Idea about "click it or ticket" (mandatory seat belt laws)

[rah]

How about fast food and liquer. These definately belong in the same class. Where do you draw the line.

[Kuciwalker]

No they don't. You can eat tons of fast food without harming yourself; there's an entire class of people who do so. They're called teenagers also, the line between fast food and non-fast food is very fuzzy. Also, AIUI alcohol is also not particularly detrimental in reasonable quantities, but that's not the reason for not banning alcohol - it's because it's politically impossible to do so and didn't work last time we tried.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by rah
How about fast food and liquer. These definately belong in the same class. Where do you draw the line.

Perhaps you and Ming should explain this amazing osmosis whereby someone eating fast food or drinking alcohol near you transmits the ill effects of the products before you bring it up yet again.

[rah]

Get behind the wheel of a car after drinking, you're a harm to everyone else on the road.
But that's not the point. It's where to draw the line in public safety. And giving people choices. The odds are, anyone sitting in a bar is harming themselves. How much is their choice. There are non smoking bars. Why should I be denied a smoking one as long as an owner is willing (and betting his own money) to supply one.

I agree with a ban in federal or municiple owned facilities. But privately, I think the government should stay out of it and let the market decide.

[rah]

and my comment about drinking and eating fast food was in reference to the social costs associated with it that Kuci seems to continue to use in his arguements.
Which he doesn't answer about.

[Kuciwalker]

Get behind the wheel of a car after drinking, you're a harm to everyone else on the road.

And that's why it's illegal.

[q="rah"]But that's not the point. It's where to draw the line in public safety.[/q]

[q="Kuciwalker"]remove a clear health risk such as smoking, which by extension has clear economic benefits (we spend way too much on health care as it is)[/q]

[q="rah"]And giving people choices.[/q]

Previously, the choice would be "work in a place with smokers and make more money, or work somewhere without smokers and make less money" presumably. Now the choice is "work in a place without smokers and make more money, or work in a place without smokers and make less money", unless you have any evidence that wages have decreased due to the ban... so it seems obvious to me that this is a good thing.

[q="rah"]Why should I be denied a smoking one as long as an owner is willing (and betting his own money) to supply one.[/q]

Health of the employees, and the economic pressure it puts on nonsmoking establishments. Again, smoke in your own home, we're not removing the freedom entirely, but these laws provide a CLEAR public health and economic benefit.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
and my comment about drinking and eating fast food was in reference to the social costs associated with it that Kuci seems to continue to use in his arguements.
Which he doesn't answer about.

I did. The cases are entirely different, for fast food because of the impossibility of defining it, and for alcohol because of the political impossibility of doing it, as well as very strong historical evidence that it wouldn't work.

[rah]

Saying it won't work is a cop out so you don't have to argue it.

If I'm at a friends house, I ask if I can smoke.
If he says yes, I do. If he says no, I don't.

Why should it be any different for a bar owner? If he says yes. It's his place. If a person doesn't like smoke, DON"T GO IN. Why should you infringe on my right and the OWNER's when you have a choice not to be there.

My smoking has never been a danger to you since you've never been near me. Anyone near me in a bar has the CHOICE to leave.

Danger in the workplace.
Should workers on high rises or bridges be not allowed to take the risk and make more money.
Should race drivers not be allowed to race.
Should football players not be allowed to play.

It should be the workers choice and the owners choice.
This if America.

What a waitress can't find a job at smokeless resturant?
If she doesn't she's choosing not to.

[rah]

And if it's the benevolent Goverment protecting the masses, why do they subsidize tobacco farmers. They don't make pies of it, they make cigarettes.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
Saying it won't work is a cop out so you don't have to argue it.

Not really a cop out, since it's a perfectly valid argument. It makes the entire issue moot. If something is unenforceable (and in fact, if you attempted to enforce it, would cause way more harm than good), then the benefits if it were somehow succesfully enforced are irrelevent.

If I'm at a friends house, I ask if I can smoke.
If he says yes, I do. If he says no, I don't.

Why should it be any different for a bar owner? If he says yes. It's his place. If a person doesn't like smoke, DON"T GO IN. Why should you infringe on my right and the OWNER's when you have a choice not to be there.

You realize that there are other people in there besides the owner, like employees, right? And I doubt that "smoking" is a selling point when it comes to hiring people - it's a thing they view as negative and therefore want extra money for. It's the same thing as drug regulation - the vast majority of people WANT their drugs to be safe, etc. so rather than force everyone to be very careful about what drugs they get, the FDA doesn't let you sell medicine that'll kill people. OTOH, the purpose of smoking is different and people EXPECT it to be dangerous, etc. so making it illegal entirely violates freedom of choice.

My smoking has never been a danger to you since you've never been near me. Anyone near me in a bar has the CHOICE to leave.

Given the choice, many people will stay in the bar rather than leave, even if they have to endure the smoke. Without laws requiring it, there probably wouldn't be many or any smoke-free bars. Once again, there is a significant public health benefit to a large number of people, as well as a general economic benefit, to banning smoking in bars and such, while still allowing you to smoke, just not quite everywhere you want to.

Danger in the workplace.
Should workers on high rises or bridges be not allowed to take the risk and make more money.

Again, you are MISSING THE POINT. The goal is not merely to "minimize danger" or whatever, the point is to provide public health and economic benefits. Allowing people to work on high rises or bridges provides significant economic benefits and relatively much smaller public health costs, costs that are pretty much isolated to only those that choose to work on high rises or bridges. The economic costs from treating injuries sustained by those workers are vastly offset by the benefits of the labor they provide.

Should race drivers not be allowed to race.

Race drivers do not endanger others.

The danger associated with race driving is an implied part of the job.

Should football players not be allowed to play.

See above.

It should be the workers choice and the owners choice.
This if America.

And the workers will be much happier and better off if you don't give them this choice, unless you can show that these laws actually cause a DECREASE in wages.

What a waitress can't find a job at smokeless resturant?

Where's the evidence, again, that this has resulted in fewer jobs?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
And if it's the benevolent Goverment protecting the masses, why do they subsidize tobacco farmers.

Because of the tobacco lobby, duh.

[rah]

There doesn't need to be evidence. The waitress has a choice not to work there. You have the choice not to go there. What's so complicated about that.

Maybe if people showed some guts and more said they wouldn't work there or go there, more Owners would be willing to risk their money on a non-smoking bar.
NAW, why stand up for themselves when they can have the government do it for them.


Then there would be a real choice for everyone. As it should be. Not because you don't want to be inconvienced by having to go into a smoking bar.
If you vote with your money, you will get the choice.

Why do your rights trump the owners, who puts up the money and takes the risk?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by rah
There doesn't need to be evidence. The waitress has a choice not to work there. You have the choice not to go there. What's so complicated about that.

The fact that we're not absolute libertarians, that's what. I prefer to judge laws based on their consequences.

Situation A: no law.

Waitresses and such choose to work at smoking establishments despite the fact that they are smoking. They are paid a certain wage. There are various public health and by extension economic costs caused by the secondhand smoke.

Situation B: the law bans smoking establishments

Waitresses and such work at nonsmoking establishments. They are probably paid the same wage, unless you have any evidence that these laws have caused drops in wages. There is a significant decrease in public health and the resulting economic costs due to smoking, the only remaining ones being due only to illnesses of the smokers themselves.

Clearly B is better than A. Clearly the freedom to smoke has only been restricted in relation to location - you can smoke in your own home all you want. I therefore choose situation B.

Maybe if people showed some guts and more said they wouldn't work there or go there, more Owners would be willing to risk their money on a non-smoking bar.
NAW, why stand up for themselves when they can have the government do it for them.

Maybe it's a lot simpler to have the government enforce this sort of thing than try to maintain solidarity amongst all the waitresses and such in the city.

This is the same reason we have the FDA. While in principle, you could just form a group of consumers that vet all the drugs released by companies and only by those that they think are safe, it is far less costly and far more effective and efficient to have the government regulate it, because the vast majority of people want medicinal drugs held to a certain standard. Because of this vast majority, the cost to freedom is pretty small, particularly relative to the massive economic and public health gains. Minor tradeoffs in liberty for massive economic and public health returns.

[DinoDoc]

Sometimes I love my city government.

Officials have no plans for changing smoking policies
Amy Sullenberger

August 30, 2005

Oxford lawmakers have not followed the trend found in many other cities in the country of restricting the places where residents are allowed to smoke.

“Recently, the subject was brought up of banning smoking in buildings that are used by the public, but the discussion went no further because some aldermen felt that to do so would be over-regulating on the part of local government,” Mayor Richard Howorth said. “Currently there is nothing in the city code book that prohibits tobacco use.”

Taylor Webb, a senior history major from Tupelo, finds Oxford to be a smoker-friendly place. He said he doesn’t mind having to go outside to smoke if it is prohibited inside restaurants or other facilities.

“It’s not really that big of a deal,” Webb said. “I’ve never been hassled here about smoking. I usually try to go out of my way to not bother people when I’m smoking.”

Kendall Youngblood, a junior English major from San Antonio, said she believes that Oxford accommodates smokers because it’s a college town.

“Over half the people I know here smoke,” Youngblood said.

Youngblood said she believes that small cities in Mississippi will be the last in the nation to enforce smoking laws. ACT Now, a group found on the Ole Miss campus and funded by the Partnership For a Healthy Mississippi, offers a free program to help anyone interested in quitting smoking or smokeless tobacco.

Yvonne Boyd, project coordinator for ACT Now, said although they are certainly concerned with any policy issues within the state or elsewhere related to tobacco, “Our focus here is to help all who are interested in quitting. We provide strategies that deal with the tobacco cessation process along with free medications and a pharmacist consultant to provide information on the medications.”

Boyd also said, however, that she is “really excited that these (policies) are being addressed. We at ACT Now feel that it is important to be aware of all issues relating to tobacco, including smoking policy.”

Dr. Tom Lombardo, associate professor of psychology and director of ACT Now, said the program is not responsible for making policies, but it does conduct surveys to help members understand the thinking and smoking habits of students. Nearly 2,000 students respond to the surveys each year.

John Bentley, assistant professor of pharmacy administration and a sponsor of ACT Now, said that in one study, they surveyed college students on whether smoke-free environments in restaurants and bars would affect patronage patterns. There were noticeable differences between smokers and nonsmokers, he said.

Bentley said that nonsmokers – comprising nearly 70 percent of the respondents – were significantly more likely to provide a favorable response to the implementation of smoking restrictions in restaurants and bars. A majority of smokers, however, said policies that restrict smoking in local facilities would not significantly change their patronage habits. Researchers concluded that restricting smoking in certain facilities would most likely not adversely affect business. Similar findings have been found in studies of other groups.

[rah]

To sum it up, you use the government to take away peoples right to choose. Yes I guess I'm am more of a libertarian.

No matter what you say, the waitresses choose to work there. The public chooses to drink there.

YOU WOULD TAKE AWAY THAT CHOICE.

Will it be different for you when the government comes to take away something that you like to do?