State of the game: Rick Reilly commentary

[Observer]

It is not the place of the government to force private owners to make smoking either accepted or not-accepted. If a property owner wants to allow smoking in some/all/none of his establishment, that's his business.

Remember, what used to be was smoking allowed everywhere. Non-smokers griped that they just wanted a small space for themselves, and they got non-smoking sections mandated. Now, many places aren't even allowed smoking sections, and some cities/towns are trying for outright bans, or as close to it as they think they can get without getting legally smacked down.

The camel's nose, not surprisingly, has led to pretty much the whole damned camel getting into the tent.

I think I will agree with this sentiment. If some restaurant/bar wants to have it permissible inside their "home" let them. But you would probably agree that is is a good idea to ban it in the workplace, public buildings, and in public transportation.

 

[ausbacker]

It is not the place of the government to force private owners to make smoking either accepted or not-accepted. If a property owner wants to allow smoking in some/all/none of his establishment, that's his business.

Remember, what used to be was smoking allowed everywhere. Non-smokers griped that they just wanted a small space for themselves, and they got non-smoking sections mandated. Now, many places aren't even allowed smoking sections, and some cities/towns are trying for outright bans, or as close to it as they think they can get without getting legally smacked down.

The camel's nose, not surprisingly, has led to pretty much the whole damned camel getting into the tent.

What exactly is the point of electing people to government if you're not going to give them a mandate to make decisions?

 

[Observer]

What exactly is the point of electing people to government if you're not going to given them a mandate to make decisions?

One could also argue that it would probably be very difficult for private establishments to enforce "no smoking" rules without the teeth of legislation behind it.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think I will agree with this sentiment. If some restaurant/bar wants to have it permissible inside their "home" let them. But you would probably agree that is is a good idea to ban it in the workplace, public buildings, and in public transportation.

A "restaurant/bar" is a workplace for the bartender, servers, etc. So make up your mind re: workplace bans.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

One could also argue that it would probably be very difficult for private establishments to enforce "no smoking" rules without the teeth of legislation behind it.

???

Why would it be "very difficult"? You put up clear, visible signs saying "Smoking not allowed on the premises" and then you kick out anyone who lights up. Even without no-smoking laws businesses aren't required to serve smoking customers if they don't want to. (Heck, they can refuse to do business with whomever they want, for any reason, so long as the refusal isn't based on race, religion, gender, etc.)

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It is not the place of the government to force private owners to make smoking either accepted or not-accepted. If a property owner wants to allow smoking in some/all/none of his establishment, that's his business.

Are you asserting the government has no power/legitimacy to require and enforce workplace-safety standards? After all, unless the business owner is running the whole place himself, with no employees, the establishment is a workplace for everyone other than the owner.

 

[DocHoliday]

What you claim are justifications are garbage, and the anti-smoking crowd may be the biggest bunch of asshats ever to infest mankind*. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.



*And no, I don't smoke either cigarettes or marijuana.

Frankly, that's just your opinion.

Regarding seat belts and speed limits, you can deny the obvious safety benefits to other drivers and pedestrians. The fact remains that you are driving on public roads. You don't have to drive on them if you don't want to abide by their rules. But you agreed to abide by them when you got a Driver's license. You are free to drive without a seatbelt on your own private property.

As for anti-smoking crowd, I don't hold the likeability of a movement's supporter's against its legality. And yes, second hand smoking does demonstrably cause cancer.

Personal rights tend to end where the rights of others (against harm, usually) begin.

 

[mb6592]

Sometimes people get carried away with this stuff and don't know when to stop. I think common sense will prevail and junk food and candy won't be banned anytime soon. Makes you wonder though - we do make drugs illegal and if you somehow carry that argument far enough, you could probably convince yourself that it is justifiable to ban candy, and junk food, and all of the things you mentioned.

Why the waffling? You know you agree with these types of government imposed bans. Stop with the cute "sometimes people get carried away bs" and just say so.

 

[Deus Irae]

What exactly is the point of electing people to government if you're not going to give them a mandate to make decisions?

1.) Remember that I was talking about the fed aspect, which is important because......

2.) The federal gov't is supposed to be one of limited powers, essentially allowed only to do what it is expressly allowed to do.

Unfortunately, both parties have undermined the Constitution while in power (Repubs love to use the 4th amendment as toilet paper, while the Dems love to wipe with the 2nd, for example). Both parties have installed SCJs who ignored obvious constitutional barriers in order to advance their personal positions at the cost of the foundational document of the country.

But we're getting far afield from the basic idea of informed consent here. Before this gets booted over to the political forum, I'll try doing my part by backing out of the tangent. If you, or anyone else, still has an interest in my take regarding this line of thinking, please feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to reply to any other questions.

 

[BTTA]

Some occupations are more dangerous than others. As long as I see reasonable attempts to improve safety that don't interfere fundamentally with the game, I'm perfectly comfortable. It's not a profession I'd choose, but I wouldn't choose to be a coal miner, either.

And yet, the electrical grid which makes all this communication possible is dependent on those very coal miners. At least with the current choices we've made on technology.

 

[BTTA]

If that happens, the game will be dead.

No, it will get reinvented to be less harmful and more reflective of a society that values long term health above short term emotional gratification.

 

[mb6592]

What exactly is the point of electing people to government if you're not going to give them a mandate to make decisions?

There we go. The tyranny of the majority - Constitution be damned. Just, pretty please, don't burn up all the copies. When your eutopian exercise blows up in your face, it'd be nice to have one around.

 

[mb6592]

One could also argue that it would probably be very difficult for private establishments to enforce "no smoking" rules without the teeth of legislation behind it.

Really? This is even worse than your side's flying drivers justification for mandating seatbelts.

 

[BTTA]

I'm glad this got created. I've always had an ongoing struggle with my love of football. It exists because, in part, of the US cultural addiction to the fantasy of self determination and radical individualism.

The great truthteller: Football or baseball - YouTube

 

[DocHoliday]

Really? This is even worse than your side's flying drivers justification for mandating seatbelts.

No one will take you seriously if you're going to misrepresent the idea of using seatbelts to keep drivers in front of the wheel during collisions as "drivers flying and hurting pedestrians".

 

[Deus Irae]

No, it will get reinvented to be less harmful and more reflective of a society that values long term health above short term emotional gratification.

being unable to leave your feet to make a tackle would turn football into a game that didn't even reach flag football standards. Why would you think any significant amount of people would watch that? Lord know I certainly wouldn't.

 

[manxman2601]

being unable to leave your feet to make a tackle would turn football into a game that didn't even reach flag football standards. Why would you think any significant amount of people would watch that? Lord know I certainly wouldn't.

People who start talking about society as an entity tend to have a problem with understanding unintended consequences. As long as their gratification comes from the immediate satisfaction of deciding what's best for everyone, full speed ahead and damn the consequences.

 

[Observer]

Why the waffling? You know you agree with these types of government imposed bans. Stop with the cute "sometimes people get carried away bs" and just say so.

I TOTALLY 100% agree with certain government imposed bans and not with others. Or does everything have to be " are you with us or are you against us?" for you?

 

[Observer]

???

Why would it be "very difficult"? You put up clear, visible signs saying "Smoking not allowed on the premises" and then you kick out anyone who lights up. Even without no-smoking laws businesses aren't required to serve smoking customers if they don't want to. (Heck, they can refuse to do business with whomever they want, for any reason, so long as the refusal isn't based on race, religion, gender, etc.)

It's not so easy to kick out people when certain behavior is culturally ingrained to be a right.

 

[mb6592]

No one will take you seriously if you're going to misrepresent the idea of using seatbelts to keep drivers in front of the wheel during collisions as "drivers flying and hurting pedestrians".

Please, I've investigated and reviewed thousands of mv accidents. Not one driver has made the claim that wearing a seatbelt avoided a secondary collision - not one. There are very few non professional drivers that even have the wherewithal to maneuver to avoid a secondary crash and in many instances they do more harm than good with this ability (such as swerve to avoid a 2nd car in the road, thus leaving the roadway - a big mistake - and head for a pole, tree, pedestrian, etc).

Honestly, in all my years I've never even heard this as an argument. Can you point to any studies? Produce one police report? Like I said, these are non professional drivers we're talking about. Show me the proof that this " maintaining of control" hasn't led to as many bad results as good ones.