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

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming
I have no problem with a ban on smoking indoors in publicly owned places. On the other hand, an owner of a business/establishment should be allowed to make his own decision on whether smoking is allowed. If there were such a big demand for it in bars, bars that outlawed smoking should be prospering, and most bars should be smoke free already... funny, they aren't.

Smoking bars are more profitable because smokers are more desperate to smoke than non-smokers are to stop them smoking. Therefore it only takes a minority of smokers in a particular social circle to persuade their group to go to a bar or restaurant (or part thereof) that allows smoking. Once you have that situation all bars are immediately under pressure to allow smoking (or reserve a larger area for smoking), despite it potentially being a minority want.

[CerberusIV]

I don't think I've ever read so much bleating about rights of the individual in a poly thread before (maybe I am usually good at avoiding those kind of threads ). Yes, everyone has rights - and responsibilities.

So you don't want to wear a seatbelt and big nanny government telling you that you must infringes your rights. Ever thought about the right of the police officers and paramedics not to have to scrape another corpse off the hood of a car, or that they might be off sick with stress when you want them to tackle a real crime or emergency.

How about the right of your loved ones not to have to visit you in the intensive care unit in hospital and look at all the machines you are hooked up to and wonder if you are going to die or not. How about their right not to have to attend your funeral just yet.

I headbutted the windscreen of a car a good few years ago from the outside (cycle accident) and I sure as hell don't want to do it again from the inside. My wife wrote off a car once - went off the road and it rolled several times - but she was wearing a seatbelt and walked away. I'm glad she was wearing a belt as I hate hospitals and funerals.

I wear a seatbelt not because my car bleeps at me to do so (I currently drive a Volvo and it actually does) or because it's the law. I wear a belt because I'm not ready to leave the building just yet and when I do go I don't want to leave a mess for someone else to sort out. Nor am I particularly keen to see the mess anyone else leaves behind in an auto accident when they aren't wearing a belt.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I don't think I've ever read so much bleating about rights of the individual in a poly thread before (maybe I am usually good at avoiding those kind of threads ). Yes, everyone has rights - and responsibilities.

So you don't want to wear a seatbelt and big nanny government telling you that you must infringes your rights. Ever thought about the right of the police officers and paramedics not to have to scrape another corpse off the hood of a car, or that they might be off sick with stress when you want them to tackle a real crime or emergency.

How about the right of your loved ones not to have to visit you in the intensive care unit in hospital and look at all the machines you are hooked up to and wonder if you are going to die or not. How about their right not to have to attend your funeral just yet.

I headbutted the windscreen of a car a good few years ago from the outside (cycle accident) and I sure as hell don't want to do it again from the inside. My wife wrote off a car once - went off the road and it rolled several times - but she was wearing a seatbelt and walked away. I'm glad she was wearing a belt as I hate hospitals and funerals.

I wear a seatbelt not because my car bleeps at me to do so (I currently drive a Volvo and it actually does) or because it's the law. I wear a belt because I'm not ready to leave the building just yet and when I do go I don't want to leave a mess for someone else to sort out. Nor am I particularly keen to see the mess anyone else leaves behind in an auto accident when they aren't wearing a belt.

Yet you ride a motorcycle?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Smoking bars are more profitable because smokers are more desperate to smoke than non-smokers are to stop them smoking. Therefore it only takes a minority of smokers in a particular social circle to persuade their group to go to a bar or restaurant (or part thereof) that allows smoking. Once you have that situation all bars are immediately under pressure to allow smoking (or reserve a larger area for smoking), despite it potentially being a minority want.

Yep... the owners have the right to run the business their own way, and customers have the choice to go or not... choice. While they may be under pressure to allow smoking, at least they still have a choice. The government shouldn't make that choice for them.

You also talk about a minority want... but look at it this way... there are really three groups. Smokers, hard core anti smokers, and people who don't really care. The smokers and anti smokers are the minorities.
Many people don't really care.

Drinking and smoking have been partners for years... why should a Bar owner be forced to do something that may harm his business.

[Sava]

@ Pekka and UR

[Donegeal]

Hmm...

Pekka = Fez DL?

Both seem to get trolled pretty easy...

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Velociryx
It's about cash.

You've got it, the government wants it, and this is their latest meal ticket.

I resent it.

-=Vel=-

I don't think so, at least not in Wisconsin. Here its a $10 ticket (maybe $15, I forget. I don't write them). It costs FAR more in legal fees and Court costs to procecute them.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ming


Yep... the owners have the right to run the business their own way, and customers have the choice to go or not... choice. While they may be under pressure to allow smoking, at least they still have a choice. The government shouldn't make that choice for them.

You also talk about a minority want... but look at it this way... there are really three groups. Smokers, hard core anti smokers, and people who don't really care. The smokers and anti smokers are the minorities.
Many people don't really care.

Drinking and smoking have been partners for years... why should a Bar owner be forced to do something that may harm his business.

I'm not making a case for law based banning of smoking, I don't like the general trend of following that line of thought. I wanted to point out that it doesn't take many smokers to make smoking bars and restaurants profitable.

If all bars were banned from allowing smoking then the pressure to allow smoking would be removed (obviously). The economic losses aren't as great as making a personal business decision to disallow smoking as you aren't going to lose business to other bars and restaurants that allow smoking. Whether they would lead to economic loss through fewer people going to bars and restaurants, I would not like to say. I know that a few pubs and bars here have reported reduced bar sales, but increased food sales, through (mostly self-imposed) smoking bans.

[Dauphin]

An interesting short article. This is the way to go, forget bans...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4201053.stm

And then there will be this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/4747875.stm

[MOBIUS]

If Sava wants to kill himself, who are we to stand in his way...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I'm not making a case for law based banning of smoking, I don't like the general trend of following that line of thought.

And neither do I.

A law banning it restricts the rights of owners to make their own business decision, and restricts the rights of smokers. People who don't like smoke still have the choice to support such establishments or not.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
If Sava wants to kill himself, who are we to stand in his way...

[MOBIUS]

Yep if you're stupid enough to smoke you should be allowed to - just as long as other people aren't affected.

For that you should pay through the nose for the healthcare you will be requiring later in life...

Same for fat people and idiots who don't wear seat belts because they think its cool...

[MOBIUS]

Speaking of seat belts...

When I was younger and immature I often didn't wear them either, but a g/f kept nagging me so I started wearing them.

Every now and again I still forget to put it on - until that is I go around the first corner and find my butt sliding across the seat and not feeling secure...

If you're not properly strapped in it could affect your cornering and control and it certainly isn't cool looking like a dick who can barely control his car...

[Ming]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
For that you should pay through the nose for the healthcare you will be requiring later in life...

I would have no problem with that as long as people that drink, do drugs, are overweight, drive without seat belts, drive too fast, have dangerous hobbies, stay out in the sun too long with out protection, or those that engage in any other activities that are risky pay through the nose for healthcare as well.