Smoking Bans

But alcohol is an interesting example. We restrict it's sale to minors (like cigarettes), we restrict where it can be consumed (like cigarettes in the case of smoking bans), we recognize that drinking leads to health problems (like cigarettes, though of a different sort), but while we restrict the sale of alcohol to minors (in most cases, though not all) we allow parents to let their children drink as long as it's on their own property. If alcohol is the precedent we're using, it would stand to reason that a parent could let a minor smoke, whether through first hand or second hand smoke, on their own property.I'm not saying it's right, but that it follows legal precedent.

I know this is a bit off topic, but it's been brought up a couple of times. Personally, I think mandatory seatbelt laws are bullshit. If a person wants to take the risk and drive unbelted and dies as a result, it's a tragedy, but the person knew what they were getting into. Much like skydiving, if the parachutes fail, you're dead, but we don't outlaw parachuting. (By the way, as Seinfeld put it, if the parachutes fail to open, the helmet is now wearing YOU for protection.)I do agree that belting in a child should be a legal issue, because the child is not able to make that determination for him/herself, but a fully functioning adult who has enough faculty to get a driver's license should be able to make the decision to endanger their lives or not.

This seems to miss the point. When you get into an accident, whether you're wearing a seatbelt or not, someone has to pay, the seatbelt is a minor consideration in that. I wouldn't have a problem with insurance agencies charging a higher premium for people who don't wear a seatbelt. I'm not sure how they would determine it, but it's a risky behavior, akin to insurance agencies charging more for a smoker than a nonsmoker. Regardless, this doesn't seem to touch on whether a law should be passed requiring seat belt usage. Driving is a priviledge, I agree, but it has also become a necessity in our culture. It would be extremely difficult for me to get to work without my car. It would take a very long time by foot or bicycle, and the cost of a taxi every day would become prohibitively expensive. The bus system around here is a joke. Until the government really invests in good public transportation, it could be argued that driving exists somewhere between a right and a priviledge. I wear a seatbelt regardless of whether there's a law or not. I think people who don't wear a seatbelt are stupid, but trying to legislate away stupid is a losing endeavor. If someone wants to risk it, and that risk, I would argue, doesn't put anyone else at risk, then why are we telling people what to do.You've agreed that the government has the least authority to legislate what a person does within their own body when they don't put anyone else at risk, and this would seem to be an obvious case where they do so, and I think it's too far. People have the right, in my opinion, to be stupid and place themselves at risk. They do NOT have the right to place others at risk. Until it can be shown that driving without a seatbelt puts anyone else at a significantly greater risk, protecting competent adults from themselves is not the job of the government. (IMHO)

I think this is a question for psychiatrists to answer. If a person acts sufficiently stupidly, at some pIs there such a thing as indirect risk to others?[/qs]There is, but trying to legislate that type of risk becomes difficult, impractical, and overly-generalized. If someone climbs on their roof without a rope or tie and falls off, thereby killing themselves or becoming paralyzed, have others been harmed? People make stupid decisions every day that put themselves at risk and therefore their family and friends are put indirectly at risk. We, as a society, have determined that while the risky behavior may be stupid and should be discouraged, it shouldn't be made a legal issue, and that's a stance I agree with. Well, since seat belt laws are relatively new compared to auto accidents, I would say the rules that existed prior are a good place to start. Thinking off the cuff, I would say it would depend on the crash investigation. If it is determined that wearing a seatbelt would have saved the life of the occupant, maybe you're not charged with vehicular manslaughter and "merely" reckless endangerment while having your license revoked. In my experience (and I know it's not a valid, logical argument to make) the people driving recklessly don't feel too much remorse to begin with. If they had normal empathy, they probably wouldn't be driving recklessly to begin with, unless we differ on our definitions of reckless driving. If the person is sufficiently empathetic to feel severe emotional trauma, it's probably enough for them to feel it with "merely" maiming another person instead of outright killing them.
Another possibility is that the reckless driver could find a little solace in the fact that the person wasn't wearing a seatbelt and can share a portion of the culpability. It would be a small, but surely noticeable, mitigation, at least if it were to happen to me. This is the part of ethics that was te hardest for me to work out while in college. I majored in philosophy with an emphasis on ethics. I have, over many hours of contemplation, come to a moral theory that works for me. The general gist in where my moral theory differs from most, if not all, of the ones I have looked at is that mine differentiates between being a "bad" person and being a "not good" person. I think laws should try to stop people from being bad or doing bad things, but should not stop people from being not good. In my calculation, I consider not wearing a seatbelt to be a not good thing to do, but not a bad thing.So, should we look at wider costs to family, society, or those directly involved in the stupidity. I don't think we should legally. I definitely think we should societally, and the people around the person should try and convince them that they're being stupid. For instance, refusing to ride in the car with someone who doesn't buckle up is a personal choice, but it would get people to buckle up when ever you ride with them, and who knows how that habit might take hold.

Well, it's not consistent, for one thing. I know consistency is not a seemingly valued part of our legal system, but I think it should be. Legalizing cigarettes while criminalizing marijuana is inconsistent and I think it's a glaring flaw in our legal system. Either legalize both or criminalize both, but don't pick and choose, that comes down to special pleading. ;-)If we're going to outlaw not wearing a seatbelt because it's obviously a risk and easy to implement, then why not outlaw being on a roof without a tether? It's also very risky and very easy to implement. It would also, I'm sure, prove effective. Effective, that is, in protecting a life that doesn't think it's worth protecting itself, or that considers the risk worth the perceived reward.The question comes down to what the role of government is and what sorts of freedoms we have and should have. I think we should be able to engage in activity that is reckless to ourselves as long as others are not directly influenced. If I want to hurt myself, who are you to force me not to. If I only want to place myself in a position where I may get hurt, you have even less authority to force me not to.In my opinion, the government is in the position of protecting those who can't protect themselves, not in forcing protection on those who otherwise wouldn't protect themselves. Stupidity shouldn't be a crime, so far as it doesn't directly harm anyone else.

What I was saying here is that by trying to protect indirect victims, we're placed in the position of trying to decide how a given action might affect everyone around us. What may cause harm to one person indirectly may not phase someone else, or may even make them happy. Are we going to decide that if something can conceivably make others unhappy, we should stop people from doing it? If so, we would quickly be barred from doing anything.Indirect risk is difficult to legislate because it is almost always a subjective experience. One person dying my force a family into poverty if he/she is the only employed member of the family. It may thrust another family into wealth if the person had a large life insurance policy.

I'm not willing to concede that forcing people to avoid death if they choose not to is a positive effect. We should educate people and let them know the risks, and then let them make the choice. There are many, many laws we could pass that would reduce the number of deaths in the country, and yet we do not. Why would you say that is? How many people survive car crashes because of seat belts, but are paralyzed and need to be cared for. How much of a drain is that on a family and on a society?Yes, I recognize that seat belts save lives. I think everyone should wear seat belts when in a car. I don't think it is the government's job to force people to take care of themselves. I was torn on smoking bans because of my libertarian nature, but I have been swayed by the arguments saying that the employees are being harmed, quite probably against their will. I'm less swayed by the arguments that patrons are, because they do have a choice of which establishments they frequent, but employees are often unable to find another job right away, and are thus put at risk.Seatbelts, however, do not directly harm anyone else when not worn. They are a conscious choice by the individual wearing or not wearing one, and so can not be said to be "against the will" of anyone. People have the right to direct their lives as they see fit, as long as they don't do direct harm to another individual. The government should not be countermanding that.Likewise, people should have the right to end their lives if they see fit. Assisted suicide should be a right of terminally ill patients, as long as they are still mentally competent to make the decision.The deciding factor is that phrase "mentally competent." If the state is willing to grant a driver's license, they are in effect stating that they are mentally competent to drive, as far as the state is concerned, and should be able to make their own decisions regarding their own lives.

If that's the case, it makes a little more sense, but I still think it's an unnecessary condition.On a strange side note, here in Wisconsin, it is against the law to drive a car without a seatbelt on, but it is still legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet...go figure, consistency really must not be desired at the governmental level.

Well, that's what happens when we live in a republic, or a representative democracy. True democracy (rule by the people) becomes unworkable as the population becomes so large, wide-spread and apathetic as most people in America are. The solution (though obviously flawed) is to have the people vote for the ones who will make the decisions. If the people don't like the decisions being made, they can choose to elect someone else in the next election.For the msot part, I think the government does a good enough job, I mean, most of us are fed well enough, have a roof over our heads, and more personal choices than in a lot of countries. With the internet, we are better able to keep tabs on our elected officials, should we choose to, and if people were able to push themselves up off the couch every now and then to find out what their elected officials do rather than say, we could be in a much better place.I recognize that our country isn't perfect, and anyone who says it is just doesn't pay enough attention, but I think the general philosophy behind the government is sound. Dissent is the spice of democracy, and I reserve my right to bitch about the choices the government makes, but I have no problem paying taxes so the government can function and give me the benefits that I, and many of us, take for granted. (Schools, roads, breathable air, scientific endeavors, defense, and hopefully soon, healthcare)

What if the intended aim is something I disagree with? I may not disagree with trying to save lives, but just because a law does what it wants to do doesn't makwe the law just, it just makes it effective. Well, that depends on who the people are. If they are children, then I think a law forcing you to belt in kids is a good one. I defend those because they are protecting children who may not know enough to protect themselves. That's why we have age of consesnt and majority, social services and other programs. Protecting children is a noble aim.Prosecuting you for others not wearing seatbelts is not only a bad law (forcing seatbelt use) but it's a misdirected law. Why are you responsible for another human being's actions if they're not children under your care? Punishing YOU for a bad choice THEY make is ludicrous. Tying this in to the larger thrust of this forum, it's like God punishing all of us for the choice Adam made. Isn't it? I would prefer an education campaign rather than a law enforcement one. I guess that's where we differ. I don't think it is pragmatically desirable. Principled stands are what mae the country better. It was a principled stand that forced civil rights laws through. I'm not saying seatbelt laws are on the same scale, but if laws working is justification for not trying to change them, then we would still be back in the times where only landowning white men were able to vote in AMerica. It WORKED and met it's desired aim, why change it?I think people should be able to put themselves at risk. They should be educated on the nature of the risk, and then they have the choice to listen or to go ahead and do the risky thing, so long as they're not dsirectly harming anyone else.Wearing a seatbelt is a personal safety choice, much like condom use. Do you know how much suffering, wasted lives and money we could save by making it a law to wear a condom anytime you have sex outside of marriage? I assume you would consider this a breach of privacy, right? People have the right to make the choice in the bedroom to engage in risky behavior, right?

Not being able to vote is only a negative thing in principle. Considering nearly half of the country doesn't vote as it is, not being able to vote doesn't actually hurt a person. While it's true, it may lead to laws being enacted that harm the people who have no recourse, it's not a direct effect of not voting.Likewise, not being free to choose to wear a seatbelt or not doesn't have a direct negative impact, and in fact, could very potentially save your life. My opposition to this type of law is a principled one, and no matter what statistics may say about how many lives the law has saved (which as Onifre has pointed out, is not easily determined, since we can only show that wearing a seatbelt helped in a particular case, but not the reasoning behind WHY a seatbelt was worn) I don't think it's a fair trade-off.As it has been quoted, or misquoted, "Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."I'm not a rightwing, libertarian whackjob, I think there are legitimate reasons for outlawing things that harm other people, but I don't like a law that protects a person from themselves, it seems to go against self-determination.

The principle is self-determination.I don't want to sound heartless, I think saving lives is a noble and worthwhile goal, but when a person isn't willing to do something simple to protect themselves, then let them get hurt.When I first started driving 10 years ago, my own rule was I didn't move the car until everyone was belted in. I did that without need of a law because I understood the safety issue.As I drove more and more, I became more lax, and would occassionally even drive without a belt on myself. That was during my late teen, invinceable stage, and I could definitely see a law applying to young drivers, just as there are daylight driving and passenger restrictions on young drivers.Once a person is 18, however, they are considered able to determine their own course in life, and they can amke it as risky or safe as they choose. If they knowingly engage in a risky endeavor and end up getting hurt, I feel bad for them, but it was their choice. I never jump to the conclusion that we should outlaw what they did to protect other people, I just think we should make sure everyone is aware, or more aware of the risks, and then let people make up their own minds.

"Indirect harm" seems to me to be a vague concept. Yeah, having someone die in a car crash makes others sad, and if that person is making money for the family, it can bring hardship, but in America, the vast majority of families have two working partners. Often the person who dies will have life insurance, so the monetary hardship can be mitigated against. As for the feeling sad about the death, I can sympathize. I worry about it, probably more than I should, everytime my fiancee gets up to drive the half hour to work, knowing she's tired. But I trust her to make the right decisions, I don't force her to. If a person knows their significant other, or any friend or family member is driving without a seatbelt, then talk to them and try to convince them that what they're doing is a bad choice, especially when the alternative is so easy. That's great, but is it a consequence or merely a correlation? I admit, it's probably a consequence, but if the law were repealed, would a significant part of the population go back to not wearing a seatbelt? If so, that speaks to a deeper issue in the people than seatbelt use. Because, in my state at least, we already have age restrictions on driving. It's a very good way to get good driving habits instilled in a class of people most prone to making driving mistakes, as well as giving adults the self-determination I, at least, value so much. I don't see it as trivially as you do, and I don't see the risk as greatly as you do. Yes, IF a person gets into an accident, a seatbelt will help. How often have you been in an accident? I haven't been in any where the seatbelt would have made any difference. Only one person in my family has been in an accident where the seatbelt made any difference, passive safety devices such as airbags have made seatbelts less necessary. As would I, putting yourself at a risk you would not normally engage in just to oppose a law is asinine in my mind. If a person disagrees with the law, and truly doesn't want to drive with a seatbelt, they won't. If they get pulled over, they will try to get it on before the officer gets to their window. I've seen that happen many times, I've even been forced to do it in one instance because I was, perhaps against my better judgment, trying to take off my coat while driving, and sped up faster than I was anticipating I would.I guess we'll just disagree on this, both of us will continue driving around with our seatbelts on, and not feel any major problem until one of us makes a mistake and gets a fine, not because we hurt anyone, or were going to in any probability, but because we didn't do enough, in the mind of the state, to protect ourselves.

You know, I think we're just going to disagree on this, and while I disagree with the law, I don't consider it of such importance that I worry about it too much. It doesn't make me do anything I wouldn't normally do, and you're right, it makes it safer for people to drive.I'm not about to start a campaign to repeal the law, but were it to come to a referendum in my state, I would vote to repeal it. That's about as far as I'd be willing to go against it.I had a counter example all planned in my head regarding obesity and the effect that has, often leading to death but which we don't impose a fine for, but it would just end up in us going in another circle.I do honestly enjoy debating, and you're one of the better posters on this site, so keep up the good work. I just think we're talking in circles now and considering we're unlikely to change our opinions and we're a bit off topic, I'm going to have to gracefully concede a draw.