Seattle voters

[catbirdseat]

Good luck banning cell phones at Starbucks!

[Stonehead]

IMO there's no reason in principle why this couldn't be applied to climbers as well, the demographics are largely the same and the risk of a permanently debilitating brain injury are probably just as high - except for the fact that in the case of climbers it would be impossible to enforce. There's also the fact that climbers are a lower profile group.

 

I agree wit ya on principle but I believe there's a significant difference. Smoking and driving have a high potential to affect others especially in areas frequented by large numbers of people. Climbing on the other hand is less likely to affect others on a similar scale, with the exception of climbing at tourist sites. I think there are already prohibitions in place to restrict climbing activities in these areas.

 

There have been some highly publicized accounts of climbing related deaths and accidents. But I believe that climbing as a recreational activity will not register on the legislator's radar. There also are existing laws such as No Trespassing that restrict climbing in certain areas.

 

As far as safety regulations, the manufacturers of climbing equipment already incorporate safety standards into their equipment so the long arm of additional regulatory oversight is unneeded. The climber's equivalent to safety belts and helmets are seen in ropes and harnesses which are constructed to a safety standard.

 

I suppose there could be a 'slippery slope' concern here but I believe it's unlikely. The only exception that I can think of, off the top of my head, are those moveable mechanical climbing walls that have a rope attached to a winch or something, you know, the things that show up at the mall.

[cj001f]

somewhat related

 

That paper is farcical pp! Lysenko Lives!

[mattp]

Here's why I voted the way I did:

 

[JayB]

IMO there's no reason in principle why this couldn't be applied to climbers as well, the demographics are largely the same and the risk of a permanently debilitating brain injury are probably just as high - except for the fact that in the case of climbers it would be impossible to enforce. There's also the fact that climbers are a lower profile group.

 

I agree wit ya on principle but I believe there's a significant difference. Smoking and driving have a high potential to affect others especially in areas frequented by large numbers of people. Climbing on the other hand is less likely to affect others on a similar scale, with the exception of climbing at tourist sites. I think there are already prohibitions in place to restrict climbing activities in these areas.

 

There have been some highly publicized accounts of climbing related deaths and accidents. But I believe that climbing as a recreational activity will not register on the legislator's radar. There also are existing laws such as No Trespassing that restrict climbing in certain areas.

 

As far as safety regulations, the manufacturers of climbing equipment already incorporate safety standards into their equipment so the long arm of additional regulatory oversight is unneeded. The climber's equivalent to safety belts and helmets are seen in ropes and harnesses which are constructed to a safety standard.

 

I suppose there could be a 'slippery slope' concern here but I believe it's unlikely. The only exception that I can think of, off the top of my head, are those moveable mechanical climbing walls that have a rope attached to a winch or something, you know, the things that show up at the mall.

 

The main point was simply that helmet laws are a case where the "Yea - it's your brain and your life that you are putting at risk, but were the ones who are going to have to shell out the money for decades when you become a ward of the state as a result of your injury, so we have the authority to force you to wear a helmet" principle in action. Seemed like Chuck's concern about this kind of logic being applied to a wider spectrum of individual behaviors after the advent of completely socialized medicine probably has some merit if this is indeed the logic that lead to the advent of the mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. Maybe I am wrong about the logic that lead to the adoption of these rules though.

[chucK]

Speaking of voting, what do you guys think about this?

 

"Across the state, Gregoire joined the last-minute campaigning, saying that Sunday's rockslide on Interstate 90 near Snoqualmie Pass is ``yet another wakeup call that we need to get going on vital safety projects that impact people and busines-ses all across our state. Proponents of I-912 decried the broadcast of Gregoire's comments on the highway traffic safety bands to those stranded in the slide-induced backups as an inappropriate use of state highway resources."

 

Those election-stealing democrats get more brazen every year!

[cj001f]

The main point was simply that helmet laws are a case where the "Yea - it's your brain and your life that you are putting at risk, but were the ones who are going to have to shell out the money for decades when you become a ward of the state as a result of your injury, so we have the authority to force you to wear a helmet" principle in action. Seemed like Chuck's concern about this kind of logic being applied to a wider spectrum of individual behaviors after the advent of completely socialized medicine probably has some merit if this is indeed the logic that lead to the advent of the mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. Maybe I am wrong about the logic that lead to the adoption of these rules though.

That was part of the logic behind helmet rules I believe. Public health policy. I'm curious of the civil libertarians views on public health policy regarding avian flu/anthrax/other pandemics. Should the government be allowed to mandate behavior, or should we trust that all citizens will act in their best interest?

[catbirdseat]

Anthrax wouldn't count as a pandemic because it doesn't spread easily from person to person. Another good example is SARS.

[cj001f]

Anthrax wouldn't count as a pandemic because it doesn't spread easily from person to person. Another good example is SARS.

"occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population"

[chelle]

The main point was simply that helmet laws are a case where the "Yea - it's your brain and your life that you are putting at risk, but were the ones who are going to have to shell out the money for decades when you become a ward of the state as a result of your injury, so we have the authority to force you to wear a helmet" principle in action. Seemed like Chuck's concern about this kind of logic being applied to a wider spectrum of individual behaviors after the advent of completely socialized medicine probably has some merit if this is indeed the logic that lead to the advent of the mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists. Maybe I am wrong about the logic that lead to the adoption of these rules though.

That was part of the logic behind helmet rules I believe. Public health policy. I'm curious of the civil libertarians views on public health policy regarding avian flu/anthrax/other pandemics. Should the government be allowed to mandate behavior, or should we trust that all citizens will act in their best interest?

 

Actually I believe the government can mandate your behavior in the case of pandemic or bioterrorism threat. It was a quiet little proposal that passed after 9-11 and the feds encouraged all states to adopt some form of plan on how they would contain "outbreaks". I don't recall the specific codes but there was some discussion in this forum a couple years ago. The governor of the state would basically declare martial law and it would be a crime to not comply with requests for health exams, vaccinations, limitations on physical movement or travel...

 

As for the smoking ban, Chuck it is not just about lowering health care costs. It is about improving the health of the overall population. Tobacco smoke contains some 5000 chemicals and upwards of 50 known carcinogens. Second hand smoke has the same chemicals as first hand smoke. In effect if you hang out in smokey places or a smoker resides in your house you are a passive smoker NOT a non-smoker. Your own health risks are the same. Cancer (many forms not just lung), stroke, heart attack, increased cholesterol levels, asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, GERD, and many others. These are not fun problems to deal with and may not be evident for many years after exposure.

 

The issue's not about private property rights, economic parity with tribal business establishments, etc. It is about public health.

[ashw_justin]

About fucking time. I don't give a rat's ass how the nic-heads get their fix, or how many carcinogens they want to consume, as long as it doesn't involve me by default. Indoor air pollution is simply retarded. That's why chimneys were invented. You don't see motherfuckers starting campfires in the bar, do you? I hear that was the thing oh, about 1,000,000 years ago.

 

Time to find another way to be compulsively cool.

[Double_E]

On the one hand I like the smoking ban, since it'll help me stay quit (about six months since my last cigarrete).

 

At the same time, I think it's fuckin ridiculous. Voted against it. People have been enjoying tobacco with their booze in public places for centuries, and should be allowed to, at least to some degree, somewhere. The one place - the ONLY type of public place - where I've felt like the smoke from the smoking section wafts enough to the non-smoking section to be a bother are airplanes.

 

And as far as places where the whole bar allows it .... I've always been of the mentality of "don't like second-hand smoke? go somewhere else." plenty of bars (in Seattle and other big cities, at least) already banned it.

[catbirdseat]

About fucking time. I don't give a rat's ass how the nic-heads get their fix, or how many carcinogens they want to consume, as long as it doesn't involve me by default. Indoor air pollution is simply retarded. That's why chimneys were invented. You don't see motherfuckers starting campfires in the bar, do you? I hear that was the thing oh, about 1,000,000 years ago.

 

Time to find another way to be compulsively cool.

Now it's time to move on to the next source of indoor air pollution- chalk dust! I saw this one chick getting ready to send a boulder problem dip up to her elbows in a bucket of chalk. Chalk is the addiction of the new millenium.

[foraker]

While we're at it:

a) no cell phones on airplanes!

b) no power outlets for laptops on airplanes!

c) really narrow overhead bins on airplanes so that you can only stuff jackets and a small backpack in there. none of this rolling on a huge bin o' crap and trying to jam it in and end up delaying the flight.

d) tranquilizing dart guns for kids on planes with a couple of extra shots for any parents who might go postal (could have been good for terrorists too). would have been good on the crazy old bat who chatted constantly about jesus, her grandkids, and astrology on the flight from LAX to Sydney.....

[cj001f]

crazy old bat who chatted constantly about jesus, her grandkids, and astrology on the flight from LAX to Sydney.....

thanks for jinxing me for next friday.

[chucK]

Yeah!

How about

1) no eating in cars (by the driver anyway)

2) one drink maximum at bars and restaurants

 

These two rules I'm sure are good for public health.

[underworld]

no farting in elevators

[Alpinfox]

The issue's not about private property rights, economic parity with tribal business establishments, etc. It is about public health.

 

Bullshit. This is about private property rights. At least for the people who CARE about pp rights such as myself. You might chose to frame the issue in the context of public health to justify your position (which is really based on your own self interest), but it is ABSOLUTELY about a private business owner's right to run his business how he/she chooses.

 

Too smoky at The Sloop for ya? Stay home. You don't have a right to go there.

 

p.s. No, I don't smoke.

 

[Stefan]

no more camel toe

[fenderfour]

My biggest beef with tis law is that there is no room for compromise. It is possible to have a smoking section that doesn't waft into the rest of the establishment. Barring a special room, an owner could set up some covered areas outside so that the smokers can dodge out for a smoke. I know a lot of smokers and this arrangement doesn't seem to bother them.

 

My self-interest is more important than your self-interest.

 

BTW - I'm not a smoker either, and I hate cigarette smoke.

[foraker]

I, too, thought it was BS. Still, how do you reconcile saying it's ok to ban smoking at work (thank god) but then saying it's ok to smoke in bars? People work in bars too. You might say 'well, you don't have to work in a bar!' but at the same time you could turn that around and then, say, that people should be allowed to smoke indoors at Microsoft and, hey, you don't have to work there if you don't want! In that case, it's probably best left to the individual business, esp. given that there are so few smokers these days.

Would singling out bars for special dispensation be considered unconstitutional? Probably.

[Ireneo_Funes]

You don't see motherfuckers starting campfires in the bar, do you?

 

[Jim]

Bullshit. This is about private property rights. At least for the people who CARE about pp rights such as myself. You might chose to frame the issue in the context of public health to justify your position (which is really based on your own self interest), but it is ABSOLUTELY about a private business owner's right to run his business how he/she chooses.

 

Too smoky at The Sloop for ya? Stay home. You don't have a right to go there.

 

Businesses don't have unlimited rights to do what they want to do, they have to get licenses, abide by codes and regulations, etc. I could have gone either way with this but it's a good, healthy idea. If they can manage in in New York and even in Ireland, it's not a big deal here. We'll hear some whinning about it for a month or two and that will be it. If it's such a crucial element to a business they can move to Idaho I guess. See how many do that.

[tivoli_mike]

Plus with the new 4 four foot rule you need to be able to see the dancers more clearly...