when only a community of smokers will live in the entire apartment building, neither any Kindl nor anyone else has absolutely no right to ban them from smoking.

    The article is about Kindl getting into relationships with people he doesn't care about, who have never seen him and have no idea that a Kindl exists. And he wants to show them how to live their lives. Plus for their own money. He's just another dictator in line.

  9. This is a complete misunderstanding of the problem. For me as a non-smoker, smoking is not a problem but a stench that inevitably accompanies it. Even in an open environment. How is he surprised that it stinks on the street and in nature? Where would a smoker think he was producing stink. We have already banned power plants and cars, now it is the turn of cigarette users. When they filter out their stench, let them smoke. Nobody minds an electronic cigarette. She can also be smoked in the theater during the performance. And it's smoking, too. And no one has anything against it. It's really a stench.
    And if smokers defend their production of cigarette stench by pointing to freedom, they are completely out of it. After all, they themselves are not free, they are dependent fetishes, so what are they talking about freedom? Tobacco companies peeked at this "argument" anyway, they wouldn't have figured it out themselves.

  10. Mr. Petr Dvořáček omits the fundamental thing that the article talks about a situation where a non-smoker agrees to passive smoking by signing an employment contract with the owner of a cuckoo facility or his voluntary visit. I am a non-smoker myself, so please do not force on me your nonsensical and completely contrived idea that a non-smoker is interfering with my freedoms. The state intervenes in them when it wants to prevent me from choosing from several types of equipment the one that suits me best at a given moment.

  11. This whole article is, of course, nonsense, because it ignores the fundamental thing that a smoker imposes passive smoking on a non-smoker, thus interfering with his rights and freedom, and restricting smoking is only a reaction to this fact. When a smoker makes sure that the smoke from his cigarette does not have to be inhaled by others, let him smoke as and where he likes.

Comments are off.