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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
But a businessman should have the right to make his own decision, just like the patrons can decide whether they want to enter such establishments. Choices on BOTH SIDES.

The problem is, no business ever declared itself smoke free until forced to do so, even though the majority wanted it. Anyway, we regulate all kinds of things businesses can or can't do. I don't see why this should be considered any different.

[Velociryx]

To all you "it saves lives" dorks....if saving lives was the REAL goal, you could do much better, thusly:

* Make a law banning personal autos (leaving them open for mass transit and transportation).

In one fell swoop, you dramatically reduce the number of deaths in the nation AND improve national health, shaving billions off of health care costs as more people bike it.

Harping on the few thousand lives saved by the "band-aid" solution is funny, in an odd sort of way.

-=Vel=-

[Dauphin]

Banning personal autos is not a viable solution. Clicking a seat belt is as easy as proverbial pie.


Laws aside, what is so difficult about using a seat belt?!?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
* Make a law banning personal autos (leaving them open for mass transit and transportation).

If you were ape**** about "click it or ticket," how would you be about this? While I'm no fan of the personal auto, this would be political suicide for anyone proposing it, and it would have less than a snowballs' chance in hell of passing. Sometimes politics is about what you can do.

Incidentally, this is the exact reason why Eastern Bloc cars were so bad (think Trabi). It wasn't that they couldn't make good cars, they did. IIRC, the Benz motors were made in the same plant that made the Trabi, and the Soviets made a world class luxery sedan for the party leadership. The idea, though, was to make personal cars so inconvenient that people would prefer to use public transit instead. And guess what, everyone *****ed about it.

[Velociryx]

That's why I like coming here...

-=Vel=-

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem is, no business ever declared itself smoke free until forced to do so, even though the majority wanted it.

First... that is not true... but to your point, why should the majority of people have a say on how people want to run their businesses... The "majority" want lower prices, but they aren't allowed to dictate that to the owners. They can make a statement by either giving a person their business or not...

Anyway, we regulate all kinds of things businesses can or can't do. I don't see why this should be considered any different.

For your perspective, I can see why you feel that way... it doesn't effect you
Your above statement would imply that you don't mind if government regulates ALL aspects of a person business... what the heck, we have some regulations in place so it's no different if we keep adding more

Where does it stop...

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Incidentally, this is the exact reason why Eastern Bloc cars were so bad (think Trabi). It wasn't that they couldn't make good cars, they did. IIRC, the Benz motors were made in the same plant that made the Trabi, and the Soviets made a world class luxery sedan for the party leadership. The idea, though, was to make personal cars so inconvenient that people would prefer to use public transit instead. And guess what, everyone *****ed about it.

Wow.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ming
First... that is not true... but to your point, why should the majority of people have a say on how people want to run their businesses.

Why not? It's a democracy, ain't it?

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why not? It's a democracy, ain't it?

Using that argument, the "people" could demand FREE goods or services... so don't give me that crap

[chequita guevara]

That is basically my entire poltical agenda, Ming. It's not a valid argument against me.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ming

I'm not advocating that people should be allowed to smoke where ever they want. I like the restrictions put in place in publicly owned places.

Why?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Why?

I'm guessing because the lawmakers "own" those public places and as such have the right to allow or not allow smoking as they choose

[Ming]

Originally posted by Flubber
I'm guessing because the lawmakers "own" those public places and as such have the right to allow or not allow smoking as they choose

And that is indeed a good guess. I have no problem with the Government (local or Fed) who actually owns the land making the rules. Just like I have no problem with owners of private business being allowed to make that decision for their businesses.

Also, public places like court houses, government offices... people have no choice but to go to these places. And I have no problem protecting their rights to a smoke free enviornment in places where they have no choice but to go.

But for bars, people have the CHOICE on whether to enter them or not. They can make that decision with their pocketbooks and nobody is forcing them to go in

[Dauphin]

"You can have the car in any colour, as long as its black". It's not a choice if you need a car. Similarly, "You don't have to go in to that bar", is not a choice if you want a few drinks with your mates and they are not bothered by smoke that all the bars have.

You are claiming choice, but its not that simple.

[Ming]

Yes it is that simple... you have the choice to enter or not... frankly, the reasons don't change the fact that the choice is still yours to make.