Dechristo Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Regarding helmet (and seatbelt) laws: The state provides emergency services, such as EMT, as well as roads. It has the right, therefore, to require a certain amount of safety compliance from citizens using those public facilities. Out of compliance drivers and riders (those who are more seriously injured due to lack of a seatbelt or helmet) soak up the lion's share of state EMT and State Patrol services, thus requiring costly increases in capacity for those services. The state, therefore, has a definable and reasonable interest in mandating the use of the highest value basic safety equipment; most notably helmets, seatbelts, and, to a lesser extent, airbags. It's interesting to note that, after the federal government dropped it's requirement for helmet laws to qualify for highway funding in 1975, the number of states dropped from 47 to about 2/3 of that within 5 years. The States figured there would be reduced EMS costs for motorcyclists that are DOA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 fuckin hypocrite!!! Just like I said, Calling me the F' word, you liberal freak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Just like I said, Calling me the F' word, you liberal freak. FUSSBUDGET!!11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) Our smoking ban passed overwhelmingly by referendum. It was "us telling the government to protect us from us". The government simply did what we told them too. So, by majority rule, it's OK to take away the rights of everyone, including those who voted against it? This is "democracy" run amok, with people voting how they feel on an issue instead of voting by the principles of freedom the country is based on. Regarding helmet (and seatbelt) laws: The state provides emergency services, such as EMT, as well as roads. It has the right, therefore, to require a certain amount of safety compliance from citizens using those public facilities. Out of compliance drivers and riders (those who are more seriously injured due to lack of a seatbelt or helmet) soak up the lion's share of state EMT and State Patrol services, thus requiring costly increases in capacity for those services. The state, therefore, has a definable and reasonable interest in mandating the use of the highest value basic safety equipment; most notably helmets, seatbelts, and, to a lesser extent, airbags. Furthermore, would you argue that children not be required to wear seatbelts or ride in carseats? I didn't include seatbelt because there's a safety issue for other motorists, but if you fall off a bike, you're either going to get hurt or die and the helmet has no bearing on anyone's destiny but your own and you should be able to self-determine. And for kids' seatbelts, it's the gov't protecting kids from their parents' stupidity until they have the legal freedom to self-determine. Climbing Hood is not a similar issue, because climbers use only 2-3% of SAR services. It could easily be argued that singling climbers out for regulatory purposes violates the constitution's equal protection clause. The state would have to license or ban all outdoor activities, which, of course, would be unnacceptable to the public. any guess to what percentage of emergency services motorcycles make up? [edit: oh, and if you want to talk per capita, then please give me some per capita stats on climbers & their SAR usage, b/c I'd bet it's at least somewhat higher than other user groups] anyway, what's acceptable to the public is not the gold standard for the philosophy of law & government, but it is being used as such all too often. that was my main point, regardless of the strengths & weaknesses of a given issue. Edited October 2, 2007 by ClimbingPanther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Who are you to decide who has a soul, Who are you to decide? Umm, I never made such a statement, you dipshit. Prove me wrong and find the post. V7 made a strong statement with no qualification indicating that somehow he knows when a life is granted a soul (and assumes there is such a thing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 So, by majority rule, it's OK to take away the rights of everyone, including those who voted against it? This is "democracy" run amok, with people voting how they feel on an issue instead of voting by the principles of freedom the country is based on. Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 So, by majority rule, it's OK to take away the rights of everyone, including those who voted against it? This is "democracy" run amok, with people voting how they feel on an issue instead of voting by the principles of freedom the country is based on. Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Also hurts all of our pocket books, who pays the higher premiums??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I want to see a candidate who runs on principle, not issues. I want to see a philosophy of government that fits with the Constitution that is the foundation of this country. Can I get an "AMEN?" The petty issue-wrangling that we see over and over in debates & advertisements is just an example of pandering to our collective desire to get our way, rather than to preserve the principle of freedom & rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Couloir Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Just make sure it isn't in Pioner Courthouse Square...or in the Parks Blocks...or within 50 feet of any building...or... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Yeah, I know, but are you telling me those other people have no choice but to stand by and inhale secondhand smoke? Not hardly. The power of the consumer should be the measure a business uses to determine their policy on smoking. If nobody wants to be around it, they will ban it to stay in business. And if the impact of every activity on insurance premiums were a good measure of what the government should tell us we can & can't do, then a lot of dangerous activities like climbing ought to be regulated & legislated to minimize its impact, and recoup by taxation the cost to our society. Maybe we should just have a study to determine the most benign form of exercise and legislate that everyone must participate at the perfect level to reduce our premiums and make sure everyone's making the right choices in their life. The smoking issue is certainly worth at least some argument and thought to figure out what's the approach most consistent with freedom, and a blanket referendum to ban it indoors was not the best choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Yeah, I know, but are you telling me those other people have no choice but to stand by and inhale secondhand smoke? Not hardly. The power of the consumer should be the measure a business uses to determine their policy on smoking. If nobody wants to be around it, they will ban it to stay in business. And if the impact of every activity on insurance premiums were a good measure of what the government should tell us we can & can't do, then a lot of dangerous activities like climbing ought to be regulated & legislated to minimize its impact, and recoup by taxation the cost to our society. Maybe we should just have a study to determine the most benign form of exercise and legislate that everyone must participate at the perfect level to reduce our premiums and make sure everyone's making the right choices in their life. The smoking issue is certainly worth at least some argument and thought to figure out what's the approach most consistent with freedom, and a blanket referendum to ban it indoors was not the best choice. Bullshit……IMO….I have the right to breath clean air in a public place more than you have the right to pollute it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Yeah, I know, but are you telling me those other people have no choice but to stand by and inhale secondhand smoke? Not hardly. The power of the consumer should be the measure a business uses to determine their policy on smoking. If nobody wants to be around it, they will ban it to stay in business. And if the impact of every activity on insurance premiums were a good measure of what the government should tell us we can & can't do, then a lot of dangerous activities like climbing ought to be regulated & legislated to minimize its impact, and recoup by taxation the cost to our society. Maybe we should just have a study to determine the most benign form of exercise and legislate that everyone must participate at the perfect level to reduce our premiums and make sure everyone's making the right choices in their life. The smoking issue is certainly worth at least some argument and thought to figure out what's the approach most consistent with freedom, and a blanket referendum to ban it indoors was not the best choice. Bullshit……IMO….I have the right to breath clean air in a public place more than you have the right to pollute it. So quit with your vile, pestilent farting already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Yeah, I know, but are you telling me those other people have no choice but to stand by and inhale secondhand smoke? Not hardly. The power of the consumer should be the measure a business uses to determine their policy on smoking. If nobody wants to be around it, they will ban it to stay in business. And if the impact of every activity on insurance premiums were a good measure of what the government should tell us we can & can't do, then a lot of dangerous activities like climbing ought to be regulated & legislated to minimize its impact, and recoup by taxation the cost to our society. Maybe we should just have a study to determine the most benign form of exercise and legislate that everyone must participate at the perfect level to reduce our premiums and make sure everyone's making the right choices in their life. The smoking issue is certainly worth at least some argument and thought to figure out what's the approach most consistent with freedom, and a blanket referendum to ban it indoors was not the best choice. Bullshit……IMO….I have the right to breath clean air in a public place more than you have the right to pollute it. Just for an argument what about people who drive cars and someone who bikes and has to inhale the crap from a tailpipe?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 A restaurant isn't exactly the perfect example of a public place. You don't have a right to enter any business. They have the right to ask you to leave. I'd say a public place is more like a park or a city street or a beach, you know, a place we all kinda own. I think if smoking is banned anywhere, it should be banned in a truly public place where kids have the right to play without getting lung cancer, long before it's banned in a private business where we don't have a "right" to be, just a privilege granted by the owner. But somehow we got it backwards. Good job, butt-head referendum writers. Oh, by the way I don't smoke and I think it's disgusting and incredibly stupid, but that's not why we make laws, now is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 just for an argument what about people who drive cars and someone who bikes and has to inhale the crap from a tailpipe?? that's pretty much what I wrote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Yeah, I know, but are you telling me those other people have no choice but to stand by and inhale secondhand smoke? Not hardly. The power of the consumer should be the measure a business uses to determine their policy on smoking. If nobody wants to be around it, they will ban it to stay in business. And if the impact of every activity on insurance premiums were a good measure of what the government should tell us we can & can't do, then a lot of dangerous activities like climbing ought to be regulated & legislated to minimize its impact, and recoup by taxation the cost to our society. Maybe we should just have a study to determine the most benign form of exercise and legislate that everyone must participate at the perfect level to reduce our premiums and make sure everyone's making the right choices in their life. The smoking issue is certainly worth at least some argument and thought to figure out what's the approach most consistent with freedom, and a blanket referendum to ban it indoors was not the best choice. Bullshit……IMO….I have the right to breath clean air in a public place more than you have the right to pollute it. And employees have the right to make a buck without being poisoned. It's illegal to pour arsenic into the river, and it's illegal to pour tobacco smoke into a restaurant. It has nothing to do with the "power of the consumer." P.S. I haven't been paying attention. How did this conversation turn into a smoking thread? Edited October 2, 2007 by robmcdan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 (edited) does a child have a right to grow up without secondhand smoke? maybe you should push for banning smoking in private residences too. edit: I think this is a way more worthwhile cause than being concerned about restaurants, etc., where people have a choice to enter or seek employment. We rightly force parents to protect their children with seatbelts, why not keep the kid safe from secondhand smoke as well? Edited October 2, 2007 by ClimbingPanther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 true it is much more harmful, but still you have to give all, the freedom to fuck up, grow up and own up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 A restaurant isn't exactly the perfect example of a public place. You don't have a right to enter any business. They have the right to ask you to leave. A restaurant is a "public accommodation," and as such is subject to federal, state and local regulations regarding (among other things) health and safety. There are some exceptions for private and religious organizations, which is why some bars become "clubs" to get around smoking laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 does a child have a right to grow up without secondhand smoke? maybe you should push for banning smoking in private residences too. edit: I think this is a way more worthwhile cause than being concerned about restaurants, etc., where people have a choice to enter or seek employment. We rightly force parents to protect their children with seatbelts, why not keep the kid safe from secondhand smoke as well? I think that employers have a responsibility to ensure that the workspace they offer their employees is not drenched in toxic fumes, and if it is, they have a responsibilty to offer protective measures. Workers in factories who are exposed to toxins are provided masks, protective clothing, etc. Or, would you tell them "Hey, you CHOSE to work in a toxic environment, you're on your own, buddy" and absolve the manufacterer of any responsibility? Smoking at home is a touchier issue, obviously. Comparing the two seems somewhat of a specious argument, but I'll bite. I saw a woman driving on the freeway, smoking, with her windows up, and a small child in the back seat. Should that be illegal? But, where do you draw the line? Is it illegal to provide McDonald's food to children? That is also unhealthy. That's a harder issue, but legislation providing a safe workplace has a long historical precident, and I see the smoking-ban as part of that, not part of an argument about civil liberty. Employers don't have the "right" to provide toxic environments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 OK, tru dat, i repent of the restaurant argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raindawg Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Simple…..because I CHOOSE it to be. Done. Once again….its a choice. I have never been in a position to make the choice……my choice is to always have a choice. Why don't you choose to make sense when you post things. Wise up....participating in a society is a social-contract. You can't necessarily do everything you want and not everything is a choice with a satisfying outcome for YOU....you sound like a spoiled baby (a live one, not a murdered one). Sure you have a choice...and choices have consequences: the government says you can't drive a car without a license because there are standards for driving that are meant to protect others (and yourself). If you choose to do so, you will suffer ill consequences. You can't kill anybody or anything you want...at the zoo or in your neighbor's yard or even have dog-fighting in your own garage...(the government is protecting some examples of non-human life. You can choose to do so, but you will suffer ill consequences. You can choose not to pay your taxes....try it and see what happens. Perhaps you need to find an island somewhere where you can start your own society and make your own choices with consequences more to your liking, and more in-line with your "thinking", or lack thereof, because anarchy doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raindawg Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Dude…..when you smoke, not only does it hurt you…..but it also hurts the people around you. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to smoke, just do it outside. Dude...when you abort a baby, not only does it hurt the mother... but it also kills the baby inside her. Physically! So, no one is telling you not to kill, just do it to a deer in the forest or a clump of carrots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Why don't you choose to make sense when you post things. Practice what you preach friend. Wise up....participating in a society is a social-contract. You can't necessarily do everything you want and not everything is a choice with a satisfying outcome for YOU....you sound like a spoiled baby (a live one, not a murdered one). Sure you have a choice...and choices have consequences: the government says you can't drive a car without a license because there are standards for driving that are meant to protect others (and yourself). If you choose to do so, you will suffer ill consequences. You can't kill anybody or anything you want...at the zoo or in your neighbor's yard or even have dog-fighting in your own garage...(the government is protecting some examples of non-human life. You can choose to do so, but you will suffer ill consequences. You can choose not to pay your taxes....try it and see what happens. Complete drivel you write. How do you tie my driver’s license into abortion? One is not a choice…..the other is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 I haven't been paying attention. How did this conversation turn into a smoking thread? Rob….I believe this to the hypocrisy thread……..someone down the line wanted to reference his believe about the smoking ban to be hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.