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

[Velociryx]

and don't worry GePap...I only rarely accuse you of making sense...

-=Vel=-

PS: Given the amount of crime out there, and the minimal number of cops on the beat...yep...seatbelts will wind up being one of those unenforceable laws, cos the manpower simply isn't there.

Of course, for the safety of the masses, we could always turn the country into a police state...wouldn't THAT be fun!

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki


But the argument was that the government shouldn't be able to regulate private business wrt smoking. The position outlined and agreed to was that it was OK for the government to ban it from buildings it "owned", and now it's OK for them regulate businesses that want patronage from anyone under 18 (or whatever the appropriate legal age is). So clearly there's two concessions you have to make:

1) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking at all
2) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking in private businesses in the name of the "social good"

I'm a nonsmoker so on a personal level I would not mind if they torched every tobacco field on earth. I agree with both concessions as i see no problem with the government regulating smoking somewhat

Originally posted by Kontiki


But the argument was that the government shouldn't be able to regulate private business wrt smoking. The position outlined and agreed to was that it was OK for the government to ban it from buildings it "owned", and now it's OK for them regulate businesses that want patronage from anyone under 18 (or whatever the appropriate legal age is). So clearly there's two concessions you have to make:

1) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking at all
2) It is OK for the government to regulate smoking in private businesses in the name of the "social good"

So where's the compromise? Did the businesses have a choice to comply with this new regulation? This "choice" thing is just a shell game to keep avoiding the real issue - it's fine to have some government regulation (it's everywhere, and almost always for the "public good") on private businesses, just not when you happen to disagree with it or it might affect you personally. And it's not like smoking itself is being banned, just smoking in bars/restaurants. So you always have your vaunted "choice" - either eat or drink in a restaurant/bar, or smoke. Isn't choice wonderful?

Actually there are currently "smoking " restaurants and bars where children are prohibited and non-smoking restaurants where they are not. The compromise was in not bannning smoking altogether-- you know a balancing of a businesses concern to maintain snmoking clientele and the public health issue-- Any given restaurant could choose to be adult or family

So there are lots of places where people can smoke and eat/drink at ther same time. They just can't bring children in there with them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
What's this Public Good stuff... If it was a matter of public good, they would outlaws bars period. Liquor is also one of the leading health hazards... Yeah, restrict the owners right to allow smoking in a bar, but make him pay for a liquor license so he can help people kill themselves with liquor... maybe if there was "allowed smoking inside license" the government would leave it alone

They already DID outlaw drinking once. Its proved highly unpopular. Why? Cause is a hazard in excess. Smoking is a hazzard, period.

And the fact that liquor licenses must be gotten in order to sell alcohol, that they are heavily regulated, and the fact that certain actions are criminal only if they occured while you were drunk show that the public does view alcohol as somewhat of a threat. Simply a different threat from smoking.

The public accepts that alcohol ios a drug, but it regulates it differently from the drug tabacco, which is regulated differently from other drugs.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I never got this whining from bars and restaurants about losing business from a smoking ban anyway. It's not like it's selectively applied (hopefully), so you're not losing business to your competitors. If people want to go out to eat or drink, they're still going to do it - they just won't be able to smoke while doing it. How many people go out to a restaurant or bar JUST to smoke? If you were planning on going out with some friends for a night at the club, would you cancel the whole thing because you couldn't smoke? Don't feel like cooking tonight, but you'll force yourself to anyway because you can't have a cigarette at the restaurant? You're on a trip and you need to eat - better do it on the sidewalk because you can't light up in a restaurant?

My understanding that the staple at some bars are the folks with a smoke and drink in one hand while the other feeds dollar coins into video lottery type games. Even without the the VLT apparently a lot of the heavy drinkers are the type that frequent bars and don't leave for hours, consuming drink after drink and smoke after smoke

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
*wipes tears from eyes* 'k...I've had a moment to recover. That was great. GePap's "debunking" of my post. I'm honored! And, it was pretty good too, at least from a fluff perspective...not a lot of substance, but that's no great shock. 'bout the only comment-worth "rebutt" was the point that the masses get their desired safety on account of the law....but then, since the masses desire safety, that means that most of them were wearing seatbelts before the law came to be, which in turn means that their own actions (not the law, which came later) were what gave them the aforementioned safety...but I know that's too much to follow, so sure....we shall let the point stand!

Its hard to take you seriously when you don;t even understand posts.

The Masses seek security, and they will make laws that they see as making them more secure. The fact that most of them would undertake such actions regardless of the law is meaningless. Most people would never commit murder. Would you then state that its not laws against murder that make us secure, but the goodness of people? Given your point, you must. I guess you want to get rid of anti-murder laws as well. Silly things. Hard to enforce too, just look at all those murders that do happen....

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ming
What's this Public Good stuff... If it was a matter of public good, they would outlaws bars period. Liquor is also one of the leading health hazards... Yeah, restrict the owners right to allow smoking in a bar, but make him pay for a liquor license so he can help people kill themselves with liquor... maybe if there was "allowed smoking inside license" the government would leave it alone

Liquor can be a health hazard when you consume too much. If you are sitting next to me in a bar and I have one beer, which one of us is being harmed? Unless I do something stupid, are you in any way, shape or form effected by my having a beer? Same scenario, but with cigarettes: I sit next to you at a bar and you light up a cigarette. You think the effect is the same?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Flubber


My understanding that the staple at some bars are the folks with a smoke and drink in one hand while the other feeds dollar coins into video lottery type games. Even without the the VLT apparently a lot of the heavy drinkers are the type that frequent bars and don't leave for hours, consuming drink after drink and smoke after smoke

No doubt that's the case. But in order for the argument to hold water, you have to assume the these people would no longer come to the bar, drink and feed the VLT for hours on end. So, what are they going to do instead? Suddenly decide that they were wasting their life and give up on that altogether? Get an in-house VLT and drink themselves senseless alone at home?

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
They already DID outlaw drinking once. Its proved highly unpopular. Why? Cause is a hazard in excess. Smoking is a hazzard, period.

I know quite a few social smokers that only smoke when they are out drinking at bars... walking the streets of Chicago is more of a hazard than the few smokes these people have... so forget the excess argument

And the fact that liquor licenses must be gotten in order to sell alcohol, that they are heavily regulated, and the fact that certain actions are criminal only if they occured while you were drunk show that the public does view alcohol as somewhat of a threat. Simply a different threat from smoking.

More people die each year from drunk drivers than from second hand smoke... I'd say it sure as heck is a different threat

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS: Given the amount of crime out there, and the minimal number of cops on the beat...yep...seatbelts will wind up being one of those unenforceable laws, cos the manpower simply isn't there.

That has not been the case for the decade plus that most areas have had seatbelt laws. These laws are has "impossible" to enforce as any and all other traffic laws. On top of that, if you catch someone breaking one traffic law, you can always double up with another violation.

It is alwasy the fear of getting caught that matters, not the actual odds.

Of course, for the safety of the masses, we could always turn the country into a police state...wouldn't THAT be fun!

The masses would turn to a police state if they thought that was the way to be safe. That was my original point...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Liquor can be a health hazard when you consume too much. If you are sitting next to me in a bar and I have one beer, which one of us is being harmed? Unless I do something stupid, are you in any way, shape or form effected by my having a beer? Same scenario, but with cigarettes: I sit next to you at a bar and you light up a cigarette. You think the effect is the same?

The same... no... but the effect of one cigarette of second hand smoke is almost nil... (Unless you are alergic, and then you are the fool for being in a bar)

Again, you are more likely to get killed by somebody drinking and driving at that bar then from second hand smoke.

[Drake Tungsten]

The masses would turn to a police state if they thought that was the way to be safe. That was my original point...

GePap is probably right on this. It's his not-so secret dream, so he's probably put a lot of thought into it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
I know quite a few social smokers that only smoke when they are out drinking at bars... walking the streets of Chicago is more of a hazard than the few smokes these people have... so forget the excess argument

That is not what medical journals tell us about the effects of cigarette and cigar smoke.

Also, last time I chekced, there are alws against most of the activities that would trully endanger your life in the street, and plenty of laws against environmental polution of all sorts.

More people die each year from drunk drivers than from second hand smoke... I'd say it sure as heck is a different threat

Which is why its only a civil offense to smoke in a bar if smoking is illegal in that locality, punishable by a ticket, while drunken driving is a criminal offense punishable by serious jail time.

Its pretty obvious the public does get the difference.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
GePap is probably right on this. It's his not-so secret dream, so he's probably put a lot of thought into it.

Your room for that occasion is already picked out Drake, thought you won't have that much time to enjoy it.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm honored to be the first against the wall.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
That is not what medical journals tell us about the
effects of cigarette and cigar smoke.

Yeah... heavy smokers who DON'T quit face massive heath problems... and so do heavy eaters and drinkers..
And all three are legal to do...

People who smoke an occasional cigarette are no different than people that walk the streets of Chicago during rush hour.

Also, last time I chekced, there are alws against most of the activities that would trully endanger your life in the street, and plenty of laws against environmental polution of all sorts.

Pollution can endanger your life... and the only law against car polution in most states is that cars have to pass an emissions test... the cars still cause pollution... and the buses and trucks just pollute at will. These are FAR WORSE than second hand smoke. But I don't see people saying TAKE MY CAR AWAY so that everybody will be healthier