|
Author
|
Topic: Smoking Bans
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: The law goes too far
I think its bullshit that according to the law (here in illinois)somebody can't open up a bar that allows toxic fumes to be present if they want to. The law shouldn't disallow people having a bar that can be filled with toxic fumes if the owner wants it to be that way. If people don't want to be in a bar filled with toxic fumes, then don't go to the bars that allow toxic fumes to be present. Is this a little clearer? Your right to personal privacy gives you the right to do basically whatever you want to your body. You do not have the right to make choices affecting other people's bodies. Smoking unfortunately is not an individual activity - everyone around you winds up inhaling the smoke as well. You also do not have the right to open up a bar at all. You're subject to all manner of government regulations including the procurement of a liqour licence, zoning concerns, the age of your clientele, etc. Just because it's "your property" doesn't mean you get to do whatever the hell you want. Public safety laws already exist that restrict your bar from operating with gas leaks, or with unsanitary glassware, etc. Even your personal home is regulated - you aren't allowed to improperly store or ustilize toxic chemicals in your home where they pose a public safety hazard (or even an unreasonable hazard to yourself, since public resources would need to be expended to rescue you and clean up your mess). Since second-hand smoke is just as serious a public safety concern as an unwashed drinking glass, the government is well within its authority as a regulator of public safety to disallow smoking in an area where nonsmokers will be affected as well. Your libertarian position that unsatisfied customers will simply choose to go to a different bar is irrelevant; the same can be said about bars with dirty glassware or other unhealthy conditions, and yet the government is clearly within its authority to regulate those public safety concerns.
I also think its funny when people bitch about smoking and the air while they stand on the sidewalk next to bumper to bumper traffic breathing in car exhaust Indeed. But then, automotive travel is a basic necessity of life in America, where frequently we have woefully inadequate public transportation and our cities are designed around cheap, easy personal transportation. We're working on that, with things like hybrid cars and even full electrics or fuel cell vehicles. Smoking, on the other hand, is not a necessity, and can be restricted to designated smoking areas and the privacy of one's own home.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
Message 28 of 151 (505560)
04-13-2009 2:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
04-13-2009 2:06 PM
|
|
Re: Legal Limits
quote:
Straggler writes: However if it is being proposed by Taz that the current law should be extended to banning smoking in the home under certain circumstances (i.e. when children are present) then I think that opens up another area of fairly contentious questions regarding both privacy and the practicality of enforcement.
How so? Neither privacy nor practicality of enforcement necessitates you-can-do-whatever-the-hell-you-want. Again, speaking as a public servant, I can't really care less if you drink your nights away. Drinking and driving with your 5 yr old in the back not in proper child restraint I have a problem with. I'd use a different example than drunk driving, since driving is a privilege restricted in ways that do not pertain to personal property. Instead, I'd point out that the home environment itself is already controlled with regard to children. If your home is determined to be unsafe for children (say, open paint canisters, extremely unsanitary living conditions, unsealed cleaning fluids in easy reach of a child, etc), you can already have your children taken away, and be brought up on charges of child endangerment. Since we know that second-hand smoke is a health risk, how does the same not apply to smoking while children are present? I think the mentality here considers "my children" as personal property on the same level as the home itself, or the individual's person, allowing the parent to treat the child as he/she desires. This is simply not the case - the child has no recourse, no way to escape the unhealthy environment or even a way to comprehend that the smoke is dangerous in the first place, and is an individual possessing its own rights. As Taz says, home safety may be difficult to enforce, but it is enforced when the authorities become aware of an issue. Why should you be able to smoke in the privacy of your own home in the presence of a child when you're not permitted to keep other toxic chemicals in the privacy of your own home in the presence of a child? It seems to me that smokers are maintaining a double standard. " Tobacco is okay because I like it," and so somehow the simple idea that toxic chemicals and fumes should be kept out of public places and away from children somehow gains an unfounded and arbitrary exception when it comes to tobacco smoke. Special pleading anyone?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Taz, posted 04-13-2009 2:06 PM | | Taz has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 31 of 151 (505565)
04-13-2009 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Straggler
04-13-2009 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: Legal Limits
Hi Straggler, It's definitely good to point out that some sort of dividing line needs to be set between what is and is not allowed, while still respecting the rights of parents to (mostly) raise their children as they see fit.
In the interests of childrens health should we have legalised dietary requirements to be administered to children by parents? E.g. maximum levels of calorific intake, fat, salt etc.? By the same logic you apply to smoking at home should there be laws regarding these issues given that obesity is one of the major health epidemics in the Western world and in particualr the US? I would say that childhood obesity should be addressed legally. Not necessarily to the point of giving mandatory dietary restrictions (since not every child's body will be identical), but to the point of mandating that parents make a reasonable effort to avoid and combat obesity int heir children. Perhaps a mandatory trip to the doctor's office for a dietary assessment if school officials notice that a child is of an unhealthy weight, followed by ensuring that the parent(s) follow up on the doctor's instructions in a reasonable attempt to cambat obesity. The absence of a law that follows a similar line of reasoning does not invalidate that line of reasoning. It simply means that perhaps the law should address childhood obesity as well.
Should we have a legal limit on the number of hours a child can watch TV per day? Television watching does not seem to be linked to a real health risk - or at least not one that I'm aware of.
Should there be a legal minimum stipulated as to the amount of physical exercise a child should undertake per day? I would think that combating childhood obesity by a mechanism of reporting weight issues followed by mandatory compliance with the orders of a doctor if and when weight becomes a problem is a more reasonable solution, as it minimized intrusion into the privacy of the family while still addressing the issue, all while remaining relatively enforceable.
Should there be a legal limit on the amount of time parents can spend on internet debate sites in order to ensure that their kids are not neglected? Isn't neglect typically charged after the fact anyway simply due to the impossibility of enforcement in every circumstance? Certainly if you were posting on EvC while you young child wandered over to the kitchen sink and drank Drain-o while you weren't paying attention and because you didn't child-proof dangerous chemicals, you'd be charged with neglect anyway. Addressing safety issues through reasonable means like these seems to be a more appropriate response than mandating a specific calorie intake, or number of hours of daily exercise.
Sould all harmful practises be illegal? How do we determine which should and which should not? They already are illegal - that's the point. It's already illegal to take actions that would reasonably lead to harming a child - in the US it's typically called "child endangerment." The question is simply whether such things as tobacco smoke (or obesity caused by parental negligence) qualify as "harmful to a child" to a reasonable person. The passage of public smoking bans recently as well as all of the scientific studies done on the effects of secondhand smoke (and obesity) leads me to believe that more and more reasonable people are seeing these things as harmful, and thus applicable.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2009 2:28 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 34 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2009 3:26 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 33 of 151 (505570)
04-13-2009 3:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Straggler
04-13-2009 2:43 PM
|
|
Re: Legal Limits
If a parent who eats a high fat, high carb, high sugar diet devoid of vitamins and minerals also inflicts this diet upon their children should this also be illegal? How do we legalise against such practises? Should we legailise against such practises? By the logic of your argument, as I understand it, the answer must be 'yes'. One of many reasons I plan not to have children.  But yes, I think that allowing your child to become obese to the point where the child is likely to suffer medical problems when the obesity could have been avoided through reasonable action on the part of the parent qualifies as negligence.
Personally I am not a smoker and never have been but I remain unconvinced that making smoking in the home under any circumstances illegal is either practically possible or in principle desirable. I do not claim that smoking in the home should be illegal "under any circumstances." I only claim that there are some circumstances under which smoking should be illegal. I include smoking in public establishments and smoking in the presence of a child while in an enclosed space among those circumstances. If we don't allow children under 18 to smoke, why would we allow their parents to smoke for them, which is in essence what secondhand smoke involves?
I am not a conservative anti-government interventionalist by any stretch of the imagination but, as imperfect as it is, I feel that health eduction and the changing of social attitudes is a better way to tackle this issue. To a point, I agree. But I think that recognizing that smoking around children or negligently allowing obesity are in fact forms of child endangerment is part of that process. That's why I advocate the "reasonable person" standard that already applies - we need not institute absolute rules along the lines of "you may not smoke within 20 feet of a child" or "you may not feed your child mroe than x calories per day." Instead, we can acknowledge that secondhand smoke and obesity are both harmful to children, and ask whether a reasonable person would have been knowledgeable of the harm and been able to take reasonable actions to avoid it. In the case of smoking near children, I would suggest that a reasonable person would simply smoke outside, or designate a specific room of the house for smoking an not allow children to enter.
Unless ALL potentially harmful activities are to be outlawed I think special pleading of one sort or another is inevitable. The fact is that laws are necessarily arbitrary to a degree as we exist in a non black and white, non perfectly rational, reality of humanity. The question is on what basis the special pleading is made and how valid we can subjectively but collectively deem that special pleading to be. I think that the major concern is the actual likelihood of the potential danger and the existence of a reasonable solution to avoid the danger. Keeping dangerous cleaning chemicals unsealed and unlocked which failing to supervise a young child has a relatively high potential for disaster, and is very easily identified and rectified by a reasonable person. In the case of smoking, the likelihood of harm is high over a long period of exposure, and is easily avoidable by a reasonable person (ie, just go outside to smoke, or keep a no-children-allowed smoking room). In the case of obesity, the likelihood of harm is relatively high over a long period of time, but is less easily avoidable under some circumstances than simply going outside when smoking. In all cases we're talking about subjective judgment calls from "reasonable people," but this doesn't seem to be an area that lends itself to hard, objective weight limits or smoking zones. Also, it seems to work well in other areas of the law.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2009 2:43 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2009 3:40 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: The law goes too far
I disagree on the bolded part. Second-hand smoke does not pose an immediate risk like dirty glasses (or gas leasks) do Yes, it does. The risk is lower than that of contracting a disease, and will happen with more on a delay between exposure and the consequences, meaning a single exposure to secondhand smoke is not going to give you lung cancer tomorrow, while a dirty drinking glass can potentially have you throwing up in the morning. However, unlike dirty glassware, the risks from secondhand smoke are cumulative. If you go a day or three after drinking from a dirty glass without getting sick, you're probably fine, and each time you're exposed your chance to become ill is independant of the previous chances. Risks from secondhand smoke increase with each exposure - the more you're exposed to it, the more you're likely to suffer consequences. We have identified tobacco smoke as a carcinogen, to the point where we restrict its sale and usage to those over the age of 18 and put warings on the label to the effect of "if you use this product, you will very likely eventually get cancer or heart disease." Clearly we have identified cigarette smoke as posing "immediate risk" to those who inhale it. While the right to privacy allows you to inhale smoke if you so choose, by smoking around others you are violating their right to privacy by forcing them to inhale a carcinogen. Smoking in a wide-open space (like, say, outside) minimizes exposure to other people because the smoke dissipates. Smoking in an enclosed area (like, say, a bar) is little different from using spray-paint in an enclosed space - we have warnings on those products for a reason, too.
But its not clear to me that allowing smoking is as dangerous as dirty glassware The comparison doesn't need to be direct. Tobacco smoke simply needs to be a public health risk that is easily avoided with reasonable precautions - and it is. Is cigarette smoke dangerous? If you answer yes, and you aknowledge that smoking affects those around the smoker as well as the smoker him/herself (and mroeso in an enclosed space), then you're aknowledging that smoking poses a public health risk. If you deny that it's dangerous, I'd ask why you beleive we have identified cigarette smokign as a major cause of lung cancer and heart disease, to the point where we restrict its sale and put warnings on the label.
and I don't know where the governments authority begins and ends on these things, so I'm not entirely convinced that the government is well within its authority to regulate smoking. I'm not a lawyer either, but this statement merely suggests that we shouldn't bother discussing the matter since none of us are qualified. This isn;t a court of law, it's a debate board. Do you aknowledge that the government has the authority to restrict substances that are deemed harmful to the public? I would hope so, considering that the government exercizes such authority every day, from regulating restaurants through health codes to removing children from hazardous living conditions. The question is not whether the government has the authority. It does. If you believe otherwise, ask your local policeman for a list of other things you aren't allowed to do even on your own property and to your own person due to posing a public health risk.
And even if I found out that they are, I still have an issue with the way the law here is in Illinois that someone can't even open a bar that allows smoking if they want to. There should be public places where people are allowed to smoke inside, IMHO. The current law doesn't allow for them in any way. What issue, CS? You haven't provided any sort of reasoning beyond "IMHO." Your humble opinion means absolutely nothing by itself without some argument to back it up. So far, your argument seems to rest one or both of the following:
quote:
1) private property is private, and the government shouldn't be allowed to regulate whether I allow smoking in my property or not 2) I like smoking in bars, and I don't want to need to stop
1) is clearly invalidated by the fact that the government does possess the authority to restrict what you can and cannot do on your personal property if it poses a public health risk, as they do with restricting alcohol sale (not just with the drinking age but alseo with licensing, zoning, etc), health standards in restaurants, etc. 2) is irrelevant because it's your personal preference, and involves no actual reason. I can counter it with a simple contrary opinion, and we'd have no way to determine which of us is right.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: The law goes too far
I don't think that second hand cigarette smoke is dangerous enough for the government to regulate it to the point that a person is forbidden to open up a bar that allows smoking. Upon what do you base this opinion, I wonder? Somehow I doubt it's an objective alalysis of the harm caused by secondhand smoke. Because the Surgeon General seems to think it's pretty dangerous. Here are some exerpts from a report from teh Surgeon General on the CDC site:
quote:
# Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Supporting Evidence * Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
* Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen. # Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children. Supporting Evidence * Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
* Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
* Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
* Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
* Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks. # Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Supporting Evidence * Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent. # The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Supporting Evidence * Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma. # Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. Supporting Evidence * Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
* Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
* The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
According to the Surgeon General, there is a significant affect on an individual's health when they are subjected to secondhand tobacco smoke, and these effects are significantly worse for children. Even short term exposure causes damage to the cardiovascular system, and have a significantly detrimental effect on people with athsma. This public health risk is immediately avoided by disallowing smoking in enclosed public spaces, like bars and restaurants. Secondhand tobacco smoke causes a significant risk to children, resulting in underdeveloped respiratory systems, increased risk of SIDS, and other problems. Id say that the evidence is pretty clear that secondhand tobacco smoke poses a serious public health hazard, and one that is very easily negated by simply not allowing smoking in enclosed public areas (or enclosed private areas when children are present). At what point do you believe the government should regulate against a hazardous substance? When it kills on immediate contact? When it causes immediate injury? What extent of injury? I think the line isn't so clear due to multiple variables. I think that, as the risk posed by a substance increases, the government's interest in restricting that subjstance increases. I'd also think that, as the ease of reducing or eliminating the harm increases (and the intrusiveness of the regulation decreases), the government's interest also increases. Since secondhand tobacco smoke both causes serious harm (and if you disagree, you aren't reading), and since secondhand smoke damage is very easy to eliminate entirely (by simply disallowing smoking in enclosed public places, or in enclosed private places when children are present), teh government has a significant interest in restricting smoking. It is, after all, the same reason that the government has an interest in disallowing minors from smoking, and has an interest in putting warning labels on the packaging. If you still disagree, why? Upon what basis do you determine that secondhand smoke is insufficiently harmful to justify government regulation? At what point do you believe it is appropriate for the government to regulate dangerous substances? How dangerous? How do you determine whether public safety trumps personal privacy, and in what circumstances? Remember, the Constitution guaratees privacy by outlawing unreasonable search and seizure. At what point do you believe that personal activities that are potentially harmful to the public become subject to reasonable search and seizure (or other negation of privacy)? Constructing a bomb? Housing a meth lab? Playing loud music? Dumping hazardous chemicals in storm drains? Shooting tresspassers? Insufficient cleanliness in a bar or restaurant? In all of these cases, the government has some degree of interest in restricting the private activities of individuals, even in the privacy of their own home or other property. Does secondhand smoke, which as shown above causes immediate and measureable damage upon exposure, carries a significant risk of cancer, has extreme consequences for children, and for which regulation is relatively unintrusive (requiring only moving outside or to a designated smoking room), justify sufficient government interest to restrict its use? I would certainly say so.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: The law goes too far
I'm not totally against any regulation at all and I agree that its reasonable for the government to restrict smoking. I just think that the regulation, specifically here in Illinois, takes it too far when there can't even be one bar that is allowed to have smoking. If a bar has a vested interest in allowing it, then I think they should be permitted to. What "vested interest?" To make money from a niche of clients who like to smoke, at the expense of the health of their employees? There is no such right, CS. The interest of the government is not the same as the interest of a business. A compelling interest for the government means that the government is able to use compulsion to regulate the rights of one group in the interest of protecting the rights of others; for example, yelling "Fire!" in a theater is illegal, and the violation of the individual's free speach rights is justified by the compelling interest of the state to protect the rights of other moviegoers to not be stampeded. What tells you that this legislation "goes to far?" When you say that you think bars should be allowed to permit smoking, what is your reasoning? A "gut feeling?" It seems that you're being extremely vague, which prevents us from establishing the guidelines by which regulation is permitted.
One way to go about it would be to require a membership, for say $0.01, to be allowed in the facility thereby making it a "private" club and then have smoking there. But the way the law here is, we can't even do that (IIRC). That's too much governmentin' for my taste. So, I'm not against it altogether, I just think it goes too far. How is that a way around anything? Are the employees not still subjected to an environmental health risk by working there? If you think "the employees don't have to choose to work there," why does this not apply to other workplace environmental safety standards? Do you agree that secondhand tobacco smoke is a safety hazard for those in the same enclosed area as the smoker? If not, why not? Do you agree that the government has a compelling interest to protect the health of the public, and that this compelling interest gives the government justification to override private property and privacy rights when the government's compelling interest is strong enough? If not, why not? Do you agree that the hazardous environment created by secondhand smoke in an enclosed area provides the government with a compelling interest in restricting the times and places one may smoke? If not, why not? So far you haven't provided any sort of argument beyond "I think that's too much." You have not elaborated on the reasons you hold such a position, leading me to believe it's a "gut feeling" for you, and is therefore nonsense. Similarly, you haven't addressed a single point I've made regarding the health hazards or justifications for restricting smoking in bars or on personal property in the presence of a child, instead choosing to respond with a simple "Yeah, the government should regulate it a little, but this is still too far." Why is it "too far," CS? Where is the boundary you set, and how does this law cross it? What is your reason for setting the boundary where you have set it?
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 64 of 151 (505708)
04-15-2009 5:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Taq
04-15-2009 4:17 PM
|
|
Re: The law goes too far
For us barstool jockeys, a smokey bar is a bit nostalgic. It's a piece of Americana. Unhealthy? Absolutely. A risk to employee health? Very much so. You are fighting the right fight, but you have to understand the cultural legacy as well. This isn't a situation where logic alone rules the day. There are a lot of emotions tied up in this too. For some, the ability to smoke in a bar is seen as a right (of sorts). Taking away that right, even though it is a very flimsy right and one that doesn't stand up to scrutiny, is symbolic of other rights. Can't smoke in a bar? What next? Will they take away my right to eat hamburgers next? You have to remember that these are emotional responses. It will take time for people to get over it. I never suggested that people would instantly "get over it." The point of my line of reasoning with CS has been to get him to realize that his arguments have no foundation (or at least discover what the as-yet unstated foundation for his arguments is), as well as to show why the government does rightly have the authority and in fact the responsibility to restrict smoking. Emotional responses are irrelevant when countered by objective evidence and reasoned thinking. Whether a person "likes" it or not has nothing to do with whether the law is justified and withing the authority of the government.
As for banning smoking in private homes, that is going too far. You can't legistlate away stupid. If people are going to knowingly put their families at risk then they should be allowed to. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the doorway of our homes is a very good spot for that line. In this instance education is the key. We should foster communities where such behavior is looked down on. This is a place where people should police themselves. Your line of reasoning is horrifically flawed. It is already illegal to perform a long list of activities on your own private property. Even more activities are permissible with restrictions. The door of one's home is no barrier to these laws, just as the confines of one's car do not remove the authority of the government to force all passengers to wear seat belts - "legislating away stupid," as you put it. Your response is a gigantic red herring that fails utterly to address any single point regarding the restriction of smoking on private property. Instead, you've appealed to emotion, and then made an assertion without supporting it (the door of a home is a "very good spot" to draw the line according to you, but you neglected to say why). That's not very convincing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Taq, posted 04-15-2009 4:17 PM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 65 by Taq, posted 04-15-2009 6:02 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: The law goes too far
And CS once again fails to support his argument with anything more than "I don't like it."
quote:
What "vested interest?"
I was thinking specifically about the cigar bar that I meantioned in message 37 that had to close down. They don't have any right to provide their type of service, CS! You seem to think they have more rights than they actually do. All businesses are subject to government regulation when the government has a compelling interest to protect the public's health.
quote:
What tells you that this legislation "goes to far?" When you say that you think bars should be allowed to permit smoking, what is your reasoning? A "gut feeling?" It seems that you're being extremely vague, which prevents us from establishing the guidelines by which regulation is permitted.
I have no interest in establishing the guidelines by which regulation is permitted. ...you're just spitting out terminology that I've previously used back at me, CS. Are you participating in a debate, or are you just posting noise? If you refuse to answer the most basic of questions as they pertain you your own argument, why are you posting at all?
You can call it a gut feeling if you want to, but I just don't like all this Big Brother governmentin' that looks to be an increasing trend. Do we really need the government telling us that we're not allowed to have a cigar bar? So you've completely established that your argument is based upon nothing more than your own subjective "feeling" that you "don't like" the government intruding where you don't think it belongs, and you cannot even define any line of reasoning to establish where that line belongs. Again, if you're just trying to clutter up the thread with useless noise, why are you posting? If you want to debate, then stop dodging questions and either support your arguments or concede.
quote:
How is that a way around anything? Are the employees not still subjected to an environmental health risk by working there? If you think "the employees don't have to choose to work there," why does this not apply to other workplace environmental safety standards?
You'd think that if you were applying for a job at a cigar bar, you'd know that you'd be subjecting yourself to, what I feel is a minor, health risk. What's next? Cracking down on sexual harassment of strippers? Stripping is not a public health risk, CS. You seem to love your red herrings. Whether you "feel" that the health risk is minor or not, actual fucking doctors like the Surgeon General believe otherwise - and they can even show the evidence upon which their professional opinion is based. I posted some of it, in fact, and in doing so supported my arguments with objective data. You've failed to address it with anything more than your own personal "feeling." You feelings are irrelevant, CS, if you cannot back them up with a valid line of reasoning. The more you refuse to do so, the more I think you're incapable of supporting your arguments.
quote:
Do you agree that secondhand tobacco smoke is a safety hazard for those in the same enclosed area as the smoker? If not, why not? Do you agree that the government has a compelling interest to protect the health of the public, and that this compelling interest gives the government justification to override private property and privacy rights when the government's compelling interest is strong enough? If not, why not? Do you agree that the hazardous environment created by secondhand smoke in an enclosed area provides the government with a compelling interest in restricting the times and places one may smoke? If not, why not?
I don't think the environment created by second hand smoke in a bar is hazardous enough for the government to restrict it to absolutely none at all. The Surgeon General's report that I quoted previously stated quite clearly that the level of exposure is irrelevant, that secondhand smoke causes damage even in small amounts and that the only way to avoid it is to disallow smoking in enclosed areas where other people are present. Once again the evidence disagrees with you. Are you simply ignoring it? Do you have an argument against the Surgeon General's report? Or are you simply speaking from the orifice that typically expels feces?
quote:
So far you haven't provided any sort of argument beyond "I think that's too much." You have not elaborated on the reasons you hold such a position, leading me to believe it's a "gut feeling" for you, and is therefore nonsense.
Then leave it as nonsense.... So why are you posting at all?
quote:
Similarly, you haven't addressed a single point I've made regarding the health hazards or justifications for restricting smoking in bars or on personal property in the presence of a child,
I'm talking about bars here. Children are a non-issue. You haven't addressed any of my points regarding bars, either. All you say is "government bad, me no like!" as if that was some sort of well-reasoned argument. Are you going to debate, or make noise?
quote:
Why is it "too far," CS? Where is the boundary you set, and how does this law cross it? What is your reason for setting the boundary where you have set it?
The boundary should be set at just before absolutely none at all. Get the government out of the people way and let them be free to live how they want and stop babysitting them so much. We don't need the government telling us that we are not allowed to have a cigar bar. Why, CS? Because you say so? I'm not completely convinced that you have no actual ability to support your argument with anything more than bare assertions and emotional reactions. The government already regulates private property on many, many other issues. Do you have a problem with those as well? Should it be legal for you to dump toxic chemicals on your own property? Possess controlled substances inside your home? Leave poisonous cleaning chemicals unlocked and unsealed where your children can easily gain access, as long as it's on your own property? Should the government have no authority inside your home? Remember, the Constitution doesn't guarantee any such thing. The government is prohibited from unreasonable search and seizure, CS. The government has the legal authority to violate your right to privacy at any time if they have a compelling public interest to do so. The government can force you to sell your home for a highway project. The government can force you to wear a seat belt. The government can force restaurants to clean their dishes or be shut down. I've given ample reasons why smoking should be considered in teh same way, and you've utterly failed to provide any sort of effective argument against me. Either support your arguments or concede, CS. No more "I just feel this way" nonsense. At this point, "I just feel" that you're being dense.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 69 of 151 (505715)
04-15-2009 6:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by Taq
04-15-2009 6:02 PM
|
|
Re: The law goes too far
quote:
Emotional responses are irrelevant when countered by objective evidence and reasoned thinking. Whether a person "likes" it or not has nothing to do with whether the law is justified and withing the authority of the government.
In politics, the emotional response does matter. You can be right but be politically wrong. Its still a red herring. We aren't discussing whether a bill would pass, we're discussing whether the government has the authority and is justified in restricting smoking. How people feel is irrelevant to that discussion.
quote:
Your line of reasoning is horrifically flawed. It is already illegal to perform a long list of activities on your own private property.
There is also a long list of things that one can do in private that one can not do in public. There are also constitutional rights given to people in their homes that are not given to people in public places. Smoking in the home does not impact anyone else outside the home. A meth lab does put others outside of the property at risk from the chemical hazards alone. Smoking in the home does affect children who are present, sometimes with extreme results. You;re restricted from negligently harming a child - how does smoking, which has been shown to cause underdeveloped lungs, SIDS, and a whole host of other issues, any different? I'm not saying anything about smoking in a home with no children. What you do to your own body is your business, and the government does not have nearly as compelling a public interest in preventing you from smoking. The government does have a compelling interest in protecting the rights of your child, who cannot speak for itself. The same reasons that CPS can remove a child from a house determined to be unsafe due to exposed hazardous chemicals seems to apply to second hand smoke, which has been conclusively shown to have a detrimental and potentially lethal effect on children.
quote:
Your response is a gigantic red herring that fails utterly to address any single point regarding the restriction of smoking on private property. Instead, you've appealed to emotion, and then made an assertion without supporting it (the door of a home is a "very good spot" to draw the line according to you, but you neglected to say why).
The reason why is the same reason that the Bill of Rights has restrictions on search and seizure and the restrictions on quartering troops in one's home. Our homes have special protections under the Constitution. But not blanket protection. Reasonable search and seizure is still allowed. You do realize that it's illegal to dump toxic substances on your own property, right? That privately owned restaurants are restricted in how they serve their food, what beverages they can serve, and the health practices of their employees despite the restaurant being on private property? Your freedoms are not irrevocable. Your freedom to speech has limitations, like my "screaming fire" example. Your right to privacy also has limits, and your home is still subject to the law.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Taq, posted 04-15-2009 6:02 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 72 of 151 (505718)
04-15-2009 7:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by Straggler
04-15-2009 6:42 PM
|
|
Re: The law goes too far
quote:
What you do to your own body is your business, and the government does not have nearly as compelling a public interest in preventing you from smoking.
I am interested to know whether or not you would outlaw smoking for heavily pregnant women on the same basis that you would seem to favour the banning of smoking in the home where children are present. Or whether you would consider a pregnant womans body and what it contains a single legal entity under her own jurisdiction as we would a non-pregnant body. Again....I ask the question in a devils advocate sort of sense because I feel that these issues are not as black or white as either side of the debate are suggesting........I don't claim to have a rationalised and perfect answer to this. I don't think there is a perfect answer for this question. As previously stated, I think that the government's interest increases witht he amount of harm that can be casued, and also increases with the ease and relative unobtrusiveness of any propsed intervention. In the case of a pregnant woman, Roe v. Wade (from my understanding) established that the government's interest in protecting the fetus increases as it develops, reaching full separate protection when it is no longer part of the woman's body. Simultaneously, the damage from smoking begins basically immediately, and so the fetus will be harmed even when the government has little interest in protecting it as an individual. But restricting teh woman from smoking is also not relatively intrusive - the government already restricts usage of other drugs on the basis that they are harmful, and simpyl saying "stop smoking" is not an unreasonable requirement. (I'm not suggesting that quitting is easy for the mother, simply that restricting tobacco usage is not an unreasonable requirement) It's a delicate balancing act. It's not as easy as saying "go smoke outside," since the woman must be restricted from smoking at all, as well as exposing herself to second hand smoke from friends or family members who may still smoke. I'd need a lawyer to really work through how everything fits together here in the real world. But according to the standards I outlined previously, I would suggest that the government's interest in protecting the fetus as a separate entity is insufficient in the beginning of the pregnancy but increases as the fetus' development continues. Due to the low level of intrusiveness of restricting tobacco usage, I would say that the government does have a compelling interest in requiring the woman to stop smoking. The immediate arguemtn that coems to mind is Roe v. Wade itself - if the government has insufficient interest in protecting the fetus to prevent abortion, why does it have sufficient interest to prevent smoking? The answer, I would think, is that requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is exctremely invasive, and in fact dangerous (there are risks with childbirth, though modern medicine has made them far less likely). It also restricts a woman's ability to make a choice that will affect the remainder of her life. This means that significant interest is required for the government to be able to step in - most states seem to believe that this threshold is met after the second trimester (as I recall, feel free to correct me), and abortions after this point are no longer permissible unless the motehr's life is in danger. Restricting smoking is relatively much less invasive. It's temporary, it doesn't involve forcing the health risks of carrying a child to term, etc. It even benefits the woman's own health while protecting the fetus. The relative unobtrusiveness of restricting smoking (despite the fact that overcoming addiction will be extremely difficult for the mother) increases the government's interest significantly. I think that the high interest carried by the unobtrusiveness of the restriction is sufficient combined even with the small interest in the beginning of the pregnancy to make the government's interest compelling. Speaking ethically, I think any woman who smokes while pregnant, being aware of the hazards she's posing to her child, is being grossly negligent and is a bad mother. But then, ethics and the law are very different.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2009 6:42 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: The law goes too far
quote:
All businesses are subject to government regulation when the government has a compelling interest to protect the public's health.
Of course they do, I'm not arguing against that. Look, in Missouri there is no smoking ban at all. In Oklahoma there is a ban in restaurants but you can still smoke in bars. In Illinois, there is no smoking inside public places without exception. We can see that there is a range on how restrictive the legislation is. This isn't an all or nothing issue. As Taq mentioned earlier, when it comes to actually making the legislation, more than the logic of teh argument needs to be taken into consideration. Irrational human beings are still voting on the issue, and that means that contradictory views can be held by the law. I'm well aware that different people will have different opinions on the matter, CS. The reason I've been haranguing you is becasue you seem unaware of your own reasons for holding your opinion. I've stated my opinion and given my reasons. I've supported my argument with evidence. I've thought about the issue for a little while and come to a conclusion based on more than just my "gut." I'm asking you to do the same, or at least analyze your "gut" reaction and determine why you have that reaction as opposed to other possible opinions.
I feel, yes it is my opinion, that the Illinois restriction goes too far because it doesn't even allow for specialty businesses like a cigar bar to exist. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to put the line there, just that I don't like where they've decided to put the line. But why, CS? Why don't you like it? Why should the law make exceptions for "specialty businesses?" Why shouldn't it cover everyone equally? Your posts in this thread lead me to conclude that you have an immediate reflex emotional reaction when you detect "government intrusion" into private life. That's very common in America, where anythign remotely resembling socialism and even universal healthcare are demonized as somehow restrictive of "freedom." Even our so-called "liberals" have the same reservations, which is why even the most "socialist" policies we ever dream up don't resemble the policies of actual socialist nations. But one of the primary purposes of government is to provide for the protection of the populace. Regulating the cleanliness of a private restaurant is "government intrusion," but I doubt you would argue against that particular class of legislation. I agree that there is a point where the government is no longer reasonably able to intrude on private life. They shouldn't be able to enter our bedrooms, or tell us what job we can or cannot have, or conscript us to military service unless the sovereignty of the nation is in imminent danger, etc. But I've given my method for determining when I think government intervention is appropriate. By that rational standard, smoking in enclosed public places, or in enclosed spaces with children present, qualifies for government intervention on behalf of public safety. You haven't given any sort of method for determining whether a given private activity qualifies for government regulation, beyond "I don't like government intrusion" and "that's too far in my opinion." I can't predict from one case to the next what you'll determine to be "too far" based on your completely undefined standard. I'm asking you to show me your line of reasoning so that your standards can be applied to other cases to determine whether your reasoning is sound.
Even with the known health risks, the people should be able to decide for themselves if they want to have a cigar bar or not. They don't need the government to do that much regulating for them. Some states agree with me, some don't. Its a matter of opinion at this point. This isn't about whether states agree with you or me or Jim down the street. I'm trying to ascertain your reasoning for determining that regulating smoking in bars is inappropriate (or "too far" as you say). You seem to hold the opinion that regulating smoking in bars in general is fine, but that the law should contain an exception for businesses specifically set up to include smoking on their premises. Why should the exception exist? The health risks posed to both customers and employees remains the same. Other safety hazards are illegal in a workplace/private business, regardless of whether the employees and patrons want to "choose" to be exposed. You can't open a paint huffing bar, for example - even though the employees would know what they're signing up for, and even though paint is a perfectly legal substance, the health risks allow the government to step in. Why is smoking any different?
I don't care enough about this to get down to the gnat's ass on exactly where the regulation should be (besides that I'd prefer to enjoy my time here). Actually, it should be up to the state (like it is). The state gets to decide where they want to draw the line and I get to express my dissatisfaction with where they've put it. If its just noise to you, then so be it. I don't have to participate here in the way that you think I should be participating. It is up to the state, CS. That's the way the law works. But if you didn't want to actually debate the subject, why did you bother posting? If you cannot express why you are dissatisfied, isn't that disturbing to you? I don't like having emotional reactions that I cannot understand; I try to rationally analyze them, determine why I'm reacting that way, and determine whether my "gut" feeling can be supported on a rational basis or not. If not, I abandon that opinion, despite my "feelings." You seem to be just fine with having an emotional reaction and letting it lie...that's a recipe for irrationality if I've ever heard one.
I've just expressed my opinion on the issue, which happens to agree with some states and not others. You're acting like this is a black and white issue and yours is the only one that's correct. No, I'm not. I'm acting like I've provided a line of reasoning and a rational standard for determining whether government interference is justified in any given case, and that you've failed to do the same, effectively making any sort of discussion and debate impossible. You're welcome to have a different opinion, CS. But at least tell us why you have that opinion. Then we can determine whether your line of reasoning is self-consistent and rational. Perhaps your line of reasoning is even superior to mine, and you can convince me to change my opinion and abandon the standards that I posted earlier. But nothing happens, not even discussion, until you explain your opinion beyond "I just feel this way."
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 81 of 151 (505767)
04-16-2009 1:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
04-15-2009 8:27 PM
|
|
Smoking while pregnant
I'm going to reply to both you and RAZD simultaneously here:
quote:
I don't think there is a perfect answer for this question.
Absolutely. That is exactly my point. With regard to this and the other issues under discussion. I don't expect everyone to be happy or satisfied with a given answer. I just want to understand everyone's reason for providing the answer, so that obviously inconsistent and irrational answers can be discarded.
quote:
In the case of a pregnant woman, Roe v. Wade (from my understanding) established that the government's interest in protecting the fetus increases as it develops, reaching full separate protection when it is no longer part of the woman's body. Simultaneously, the damage from smoking begins basically immediately, and so the fetus will be harmed even when the government has little interest in protecting it as an individual.
Assuming that you are "pro choice" (which for the record I am) how can we rationally declare that harming a fetus through smoking is "wrong" in any way whilst also advocating a woman's right to choose to eliminate that same fetus? If she aborts, it becomes a nonissue. An abortion does not harm a child - the child simply never comes to exist. Smoking while pregnant, assuming that the pregnancy is carried to term, does carry a very high risk of harming a child. Also, remember the standard I'm using here. I think that the government's interest increases as the pregnancy continues, and that the government's interest also increases with the ease and unobtrusiveness of any potential intervention. I also think that the governments interest increases with the probability and impact of harm due to nonintervention. I'm torn on the issue, and my judgment regarding my sliding scale of interest may be clouded by my purely ethical opinion that smoking while pregnant and beign fully cognizant of the likelihood and severity of harm to the child is immoral. But then, that's part of why I post here - if I have an irrational position, I'd like it to be exposed so that I can self-correct. I'm just slightly leaning towards government intervention here, because I don't see "quit smoking" as nearly as invasive of the woman's right to privacy as "carry the baby to term." That could be a mistaken opinion, and it's based primarily on the relative impact to the woman's health (ie, pregnancy and childbirth have serious physical consequences and risks, while quitting smoking has serious benefits and no risks), as well as the degree of restricting personal choice (I value the choice to continue to smoke as less valuable than the choice to refuse medical treatment - forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy amounts to all manner of forced medication and medical procedures). I also see smoking as being a hairs breadth away from prohibition even on its own merits, considering the harm it causes the user (if we can justify prohibiting other substances based on their health risk, surely the same should be able to apply to tobacco). The combination of these factors, I think, adds significantly to the very small interest the government has in protecting the fetus in the earliest stages of pregnancy.
quote:
It's a delicate balancing act.
More than that it is a question that it is impossible to answer on a wholly rational basis. I don't think it's impossible. I just think it's extremely difficult because of the emotions involved when discussing children, pregnant mothers, and the right of self-determination.
quote:
I think that the high interest carried by the unobtrusiveness of the restriction is sufficient combined even with the small interest in the beginning of the pregnancy to make the government's interest compelling. Speaking ethically, I think any woman who smokes while pregnant, being aware of the hazards she's posing to her child, is being grossly negligent and is a bad mother. But then, ethics and the law are very different.
Where is the legal "line" that divides the point in the development at which a woman has the right to "harm" her fetus either by means of smoking or abortion? It's not a line, it's a slinding scale - the interest increases as the pregnancy continues. Personally, I prefer the end of the second trimester as the point where the government's interest becomes compelling. I justify this based on the typical point where brain activity consistent with self-awareness is detected in the fetus (please, if anyone has hard information regarding fetal brain development, please share - I don't recall my source for this, so I'd like to know if I'm mistaken).
Is there any point in the pregnancy where we can rationally say that smoking is "wrong" whilst abortion is not? If we are pro-choice how do we rationally justify a mother's obligation to not harm her baby in other ways before the point we feel that abortion becomes unwarranted? Again, in the case of an abortion, no baby is harmed - the pregnancy is terminated before the fetus develops sufficiently to be called a "child." To me, it's little different from simply using birth control from an ethical standpoint (in the earliest stages of the pregnancy, of course). With a smokign expectant mother, the assumption is that the mother intends to carry the pregnancy to term, and thus the smoking will have an impact on the actual child. The distinction is that in one case a child will exist, and in the other a child will not.
(I do not want to drag this thread down the anti abortion route and as previously stated I am broadly pro choice. Again I state my devils advocate intentions) I'm pretty broadly pro-choice as well, which is why I'm very much on the fence about this. I'm honestly barely able to make a determination one way or the other, which is one reason I'm admitting that my determination may be skewed by my ethical opinion.
quote:
Restricting smoking is relatively much less invasive. It's temporary, it doesn't involve forcing the health risks of carrying a child to term, etc. It even benefits the woman's own health while protecting the fetus. The relative unobtrusiveness of restricting smoking (despite the fact that overcoming addiction will be extremely difficult for the mother) increases the government's interest significantly.
But it is still invasive. To a degree, but only to the same degree that prohibition of non-prescription use of morphine is invasive, or prohibiting the use of marijuana is invasive. The governments interest lessens as the invasiveness increases, meaning that the government has a greater interest where any intervention would be minor, and less interest where intervention would be severe.
Pregnancy and the possibility of harm to a fetus present one of the better opportunities for a woman to commit to quitting smoking, and I would strongly support programs to encourage this. A recent study (saw in mag in doctor's office yesterday) said that exercise like walking could distract the smoker and reduce if not break the habit, depending on the person. This also had the benefit of making the mother more fit, which also benefits childbirth. At the very minimum I think we can all agree that programs intended to discourage smoking (especially while pregnant) are in no way a form of government invasiveness and are certainly appropriate.
Not all pregnancies by smoking mothers result in noticeable fetal damage, and there are a lot of people in our generations that had smoking mothers - my mom still smokes a pack a day and she is 89. Not all people who take heroin will have negative side effects, as well. That doesn't mean that it's not extremely risky.
The issue for me would still be individual choice over a sometime effect. Technically, washing dishes at a restaurant is a matter of choice on private property, and getting sick from insufficient cleanliness is a "sometimes effect." Mandatory seatbelt use is an individual choice, and getting into an accident is a "sometimes effect." The variables are the actual probability of harm and the severity of harm should it take place, coupled with how invasive the regulation is. As an example, forcing restaurants to clean their dishes is relatively unobtrusive, the risk of getting sick from only partially cleaned dishes is moderate to high, and the impact of illness if it happens is moderate to high. Restricting smoking while pregnant is relatively unobtrusive, the risk of developmental problems due to smoking are low to moderate, and the impact of those developmental problems should the occur is relatively high (since they are typically lifelong, or in some cases life-threatening). In comparison, restricting abortion is extremely invasive (involving 9 months of emotional distress and forced medical procedures, indluding some risk of injury or death to the mother), and the risk/impact of nonintervention is essentially nil, since no child actually exists yet. Does this make sense?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2009 8:27 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 82 of 151 (505768)
04-16-2009 1:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by Taq
04-16-2009 12:08 PM
|
|
Re: The law goes too far
quote:
Smoking in the home does affect children who are present, sometimes with extreme results. You;re restricted from negligently harming a child - how does smoking, which has been shown to cause underdeveloped lungs, SIDS, and a whole host of other issues, any different?
A fatty diet has been shown to cause type II diabetes and other health problems as well. Should we have police entering people's homes to raid their refridgerator? I completely agree that smoking poses a health risk, but at some point we need to let parents be parents even if that means letting them make mistakes. Strawman. I'm not claiming that there should be mandatory investigations into people's homes to determine whether they've been smoking around children. We don't intrude on people's homes to determine whether their living conditions are safe for their children on other matters, either. Charges are simply brought up and the children removed when it is actually discovered. For instance, it would be gross negligence for you to leave an open container of Drain-o where a toddler can easily reach it. We don't have police randomly searching homes to find negligent parents who are careless about their household poisons. Instead, if disaster strikes and the child drinks the Drain-o, the negligent parent is then charged. The point is that the deterrent and official condemnation fo the practice result in prevention. Searching people's homes to investigate their living conditions is unreasonable - there is no probable cause to search the household, and it would take far more manpower than most police departments have available. If smoking near children in an enclosed space were actually made illegal, you might see a few smokers pulled over for smoking in their car with a child, and you might see a few episodes of COPS where, upon entering a home for other reasons, the police find a parent smoking in the same room with children and determine that the household is unsafe. You won't see the Gestapo-style nonsense you're arguing against.
quote:
But not blanket protection. Reasonable search and seizure is still allowed.
This is what this debate boils down to. What is reasonable? I think an enforced ban on smoking in households with minors present is unreasonable. Why? What is your reason for determining that it is unreasonable? Do you agree or disagree with restrictions on other substances in the home, like cleaning products, prescription medications, general cleanliness, or other things that pertain to a safe environment for children? If you maintain that leaving Drain-o out where little 3-year-old Timmy might wonder how it tastes is worthy of being counted as gross negligence, what separates smoking near Timmy from being counted as the same thing?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by Taq, posted 04-16-2009 12:08 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 83 of 151 (505769)
04-16-2009 1:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 80 by onifre
04-16-2009 12:17 PM
|
|
Re: The law goes too far
quote:
So you've completely established that your argument is based upon nothing more than your own subjective "feeling" that you "don't like" the government intruding where you don't think it belongs, and you cannot even define any line of reasoning to establish where that line belongs.
The point is that "feelings" and "I personally don't like this" IS how people decide what is right or wrong and vote guilded by these feelings of dissatisfaction. That's not how I decide what's right and wrong. I try to make a point of analyzing all of my "gut" reactions and making a rational determination of what is actually right and wrong. "Feelings"-based morality leads to such nonsense as "homosexuality should be illegal because it makes me squeemish."
quote:
Whether you "feel" that the health risk is minor or not, actual fucking doctors like the Surgeon General believe otherwise - and they can even show the evidence upon which their professional opinion is based.
Then why don't they simply outlaw the product? If the health risks are sooo high and they are sooo concerned then why not make the product completely illegal to make and sell? Why, because the "fucking doctors", whether they are right about the health risks or not, don't decide what becomes policy or law. We the people decide through votes - unless, again, the product becomes illegal - like with pot. Your "opinion" or "feelings" about pot are irrelevant, becuase the product is illegal, but tabacoo is legal, and as long as it is legal then the opinions of the users, which are the main source of revenue for the product - (both for the tabacoo industry AND the government tax on tabacoo) - are of value. I'm well aware of that. But this wasn't ever a discussion of whether any such legislation would garner public support. I suffer no illusions as to the rationality of the common individual - to paraphrase Agent K, "A person can be smart. People are dumb, stupid, frightened animals and you know it." Rationally, by the way, I find that keeping tobacco legal while banning marijuana is logically inconsistent. The discussion was whether the government was right to ban smoking in bars, even to the point of outlawing "specialty" businesses like CS's smoking bar, and whether the government would be right to ban smoking in an enclosed space with a child. That's a very long distance away from why tobacco is legal at all. Personally, I support a great deal of personal choice, even if those choices are self-destructive. What I don't support are personal choices that negatively impact others.
quote:
The government already regulates private property on many, many other issues. Do you have a problem with those as well? Should it be legal for you to dump toxic chemicals on your own property? Possess controlled substances inside your home? Leave poisonous cleaning chemicals unlocked and unsealed where your children can easily gain access, as long as it's on your own property? Should the government have no authority inside your home?
Tabacoo is not illegal, so NO the government has no say so as to what you do with the legal product. Tobacco is restricted. It is illegal in the posession of a minor. The government does have a say so as to what you do with the legal product. Just like morphine is legal...when it's prescribed from a doctor, and not under any other circumstances. Just like Drain-o is legal...until you're negligent with it and leave it out near a curious child. Just like oil is legal...until you dump it down a storm drain. need I go on? "Legality" is not a black/white determination. In many cases it's determined by context.
Would you run a welder inside your home with your kids around? Would you run your car in your garage with your kids in it? Would you BBQ in your home with your family sitting inside? NO - this is common sense. So should smoking in your home with your kids be. Thats the thing though - if you actually did any of those things, and the authorities became aware of it, you could be brought up on charges of gross negligence or reckless endangerment. We already do legislate common snese.
Laws to regulate this are supid and need not be inforced. People continue to rely on the government to regulate things that should be common sense and all that does is make us more dependant on the government to tell us what we should do. This has more to do with relying on the government to protect us from idiots than being told what to do. The government can tell you where you can consume alcohol. You can't do it in your car, or on a sidewalk. Restaurants need to cordon off outdoor seating areas if they serve alcohol so that there is a designated space for drinking, and need to obtain a license for serving alcohol. If you give sufficient alcohol to a child as to cause harm, you'll be brought up on charges. Laws like this are not stupid, and do need to be enforced.
It is the same with abortion. It's not that I'm pro killing babies because I am pro choice, I'm pro human intelligence and pro independent thinking. Make your own choice and don't be a fucking idiot about it. I'm pro choice as well, but mostly becasue I don't think it has anything to do with "killing babies." I can't rationally call a clump of cells a "baby." I can't regard it as deserving of human rights until it posesses sufficient brain function to make it a separate, self-aware entity.
Smoking with your kids in the house is stupid to do, if you are someone who lacks the ability to make that decision then maybe your particular DNA shouldn't exist. Stop making laws to keep people from doing stupid things, fuck'em if they can't be adults about it. If we start allowing government control for these moral issues then we've lost our ability to decide whats right and wrong for ourselves and we might as well stop taking part in a democratic process because we've proven ourselves to incompetent to make conscience decisions about petty matters. Thats rather apathetic to the victims. Perhaps we should also stop legislating regarding murder? After all, if you're someone who lacks the ability to determine that killing another human being is wrong, then maybe your particular DNA shoudn't exist. Let's stop making laws that keep people from doing stupid things, fuck 'em if they can't be adults about it. If we start allowing government control over moral issues... Oh, wait. It is appropriate for the governemnt to make reasonable legal restrictions to protect the rights of all members of a society. You're advocating that we should legally allow one person's right to choose to smoke to trump the rights of anyone around him to choose not to smoke...particularly children, who don't get any say in the matter at all. This isn't about mroality and ethics. It's about whether the government has a sufficiently compelling interest in public health to override an individual's right to privacy.
Man up and make your own choices for yourselves and let the government handle real issues, which they seem to need to concentrate on a lot more. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to work very well. Perhaps the most curious thing about human beings is our tendency to act directly against our own (and especially our collective) self-interest. That's why we need the government to tackle those "real issues" in the first place. And I consider public health to be amongst those "real issues."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 80 by onifre, posted 04-16-2009 12:17 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 92 by onifre, posted 04-16-2009 7:12 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2