Smoking Bans

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.

I know this is a little off topic, but it's just a pet peeve of mine.The state issues driver's license. Technically speaking, your driver's license does not belong to you. It belongs to the state. You're just borrowing it from the state under certain conditions. In the state of Illinois, one of the conditions is you have to have your seat belt on. If you don't want to put seat belt on, that's perfectly fine with the state. Just give back that driver's license to the secretary of state.

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.

No. It's just that there aren't as many motorcycles than there are cars, so the fines are minimal. Where as with cars, everyone has one, so it benefits those imposing the law to do it on an object that people can't seem to do without.Sure the state "technically" owns your drivers licence, since they issue it, but you use your car to go to work, where you pay taxes, use roads and tolls, buy gasoline, and pretty much keep the economy rolling. If it wasn't for us, the citizens, using our cars and going to wrok and paying taxes and using the roads and paying for tolls, the state would have shit for revenue, so, maybe they should be cautious as to who owns who here.Everyone give back their drviers licences, just for a year, and don't use any cars, see how quick the state drops to their knees an is willing to negotiate on that whole "we own your licence" crap.This won't happen of course because we are not that motivated to gain control and are much more willing to accept being controled, but we forget the actual power we as citizens have so we remain subdued and controled and told to "either deal with it or shut up about it".Basically, we as citizens have given up our control to the states and allowed them to impose anything they so desire without being able to challenge it because we are too busy to give a shit.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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)

Spoken like a true anarchist.

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

Yes, but follow all of the laws that are attached to each of these things, whether you like it or not, or give up your "privilages" if not.Roads, defense, and if we get healthcare, will still come from our tax dollars, which I agree that we should have it this way. But the state doesn't "own" shit. These services are services made available when AND IF we choose to get our asses to work and feed the machine that drives this country. We citizens are the fuel, our sweat and our labor maintains this government, this country, they provide us with a service, they don't "own" the rights to any of it. As long as you're one man bitching, you will reserve that right. Do it as a large enough group where you can get your "bitching information" out to a mass audience, and you will be shut down.Why didn't they allow Al Jazeera to braodcast in the US again?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

YesThink of it like an argument with a creationist, if the Bible didn't exist would we be a bunch of murderers and rapist with no morality? NoSeatbelts are a new feature, relatively speaking. People, in my opinion, have just become more educated on the benefits of using it, just as we once did on the benefits of not murdering each other. Laws are only there to scare honest people, I doubt they do much as a means of teaching things properly.Education has been the key, I think. But I guess we differ on that, cool. I don't. I do it because of the safety reasons, and I did it before any law was even thought of, in my state. Show me the evidence for that, specifically for the "law".I do not doubt that it has risen, but so has the use of any product after a while, when it's benefits are fully understood and we educate oursleves and our family about it. I do not doubt the results, but in my opinion, this has been due to education and not fear of being given a ticket. Perhaps I'm being slightly optimistic in thinking that people learned due to education and not fear tactics, maybe I'm wrong. I am not saying the evidence is right OR wrong. It's probably true.But, ask yourself, if you were the state and you made good money by issuing tickets, would you attribute the "rise in usage" and "decline in deaths" to your law oOR to people having learned to use the product propely and being better educated on it? - Which would you prefer and benefit from, if you were the state?Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

For a second I read "antichrist". Which, actually, either one is fine.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

By the way, this is the "smoking" thread so Happy 420 to everyone!!!I hope everyone enjoyed

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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

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

The public awareness would have sufficed. There is no need for that to be a law outside of common sense. There was no "campaign" to teach the public in the US, we simply see the ads for it being a law and you'll be fined if you don't adhere.Awareness comes from driving schools, adults who tell you to put it on, and, oh yeah, common sense. We don't have government organized campaigns here in the US that teach us about using seatbelts, we have campaigns that just show us it's a law and you'll be punished for breaking it. It's all about the fear tactic. In fact the ad is "Buckle up, it's the LAW".Here's the link to California's "awareness" campaign: Buckle up it's the lawPerhaps the law reflects the governments lack of confidence in it's citizens to be taught and to learn and understand. So instead of teaching people they just make a law.If they changed the law in your country would you stop using the seatbelts and incourage your children to stop using it as well?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

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