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

[Velociryx]

Ming....it's a good try, but you and I both know that arguing with GePap is akin to this:



Although admittedly, a good deal more fun!

Economic collapse? That's awesome! Yep...I grant you, if personal autos were outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a HUGE, vast sucking sound as the economy contracted violently, but collapse? Nope. And further, such a law would not be enacted overnight to avoid that very thing. The bike and cart manufacturers would get time to gear up, etc...the economy would make a fairly orderly shift to the new paradigm, and life would go on as it tends to do.

cost benefit analysis of the law. Glad you mentioned that point. I'm sure as the law sits on the books and gathers its share of dust, we'll see that phrase coming up more and more often. I'll remind you that you said it a bit later.

And by the way, no one has advocated the banning of the combustion engine, but we all know how you like to twist in the wind and change the argument when you're not faring so well....

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

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

The reason alcohol isn't banned is because we tried it and it didn't work, and because alcohol is very popular. It has nothing to do with the merits of an alcohol-free society.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
All laws are a cost, benefit analysis

Ya want to prove that...

All laws are based on 'Political" cost...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ming....it's a good try, but you and I both know that arguing with GePap is akin to this:



Although admittedly, a good deal more fun!

Economic collapse? That's awesome! Yep...I grant you, if personal autos were outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a HUGE, vast sucking sound as the economy contracted violently, but collapse? Nope. And further, such a law would not be enacted overnight to avoid that very thing. The bike and cart manufacturers would get time to gear up, etc...the economy would make a fairly orderly shift to the new paradigm, and life would go on as it tends to do.

Do you even read Ming's posts? He is complaining about pollution. The biggest polluters are Trucks. By Mings "rationale", all combustion vehicles must be banned for public safety. I think banning the most common form of transportation of all goods, including food, would most certainly lead to a collapse in the economy.

Also, don;t you think, perhaps, just perhaps, more industries than just autmobile manufacturing would be affected? Here is a few: Stell makers, plastics makers, glass makers, tire companies, the entire infrastructure of car support, all gas stations, as part of a huge hit on the oil sector. Tourism of course, as well as every industry that supports any of those.

Yeah, I am sure the bike and horse marjets will really replace the automobile... Is a or a more appropriate?

cost benefit analysis of the law. Glad you mentioned that point. I'm sure as the law sits on the books and gathers its share of dust, we'll see that phrase coming up more and more often. I'll remind you that you said it a bit later.

Laws over seatbelts and smoking bans most certainly aren't sitting on the books unused. Of course, if the cost of a law is 0, then it does not matter if the benefit is also 0, meaning there is no point of it NOT being in the books, now is there?

And by the way, no one has advocated the banning of the combustion engine, but we all know how you like to twist in the wind and change the argument when you're not faring so well....

-=Vel=-

Maybe if you read Ming's "point", next time you can actually get yourself involved in the debate.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming




Ya want to prove that...

All laws are based on 'Political" cost...

Hence, COST / BENEFIT.

Hmmm, last time I looked those words don't actually differentiate between the form of the cost or the benefit. If you can point out how they do thought, I would be glad to see.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sava
but it's not as if they are being forced to be there... nobody is forcing non-smokers to be in the presence of smokers.

I don't think any non-smokers in their right mind would approach a smoker in order to suck in some of that environmental smoke.

The problem is the other way around. A smoker lights up in the middle of a crowd of non-smokers.

Originally posted by Sava
You have a choice. Don't go to a resturaunt that has smoking if you don't want to be around smoking.

You are superceding the smoker's "right"* to light up over my right to fresh, clean air. Even if my right doesn't trump his, there are far more non-smokers than smokers, refraining from smoking will not cause any physical harm to smokers.

Originally posted by Sava
Don't use the government to legislate your tastes and force it down everyones' throats.

It's not a matter of tastes. Even if we go by the old standard "you are allowed to do anything as long as you don't harm anybody else," smoking is still clearly on the other side of the divide.


* I put that in quotes because smoking isn't a right at all.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Go to Vancouver - the laws are in effect there. Amazingly, the bars are every bit as full as they were before.

Cool

More evidence than a ban on smoking doesn't effect restaurants and bars adversely.

[Flip McWho]

Economic collapse? That's awesome! Yep...I grant you, if personal autos were outlawed tomorrow, there'd be a HUGE, vast sucking sound as the economy contracted violently, but collapse? Nope. And further, such a law would not be enacted overnight to avoid that very thing. The bike and cart manufacturers would get time to gear up, etc...the economy would make a fairly orderly shift to the new paradigm, and life would go on as it tends to do.

Course it would crash, it'll crash and burn horribly. Not only for everything that GePap has already mentioned but also how far on average do most people travel to work? By car. Now imagine that time extended because cars are no more. Peoples jobs go out the window, or they get up the needed three hours before so they can pushbike their way into work. Our economy is highly dependant on the motor vehicle, how can you possibly think otherwise.

Heard an ad on the radio this morning. Everytime someone lights up in a car they are sharing 200 different poisons with every occupant of that car. Now I know you coulda not chosen to get into that car, yeah right not always possible but I would like to have the right to choose which poison enter my body not somebody else who has a vice they can't control.

Of course when the smokers side started getting really desparate near the end they even started arguing that the smells from all those bodies will become unbearable due to the fact that there weren't any smoke covering it up. Guess what, didn't happen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Hence, COST / BENEFIT.

Hmmm, last time I looked those words don't actually differentiate between the form of the cost or the benefit. If you can point out how they do thought, I would be glad to see.

Yeah, I was wondering what Ming was smoking. Every politician engages in cost / benefit analysis when deciding on a law. They see the political cost vs. the political benefit and sometimes the cost on certain policies vs. the benefit to those policies.

[Kuciwalker]

Politicians sometimes actually consider the non-political effects of their policies?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep, every once in a while, a politician will put some other considerations above politics and get tossed (or suffer) for their vote.

[Flip McWho]

Yeah, I was wondering what Ming was smoking.

Hell even MJ smokers see this.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Flip McWho

Of course when the smokers side started getting really desparate near the end they even started arguing that the smells from all those bodies will become unbearable due to the fact that there weren't any smoke covering it up. Guess what, didn't happen.

How could they smell the humans over all those sheep?

[Velociryx]

GePap, you never fail to disappoint.

I love your debate style...the whole condescending approach serves you well most of the time....'cept that it has no effect on me other than to bring me to tears, laughing at you.

It is fairly effective at covering up the fact that your posts lack both any attempt at proper English, substance, and style tho, so I suppose that's a point in your favor.

Back to Autos:
1) Yes....vehicles used in transport and for other business purposes, on average, pollute more than your car does. Also true that there are technologies in the pipeline to remedy this. Also true that there are a lot more cars "like yours" on the road than the heavy hitters. More cars producing less pollution each = more aggregate pollution. Surely a smart boy like you can figure that out, yes?

2) Economy wouldn't need to take as big a hit as you and others are claiming. There are always alternatives (and in my proposal, mass transit and businesses got to keep autos...I was focusing on the elimination of the personal auto only). Conclusion = auto sales would not completely vanish in this country. Also, there are emerging markets FOR autos that our existing players could position themselves to take advantage of. Also, our existing auto makers and spinoff industries could retool to produce one or more of the alternatives. Combined effect (especially given that the size of the emerging markets dwarf the size of the existing market), auto makers would take a hit, but it need not be fatal to the economy if handled properly. Of course, you'll give me an eyeroll and disagree, but at least you're predictable.

3) Proponents of the seatbelt law will tell you its cost is zero. In fact, I already used their very arguments a page or two ago. Truth is, we've spent more than a hundred million bucks on advertising, and IF we mean to do more than enforce the law casually (ie, more than bust someone for not buckling up only when we pull them for something else), then we'll need more cops. I'll go slow...more cops = more salary, more salary = more Money, =! "0 cost." If you still believe the law to have zero cost, please mail me a check for 140-odd million dollars. I am sure you won't miss it. I'll PM you with my address.

Oh, and just so you know...I DID see the silly comparison with murder laws, but decided not to even bother to comment. The comparison is rediculous, for reasons you *should be* fully aware of. Good try tho!

-=Vel=-
(off to work!)

[rah]

I can honestly say that with the exception of grabbing a quick drink in an airport, that I have never gone to a bar where smoking was prohibited. My choice. I'm a good customer, I spend a good sum of money, tip well, and I'm not a mean drunk, usually since I don't go overboard. I am even actually considerate of others when I'm smoking whenever possible.

Now the arguement I always hear, is that the owner won't suffer if a no smoking ban is in place because I will be replaced by non-smokers that will magically go and spend more money in their bar.
The owner should have the choice of which of thes two patrons he wants to serve. Me, or some whiney crusader who while satisfying his own booze vice is celebrating his victory over allowing someone else to satisfy their own vice only because they don't enjoy that vice. They're probably really loud drunks (based on the egos on display in this thread) who's opinions are more important than others. And in the end, they're probably lousy tippers.

I think owners should be allowed to decide. IF there is really more money to make, the market will choose.