Smoking Bans

Are situations consistent in terms of prevalance, ability to legislate, ability to enforce legislation etc. etc. etc.? Personally I agree but there are many who can, and indeed do, rationalise such distinctions on the basis of various pragmatic arguments. Arguments such as the notion that marijuana is a stepping stone to other more harmful drugs. Personally I am subjectively not convinced by such arguments (despite the fact that marijuana was arguably a stepping stone to such other experiences for me) but if there is a practical case to be made for this notion should we just dismiss it on the basis of ideological consistency? I am not sure that we should. I think special pleading is inevitable in the definition and the application of law. I honestly do not see how it can be avoided to some extent if pragmatism rather than ideology is the ultimate deciding factor. Perhaps because the prevalence of people dying from untethered roof endevours, and thus causing indirect harm to others, is relatively insignificant in practical terms as compared to the non-wearing of seatbelts? In that case your argument is a principled one. Not a pragmatic one. That is fine as far as it goes but do not pretend to yourself that you are being pragmatic about laws when in fact you are applying principle regardless of pragmatic considerations. If the indirect consequences to others (e.g. your family or society) of you harming yourself by means of stupid activities can be significantly reduced by means of effective legislation then, on a pratical level at least, why does the government not have the authority, maybe even the duty, to legislate on such matters?Is your argument based on principle or pragmatism? If principle is the deciding factor then are you willing to follow your principle to it's logical conclusion with regard to any personally harmful activity and ALL forms of indirect harm? If you accept that indirect harm can be significant and you accept that government can effectively legislate against some activities that significantly indirectly harm others then why should the government not put such legislation into practise?What principle is being applied in opposing such measures and what practical consequences are there for maintaining your ideology?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then be pragmatic rather than ideologically consistent about the application of principle in law. Only apply laws when the objectively evidenced positive effects (e.g. number of deaths avoided) outweigh the negative. No. How about we only apply laws when the evidence suggests that the effects will be both objectively significant and measurably beneficial to society (e.g. the number of families faced with poverty due to death decreasing)? If outlawing smoking in public spaces or the non-wearing of seatbelts saves lives and reduces the overrall burden of indirect harm through stupidity on society without having any practical negative effect then on what basis do we oppose those laws?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you saying that the legally enforced use of seatbelts has not statistically reduced deaths and serious injuries suffered as a result of car accidents? If the objective evidence says lives are saved by the enforcement of seatbelt wearing then on what basis do we deny that evidence? My wife is Argentinian. A few years ago in Argentina a blind man was found to be driving by means of using his sighted, but disabled and non-driving, wife as a co-pilot. She gave very specific verbal instructions and he drove the car. He had been blind and driving for 15 years. His driving license had been renewed only 18 months prior to his blind driving being discovered by traffic police!!There may be a joke for you to use somewhere in that story....?I don't know whether wearing glasses, if you need them, should be a legal requirement or not. But I would postulate the following as reasonable pragmatic reasons for the seeming logical and ideological inconsistency of not having such a law.The practical application of the law makes it difficult for those responsible for enforing the law to know who should be wearing glasses or who should not.In practical terms the number of accidents or deaths caused by people not wearing glasses is insignificant and thus not worth legislating on.But frankly unless it is a major practical concern I see no reason to worry about this particular law. If they are effective in practise (without resulting in other outweighing negative effects) then arguably yes they are worth having.If such laws are completely ineffective (or have other negative practical results) then arguably no they are not worth having.It is a case by case necessarily imperfect, but nevertheless objectively evidenced, pragmatic judgement.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A bit of both? Does such a law exist in the US? I didn't know it did.To partially contradict some of my previous arguments in this thread............. ( Well I did say that I asked the original question to try and work out why I think what I think I think.........)I think the reason that we have these laws is largely for the reasons that you suggest (i.e pragmatic issues of social cost)However I think that there is an inevitable component of protecting people from their own stupidity also prevalent within the law and that this is often used as the rational justification for such laws.If we were being cynical we would say that this is bacause such rationale seems less heartless than the more objective penny pinching argument that is the real reason........Whatever the case I think pragmatism Vs the ideological application of principle is an inevitable and partially unresolvable conflict with regard to lawmaking.

Trialling laws and modifying them as a result of practical experience would seem to be the ideal answer but I would agree that the specific details and dividing points of most laws will always be a matter of opinion to some degree and thus debatable. Now that is specific. Why 5% and not 4.9%? Is it simply an arbitrary line because pragmatically an arbitrary line is required or is there a reason why 5% is the magic number?Is that degree of evidence practically obtainable? Are there other medical judgements that you accept that are not so specifically evidenced? Are there medical judgements that you reject that are that specifically evidenced? I don't know. I agree that simply outlawing everything we deem to be wrong or stupid is not the answer. I also think blindly lawmaking on principle with no regard for effectiveness, enforcability or social negative consequences (such as an ever buregeoning prison population) is "bad" lawmaking.I consider both the principles that "you should not hurt others" and the principle that "you have a right to privacy" to be important. I think that specific laws designed for specific situations will inevitably balance these two principles differently because of the specific practicalities that apply to individual laws. This will inevitably result in a set of laws that appear to be ideologically inconsistent.Most people in this thread seem intent on taking the following approach to debate whatever side of the debate they happen to be on:

"If you think X should be outlawed because it harms people then you must think Y which also harms people should also be illegal on the same principle"

"If you think dangerous activity X should be allowed to take place in the privacy of ones home then you must also think dangerous activity Y should be allowed to take place in the home on the same principle"

"If you think X is harmful and thus to be made illegal in public then on the same principle you should also make Y illegal in private"

​

Whilst I think the consistent application of principle is desirable I also think that when it comes to law the above approach to debate is pragmatically naive.

​

I kind of know what I think regarding the laws under discussion. But I don't have all the answers required to fully justify why I think those laws are right or wrong. Which is in part why I asked the original question.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Taz you are still misunderstanding. Your straw man claim is itself a straw man. I have never once attributed you with that blanket position.But unless you are going to prattle on about common sense yet again there is undeniably a need to legally define the exact situation that you are trying to outlaw. In the case of protecting minors from the effects of passive smoke in the home part of that legal definition necessarily involves applying legal criteria to people's private homes.Which part of that are you failing to understand? It is evidently I who is not being clear enough here.You are completely misunderstanding my reasons for both being so pedantic and for continually referring to the actual law that exists with regard to smoking in public.Laws need to be specifically defined to be enforcable. It is the need to define and enforce the law on the basis of these specifics that I think leads to the dangerous consequences of the laws that you are advocating.Hence my (unsuccessful) attempts to get you to consider the sort of specifics that need to be defined and applied to private homes in order to create the sort of legislation you are advocating. No. I am suggesting that the positive and negative aspects of the law, including it's effectiveness, need to be weighed up Let's take this step by step.You seem to (almost) agree with me that in order to construct an enforcable law to tackle passive smoking in the home we need specific legal definitions of the terms involved. Terms like the ones used in my real law example but that are relevant to homes rather than public spaces. Relevant terms that are different but as equally well legally defined as the ones in that example. Yes?Terms like "enclosed space", "in the same room", "in the presence of", "open plan", "sufficient ventilation", "in the home", "minor", "dependent" etc. etc. etc. Will all need specific legal definitions. Yes?(The exact terms depend on the exact situation you are attempting to outlaw. So feel free to describe the precise situation you are seeking to prevent and the list of terms requiring legal definition that you think are relevant to legislating against that situation. But for the love of God please don't start ranting on about common sense again...........)In order to enforce the law it will be necessary for the law enforcement authorities to have the right to evaluate whether or not these strict legal definitions have been breached in the event of a suspected infringement of the law. Yes?So now in the case where we have someone accused of infringing the law regarding passive smoking in the home we not only have the practical difficulty of actually knowing that smoking in the presence of a minor has occurred in a wholly private space (which itself poses both practical problems and begs questions of government intrusiveness - but let us ignore these for now) - We also have the potential situation where government officials are required to have the right to access peoples homes to determine whether or not the strict legal definitions of the terms of the law have been breached. Yes?Can you imagine any scenario where the right of government authorities to enter peoples homes on such a pretext might be abused?Imagine a situation where local government and a private resident are involved in some sort of trivial planning dispute. The authorities require access to the private residence for some reason but are having trouble gaining the appropriate legal permission to do so. Some bright spark at the council makes a bogus accusation and invokes the appropriate anti smoking law. The surveyors gain entry to the private residence under the false pretext of the smoking law.Imagine a situation where a radical campaigner who has broken no laws but who is a major thorn in the side of the government is known to have information and contacts that the government would like to have. Can you see how laws that enable access to his home under the pretext of a relatively trivial law might be used to plant bugs, conduct unwarranted searches etc. etc.?If you think I am being overly paranoid then tell me that these sorts of things do not occur. NO!!I am suggesting that smoking laws as applied to wholly private spaces would be almost impossible to enforce due to the practical difficulty of detecting infringements, would thus have little or no practical effect on tackling the problem of passive smoking AND would potentially be very open to abuse by the more paranoid and controlling aspects of government.In summary I think that such laws would be both ineffective and all too open to misuse. Thus, on balance, I deem them to be "bad" laws.Whether you wholly agree or not do you at least understand the actual basis of my opposition now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Is that true?Regarding seatbelts - In Britain everyone wears them. Partly because it is the law and partly because of government campaigns to point out the stupidity and danger of not wearing a seatbelt. But mainly because of the law. When I drive I make sure that everyone my car wears a seatbelt BECAUSE I am culpable in the eyes of the law for anyone that does not.In short the law seems to work in practise.Awareness, motivation, effectiveness etc. etc. Seatbelt use has risen dramatically since it became law. My understanding is that death due to car accidents has been evidentially and significantly reduced as a results of this.Show me that the evidence is wrong and I will take notice.But I don't think simply stating that the state should have no say on the use of seatbelts in private cars on the point of some sort of non-intercvention principle is enough to justify an anti-seatbelt enforcement position.

The law and the public awareness campaign seem to have gone hand in hand.In Britain at least the public awareness campaign was a government campaign (I don't know about the US)It seems somewhat contradictory to suggest that the primary reason for making the law was financial when the same body that would benefit from the financial result of people breaking this law was responsible for successfully encouraging people to adhere to that particular law for safety reasons by means of a successful public awareness campaign.No?

And yet there are many that we do.Ability to enforce, ability to detect, balance of privacy vs protection, the actual number of deaths caused by a particular activity......The number of pragmatic possible reasons are near infinite. And then we have the other less defensible, but nevertheless real reasons. Such as the fact that nobody has ever cared enough about a particular dangerous activity for anyone to perceive that a law might be warrented.Inconsistent? Definitely. But how much does that matter IF the laws that are in force effectively meet their intended aim? In Britain it is my responsibility as the driver to make sure everyone in the car is wearing a seatbelt. If they are not I face punishment.Is this taking care of myself or others? IF it works. IF it saves lives. IF it saves society from having to bear the burden of those who would otherwise die and leave behind dependents. IF it makes those who would not otherwise consider their own live at risk be more aware? IF it just forces drivers to be safer regardless of awareness.......IF it WORKS. IF it is pragmatically desirable then on what grounds do you oppose this law? IF evidence suggests that all the above practical criteria are met would you still oppose the law on some sort of principled grounds?Let's assume that all of the above IFs are true for the sake of argument.Is it possible for you to seperate your principled stance from your belief or interpretation of the evidence that is available? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Like I say - In the case of seatbelts I think th law and the awareness campaign went hand in hand (in both Britain and, from your description, the US. Albeit with different emphasis).Neither one would have been as effective alone as without the other. No. But to be honest I would be less dilligent about my friends. I would be much more likely to think that they are responsible for their own safety. As things stand they buckle up or get out.Also when I was a kid there was no law. And I never wore a seatbelt!!!! In fact my dad's knackered old excuse for a car did not even have seatbelts!!!!!Will you not agree that the law has forced the mandatory inclusion of safety features in cars if nothing else......?

I think that once a law has been demonstrated to be effective (whether or not that law or the associated public awareness campaign that went with it was ultimately responsible for that effectiveness) there is an understandable reluctance to reverse the law in question. I think that reversing such a law could arguably be taken as a sign that the problem has gone away. I have added my full quote rather than just the 'No' that you quoted. My friends are safer in my car, I am less likely to be responsible for their deaths, as a direct result of the law in question.Once laws that were at one time controversial become second nature and are considered as all but common sense due to their effectiveness they have served their purpose to society. Unless they cause any actual harm I see no reason to get rid of such laws purely on the basis that people "get it". There will always be some that do not "get it".Consider taxi drivers and the like and I think that there is still a case for the law despite me and you "gettting it" in a social awareness sense. My experience is similar. Whilst these seem like the "good old days" given that we both seem to agree that we would not put our kids in the same situation can we really say that things are worse now as a result of the laws under discussion? On that we agree.

I partialy agree. But what principle exactly do you think you are defending here? On what grounds do you conclude this? If it is effective at saving lives on what pragmatic, as opposed to principled grounds, do you oppose the law in question? Because that particular aim had a huge negative impact on the lives of millions of human beings.What negative impact does legally being required to wear a seatbelt have on anyone?

We seem to both agree that we would generally choose to wear a seatbelt ourselves. We also seem to agree that we would encourage anybody else that we care about to wear one too.Presumably we therefore also agree that wearing a seatbelt does indeed increase safety and save lives to some extent at least.We also seem to agree that a great deal of indirect harm to others can be caused by needless loss of life. Untrue. Not being able to vote and having no government representation as a result has absolutely massive practical consequences!!!!!!!!!! But that is beside the point. I am very pro-principle. ALL laws are ultimately the result of one principle or another. I am just against the blind adherence to a single principle (e.g. self determination) in the face of pragmatic compromise with regard to another principle (e.g. attempting to stop the needless loss of life that in itself causes indirect harm to others). Most laws are a pragmatic balancing act of different principles but we all (including me) can all too often be blinded by principled arguments when pragmatic ones are just as relevant.The legally enforced wearing of seatblets seems to be a fairly trivial compromise of any principle. The fact that you seem unable to specifiy exactly which principle is being compromised only adds to my conviction of this.Enforced seatbelt wearing seems to be effective in terms of having the desired result of saving lives and reducing the indirect harm caused to others that loss of life leads to. It also seems to have no real practical negative impact of any consequence on anybody at all.Thus on balance legally enforcing seatbelt use seems like a perfectly legitimate law to me. For what it is worth the vast majority of the Western world (and much of the non-Western world) seems to agree with this assessment.So what actual benefit to anyone do you think there would be in repealing these laws? The actual quote from Benjamin Franklin (a quote whose sentiment I would claim to be largely in agreement with) is:"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."Is the right to not wear a seatbelt really an "Essential Liberty"........?Edited by Straggler, : Change subjectEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

OK. It is not just about self harm. The principle is 'not hurting others'. Whether directly or indirectly. Seatbelt use has, in Britain at least, become the overwhelming norm rather than the exception since the law was introduced. For purely pragmatic reasons why complicate the law with age restrictions? A blanket law for such an insignificant compromise is simpler to impose, enforce and understand without unnecessary complication or beauracracy. I would say that legal enforcement of seatbelt use for all is in practise a case of balancing a very trivial and insignificant compromise of 'self determination' against a relatively major risk of direct harm to self resulting in significant indirect 'harm to others'. In practise it seems to have been reasonably effective at achieving that aim.I guess that if anyone really disagrees with the seatbelt law on grounds of principle then they can break the law, pay the fine on the rare occasion that they do actually get caught and consider it a sort of danger/freedom "tax" paid instead of higher insurance premiums. But to my mind that would be an OTT reaction.As would revoking the law.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Sad.....?! It potentially destroys the lives of dependents (i.e. kids), family more generally (i.e. parents etc.) and even those strangers who are involved in otherwise avoidably fatal accidents.Even if we ignore financial factors (which personally I would not) the indirect effects of death to others are amongst the most significant events most of those "others" will ever face in their entire lives. And the legal requirement to wear a seatbelt seems a trivial and insignificant compromise in the practical context of "freedom and self determination".The indirect harm to others caused by death seems far more tangible, meaningful and personally relevant to me than the pragmatically meaningless "infringement of principle" concept you are advocating with respect to this particular law........... I think it is largely a consequence.But whether the law is an instigator or reflector of the prevailing cultural attitude I remain unclear as to what you think specifically would be actually gained, rather than potentially lost, by repealing the particular law in question?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.