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

[rah]

FLubber, yes it is a vile habit. One I'd like to rid my self of. Lord knows I've tried. Just not hard enough.

The question is, if I wanted to open a corner shop and charge people to come in and smoke in the winter, i could guarentee that no non-smokers would come in. No one's rights being violated, and it's legal to smoke, But would be illegal to do it in anyplace that banned it in public places.

Would your arguement still apply here?

Where does it end?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Last year, Columbus banned all smoking in bars and restaurants.

Since then, not a single establishment has closed due to the ban.

I hope the local government will get off their collective butt and pass the law that they have been saying for only four years.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by rah
And just because an establishment doesn't close, doesn't mean it's making the same amount of money.

There's a social cost to it, namely increased medical expenses for staff, and adverse effects on non-smoking patrons.

I agree with you that we should do something about fossil fuels, and indeed there is a lot of research going on in various areas. Although USians are still addicted to cheap gas. So this rocketing oil price may do some good in the long run, just like the oil crisis in the 70's.

But I digress. Just last Saturday I went to a local pub with some friends. We were there for two hours, and out of the twenty or so customers only one was smoking.

This is what is so annoying about this whole thing - one person is sufficient to ruin the experience of twenty others. Yet no local pubs and bars dare to become non-smoking because the owners afraid that they will lose business to the smoking ones if they do so. Same with eateries, with the exception of large chains (they have completely banned smoking from their places) and large outlets (must provide a non-smoking area by law, but the smoking area is invariably bigger than the non-smoking area, even though less than 15% of the population are smokers), all smaller places are smoking. That means if I want to eat and there are no non-smoking restaurants in the area, I am forced to breath in environmental smoke. That's why I am in favour of a total ban, that's the only time when we non-smokers can eat in peace.

[Kuciwalker]

I thought in China upwards of 80% of the population were smokers (well, within certain age groups).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
That's why I am in favour of a total ban, that's the only time when we non-smokers can eat in peace.

In Chicago, all restaurants are smoke free... and I have no problem with that.

It's the bars that we are talking about

[rah]

Yes, as i have said, i have no problems not smoking in a resturant. It's the Bars.

[St Leo]

People who don't wear seatbelts should be metaphorically shot. If they hit my car and kill themselves, I am going to be the one who ends up with the nightmares and the cold sweat. And, ****, some of them are reproducing. If their kids kill themselves not wearing their seatbelts, it will be because we let these ****ers not wear seatbelts.

Originally posted by Ming
If people don't want to wear them... fine. However, they should be forced to admit it to the insurance companies so that only they pay higher rates and not eveybody who does wear them

So, are you going to be in charge of the government agency enforcing this? Or would you rather take the simple way out and just make seatbelt wearing mandatory?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ming
Then I guess that you would agree that nobody in the US should be allowed to serve any kind of food that is bad for your health...

No, I wouldn't. I just want it labelled, mkay?

And that all cars should be banned because they polute the air...

Eventually, yes. Not because of pollution, but because of urban sprawl. For now, please, just outlaw SUVs and require special, expensive licenses for light trucks.

Polution is a far bigger danger than second hand smoke,

Yup. I agree.

and eating bad things is the biggest cause of health problems.

Food-related health problems are not a danger to me. For one thing, they don't weigh two tonnes and move at 200 km/h.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, as i have said, i have no problems not smoking in a resturant. It's the Bars.

Which is an absurd arguement. Removing the "choice" of smoking in a restaurant is equally as injurious to "freedom" as doing it in a bar. To say you don;t mind one but disgaree with the other is nonsensical.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Eventually, yes. Not because of pollution, but because of urban sprawl. For now, please, just outlaw SUVs and require special, expensive licenses for light trucks.

You've been dropped on your head too many times as a child.

[Kuciwalker]

"too many" times?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx

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?

Irrelevant to the argument, which is "vehicles cause more pollution than smoking, why not ban them". Under this line of thinking, all vehicles that pollute would have to be banned. Arguing about aggregate pollution form different classes of vehicles is utterly irrelevant to that red herring of an arguement. Stop wasting space.

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.

I know, I predictably come up with better arguments than yours. I do like that predictability.

You are arguing about how a ban would be implemented, inserting all sorts of assumptions that mean nothing to the point, ie. why ban smoking if you won't ban cars, which pollute more. That was Mings strawman. You have added nothing of worth to help his strawman, except for your assumptions on the eocnomics of retooling the American economy, which in themselves are highly dubious, but again, pointless.

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.

And you would then have to balance this with the lower costs paid by the health care industryand by the insurance industry given lower fatality rates form car accidents, plus the intalngible of less human beings dying.

If you care to claim that 140 Million have been spent in a decade or so, then compare that to the savings and the intangibles.

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!)

Those reasons are? But why waste even more space with your answer. We are better off with it not being given.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"too many" times?

Well I don't wish death on the boy .

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It says that it is a stupid use of the local government's power to ban smoking in cigar bars when they likely have numerous other issues that would be a better use of thier time.

It does not take much time to write a bill and pass it. And as someone who has worked in City Government (and in a City that did pass a hugely popular ban on smoking in all bars), i can say that banning smoking in any way is one of the less wasteful bills you are bound to see, specially in some insignificant burb that does not have to deal with big issues like multi-billion dollar budgets.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"too many" times?

Well I don't wish death on the boy .

I was thinking more along the lines of "how much ISN'T too much"