|
Post by malform on May 22, 2007 8:57:41 GMT -5
Posted by Phoenix on Today at 12:16am
Yesterday at 3:37pm, webhead817 wrote:I don't even smoke, but what is up with all of the smoking bans? Because, you know, it worked so well with prohibition and alcohol.
I for one appreciate them. Anything to make people smoke less - I took care of a lot more lung cancer patients than cirrhosis patients in the hospital.
I could rant incessantly about how much I used to hate going to a restaurant and have those smokers near me. Ban it all! |
Amen to that! ;D I think we have gone a bit overboard with banning things and making laws against this and that. There shouldnt be laws to restrict the actions of people... And certainly not the action of a singled out group of people. I dont feel that there should be a state wide ban on smoking in public places. That should be up to those particular public places. I feel the same way about seat belt laws. I wear my seat belt every time I get in a car, and I always have (thanks mom! . But if someone wants to be stupid enough to get into a car and not buckle up.... Well, hows that anyone else's business? Not wearing a seat belt doesnt hurt anyone but the person that isnt wearing it.... So why do we feel like the government needs to step in and make laws about it? I have read there are some towns that have banned cell phone usage while driving. In a way I feel like this is a good thing. But in another it bothers me tremendously... Because next there will be a ban on eating fast food while driving, then you wont be able to listen to the radio, because that is also distraction. Oh, and sunglasses, those should be banned too, they could impair your vision.... Eventually, you wont be able to talk on the phone, eat a bigmac, listen to tunes, or have the free will to wear a seat belt or not while doing the statistically most dangerous thing most people will ever do in their life; drive a car. Stop all the unnecessary law making... We cant stop idiots from being idiots.. And really, shouldnt we have the right to be idiots?
|
|
|
Post by grievous on May 22, 2007 9:30:49 GMT -5
My area has gone smoking ban crazy in bars/restaurants and, as a non-smoker, I despise it. Ban it in government buildings and places people absolutely must go but don't go making private businesses do it.
It's called the free market. You don't like the smoke in the building, take your business elsewhere. No one's forcing you to be there. This'll cause the smoking restaurants to decide whether they'd rather allow smoking and lose non-smoking business or ban smoking and possibly lose smoking business.
Let the market do the job, not the bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Post by malform on May 22, 2007 9:34:01 GMT -5
My area has gone smoking ban crazy in bars/restaurants and, as a non-smoker, I despise it. Ban it in government buildings and places people absolutely must go but don't go making private businesses do it. It's called the free market. You don't like the smoke in the building, take your business elsewhere. No one's forcing you to be there. This'll cause the smoking restaurants to decide whether they'd rather allow smoking and lose non-smoking business or ban smoking and possibly lose smoking business. Let the market do the job, not the bureaucracy. lol I think thats the first time I have agreed 100% with something you said.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on May 22, 2007 10:10:52 GMT -5
Ditto. But, I believe with the market deciding there'll still be non-smoking restaurants. I don't like smoking indoors...cigarettes anyway....so I kinda like going into a restaurant and having a smoke-free zone where you can't get away from the tobacco smoke smell/flavor.
Here's my rant: Gardning. Why is concrete so expensive that I am forced to sit day after day outside with my wife spraying sprays, pulling weeds, transplanting this or that...I hate it. My allergies give me no respite, and after a day in the yard I feel like ten pounds of feces in a one pound bag.
F- Gardening. F- Green. Concrete needs to be cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on May 22, 2007 10:30:30 GMT -5
When we first moved into a house, I told my wife (mostly jokingly)that I wanted astroturf for the lawn and to cut down all the trees. Then we would have a no-maintenance yard. She thought I was crazy.
Years later, she is siding with me...
|
|
|
Post by Yaggleberry Finn on May 22, 2007 10:56:44 GMT -5
Years later, she is siding with me... Well then at least you'll never have to paint your house
|
|
|
Post by Radar on May 22, 2007 12:45:32 GMT -5
This'll cause the smoking restaurants to decide whether they'd rather allow smoking and lose non-smoking business or ban smoking and possibly lose smoking business. What is a "smoking restaurant"? Sorry, being in California, I forget that we pass all kinds of restrictive laws. When I went to the TixCon in Ohio, Cona Chris and I went to a restaurant and the hostess ask us if we wanted "smoking or non-smoking", at first I thought she was joking. I haven't heard that phrase in what seems like a decade. However, I like the California smoking laws. I don't smoke, I don't want to smell yours. I like knowing that any restaurant I go to is completely 100% smoke free. California is currently working to ban smoking in vehicles carrying children, I think that will be a great law. I recognize that these laws restrict smokers freedom to smoke, but I don't see why people (adults and children) shouldn't be free to be able to go somewhere and breath (semi) clean air. BTW, I like my seat-belt too, but those laws are ridiculous "Click it or Ticket".....The only people that can get hurt by not wearing a seat-belt are the people that are not wearing a seat belt. The government passes these laws because it feels it has a duty to try to protect people, but if preservation is their primary only goal, then they should outlaw driving altogether...ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Cona Chris on May 22, 2007 13:16:23 GMT -5
BTW, I like my seat-belt too, but those laws are ridiculous "Click it or Ticket".....The only people that can get hurt by not wearing a seat-belt are the people that are not wearing a seat belt. The government passes these laws because it feels it has a duty to try to protect people, but if preservation is their primary only goal, then they should outlaw driving altogether...ridiculous. I'll come at this from a different perspective... I work in health insurance, and there was one incident where a company I worked on had a claim that was almost $1,000,000 because of head injuries sustained by someone having an accident while on a motorcyle (who was not wearing a helmet). Would the helmet have prevented the injury? We can't say for sure, but I would think the damage would have been less at the very least. This $1,000,000 claim made the small company's medical premiums increase substantially, so every one at the company ended up paying for this injury. Physical harm may only come to one not wearing a seat-belt or helmet - but it can impact many other people in other ways. So, as Malform said, we all have the right to be an idiot - but I don't like it when someone else's idiocy impacts others (especially me)!
|
|
|
Post by malform on May 22, 2007 13:48:31 GMT -5
BTW, I like my seat-belt too, but those laws are ridiculous "Click it or Ticket".....The only people that can get hurt by not wearing a seat-belt are the people that are not wearing a seat belt. The government passes these laws because it feels it has a duty to try to protect people, but if preservation is their primary only goal, then they should outlaw driving altogether...ridiculous. I'll come at this from a different perspective... I work in health insurance, and there was one incident where a company I worked on had a claim that was almost $1,000,000 because of head injuries sustained by someone having an accident while on a motorcyle (who was not wearing a helmet). Would the helmet have prevented the injury? We can't say for sure, but I would think the damage would have been less at the very least. This $1,000,000 claim made the small company's medical premiums increase substantially, so every one at the company ended up paying for this injury. Physical harm may only come to one not wearing a seat-belt or helmet - but it can impact many other people in other ways. So, as Malform said, we all have the right to be an idiot - but I don't like it when someone else's idiocy impacts others (especially me)! This is an unfortunate but inevitable circumstance of living in a free society. We cant be free without opening our selves up to some risk. And of course restrictive laws are required to cut down on that risk. Try to cut out enough risk, and before you know it your no longer in a free society. And your story made me think of another law I think is a bunch of bunk. The requirement to have auto insurance.... This is right along the same vein as my other "right to be an idiot" rants. I mean, I do carry auto insurance, along with health, life and home insurance. But I really dont like the government telling me that I must have auto insurance. That law probably gives some real security to insurance providers no? I bet they lobbied like the thingyens to pass it.
|
|
|
Post by webhead817 on May 22, 2007 14:54:10 GMT -5
I'll come at this from a different perspective... I work in health insurance, and there was one incident where a company I worked on had a claim that was almost $1,000,000 because of head injuries sustained by someone having an accident while on a motorcyle (who was not wearing a helmet). Would the helmet have prevented the injury? We can't say for sure, but I would think the damage would have been less at the very least. This $1,000,000 claim made the small company's medical premiums increase substantially, so every one at the company ended up paying for this injury. Physical harm may only come to one not wearing a seat-belt or helmet - but it can impact many other people in other ways. So, as Malform said, we all have the right to be an idiot - but I don't like it when someone else's idiocy impacts others (especially me)! But that's a problem with the system, and the market not doing it's job...actually a perfect example. If your insurance company told you that you wouldn't be covered at all in an accident if you weren't wearing your helmet, boom, there you go, the issue goes away. Then people have a tangible cost to consider. The problem with the smoking bans is that it opens the door...we volunteer to give our liberty away. Government by its very nature tends to not give it back, and try to take more. Next is the ban on the type of food you can serve, as witnessed in New York. The thing is, lots of people don't like smoking. But now that the ball is rolling, it makes it easier for "them" to take away things that fewer and fewer of us dislike. Let me ask you this, should the government have the right to FORCE you to allow smoking in your business?
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on May 22, 2007 15:17:11 GMT -5
I think we have gone a bit overboard with banning things and making laws against this and that. There shouldnt be laws to restrict the actions of people... And certainly not the action of a singled out group of people. I dont feel that there should be a state wide ban on smoking in public places. That should be up to those particular public places. |
Smoking is an action when done in public effects not just yourself but others as well. I don't see your point here at all. If I went around spraying air freshener at peoples just because I loved the smell of it would that be considered OK? No that is battery. I don't want to be around it and neither do I want my daughter having to be around it either. If they have to pass a law to restrict something that is not only very harmful for the individual who is doing it, but also for those around him, then I am all for it. It's called the free market. |
Yes, that is great, and I understand your point. However this free market that we have developed still has to have regulations and guidelines or else you would have chaos. Here's my rant: Gardning. Why is concrete so expensive that I am forced to sit day after day outside with my wife spraying sprays, pulling weeds, transplanting this or that...I hate it. My allergies give me no respite, and after a day in the yard I feel like ten pounds of feces in a one pound bag. |
OMG, you are right on the money there. You have no idea how many times I just wanted to pave my entire yard. 0 maintenance baby!!!! California is currently working to ban smoking in vehicles carrying children, I think that will be a great law.
I recognize that these laws restrict smokers freedom to smoke, but I don't see why people (adults and children) shouldn't be free to be able to go somewhere and breath (semi) clean air. |
And if Cali passes this law, I would stand behind it 100%. As a child I was exposed to wayyyy too much cigarette smoke. I know the damage it caused! And your story made me think of another law I think is a bunch of bunk. The requirement to have auto insurance.... This is right along the same vein as my other "right to be an idiot" rants. I mean, I do carry auto insurance, along with health, life and home insurance. But I really don't like the government telling me that I must have auto insurance. That law probably gives some real security to insurance providers no? I bet they lobbied like the thingyens to pass it. |
Get in a wreck with someone without insurance and see just how much you would eat those words. Insurance is too expensive, that I can agree with. However, if you were to be hit and put into the hospital by someone who has no insurance, then we would see what tune you would be singing. But that's a problem with the system, and the market not doing it's job...actually a perfect example. If your insurance company told you that you wouldn't be covered at all in an accident if you weren't wearing your helmet, boom, there you go, the issue goes away. Then people have a tangible cost to consider. |
2nd best post I read today, just behind the paving my yard by Superfly.
|
|
Ataru
40 Point Leader
????#???? ?
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by Ataru on May 22, 2007 15:20:29 GMT -5
My take on smoking: bad for the lungs, very addictive. I don't smoke and find it kind of annoying when others do in my presence or the presence of those I know don't appreciate it. I don't think the government should force private companies to either allow or ban smoking; that's up to them. Now my question: should government areas allow smoking? I would say no. As a government, they want to keep their people healthy. I also know two things: there are app. 1.3 billion or so people who would agree with me and app. 1.3 billion who would not. What about the rest? They're too young to agree or disagree, though I would argue that their intake of secondhand smoke and the fact that they don't even enjoy it speaks for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by superflytnt on May 22, 2007 15:30:37 GMT -5
...where a company I worked on had a claim that was almost $1,000,000 because of head injuries sustained by someone ...(who was not wearing a helmet). And your story made me think of another law I think is a bunch of bunk. The requirement to have auto insurance.... This is right along the same vein as my other "right to be an idiot" rants. I mean, I do carry auto insurance, along with health, life and home insurance. But I really dont like the government telling me that I must have auto insurance. That law probably gives some real security to insurance providers no? I bet they lobbied like the diggens to pass it. Malform, there's an out. If you get a 10,000$ bond on your car you do not need to carry insurance (in most states) and at the end of the term you get the 10K$ back. For the helmet laws, I think this is a big problem. It's the INSURANCE COMPANY'S FAULT. They can put a disclaimer on the motorcycle insurance just like they do for drunk drivers, and just like life insurance companies do for suicide: Do not wear helmet, we do not pay for injuries sustained. If you want the wind blowing through your hair (like I would know about that....) then feel free, but if you drop the bike and mangle yourself, well, then I hope you've got money in the bank. If you get hit by someone who puts you on life support, well then let the courts work it out as you sue them for everything they've got. I think we have gone a bit overboard with banning things and making laws against this and that. There shouldnt be laws to restrict the actions of people... And certainly not the action of a singled out group of people.. You and I SOOOOoooooo agree here. Why is it that a black kid whol lives in the same crappy apartments as me gets a free ride to a college (or acceptance even) just because he's black? My mom and his can work in the same place, live next to each other but the black kid (or indian, or mexican, or whatever) gets a pass simpley because of his tint? And why do "Latinos" get special rights? They're as Caucasian as I am, genetically! And how is it that the word God shows up in virtually every document from the Monroe papers to the Constitution and D.O.I but they can ban religion (as long as it's not Muslim...that would be P.C. police fodder) everywhere? Personally, we're exposed to SO SO SO many pollutants and toxins on a daily basis that are FAR greater of a health hazard than second hand smoke that it frankly frightens me. I've lived downwind from 3-mile island, near several AFBs with HUGE radar arrays, and my body is subjected to myriad electromagnetic and radiation fields on a daily basis. Do you really think that second hand smoke in short periods is going to somehow genetically alter me? How about the toluene and chlorine and flouride in the water? What about the EM fields from the thousands of high-power high-frequency radio towers that allow us communications via cellphone? What about the high power satellites that deliver cheap Direct TV? My point is that the government of the US (and arguably the world) has NEVER had our best interests in mind. They're about money and business. Occasionally we as the collective 'american people' will raise a stink and they'll throw us a bone, but basically we pay taxes so that companies who spent incredible sums of capital to garner votes in congress can benefit. Name any law made in the last 30 years and behind it is some stuffed suit lobbyist that paid for someone's yacht, second home, ski trip, or congressional run. Term Limits of 3 years for all offices great and small, that's what I say.
|
|
|
Post by grievous on May 22, 2007 16:26:35 GMT -5
Smoking is an action when done in public effects not just yourself but others as well. I don't see your point here at all. If I went around spraying air freshener at peoples just because I loved the smell of it would that be considered OK? No that is battery. I don't want to be around it and neither do I want my daughter having to be around it either. If they have to pass a law to restrict something that is not only very harmful for the individual who is doing it, but also for those around him, then I am all for it. But that's just the thing. Generally speaking, smokers are not running around shoving their cigarettes underneath your nose and if they were, then you could have them arrested. Instead, you just walk away. No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to breath smoke filled air. There's a whole lot more air in the world than just the air by a smoker. That's the exact encounter my family had once. We walked into a small restaurant that was full of smokers, turned around, and went somewhere else for breakfast. Simple "voting with your feet" logic.
|
|
|
Post by greyelephant on May 22, 2007 18:05:55 GMT -5
But that's just the thing. Generally speaking, smokers are not running around shoving their cigarettes underneath your nose and if they were, then you could have them arrested. Instead, you just walk away. No one is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to breath smoke filled air. There's a whole lot more air in the world than just the air by a smoker. |
That's just it, it is right in your face, sticking to your clothes for the rest of the day. If you were standing at the bus stop and it was the only place you could go to catch the bus. Would you want to stand there breathing cigarette smoke the whole time? How would you let your feet vote then?
|
|