|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Aug 13, 2008 17:18:06 GMT -5
On fireworks:
regulation is both a valid use of the police power (for reasons mentioned) as well as a good idea, and not just because of safety to people and property. One of the reasons western states have banned them in some cases and places and because (a) fireworks are inherently and stubbornly hard to physically control (who hasn't seen a ground bloom flower squirt off toward some poor kid on a bike?), and (b) their use (or misuse) have caused massive fires in arid places, which endangers safety, property, and nature. Wildfires are one of the major causes of catastrophic ecological change in the west, and account for massive expenditures by governments who fight fires and help clean up after, insurance companies, municipalities, and individuals.
So, if you think regulating fireworks is an infringement on individual liberty, it's just as easy to posit that the exercise of that particular liberty creates an undue burden on other individuals' right to property and safety. Simply put, fireworks are dangerous in anyone's hands, even trained professionals, and as such fall within the category of "activities that affect others and risk negative consequences with their use per se, therefore should be regulated."
|
|
FormerHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,262
|
Post by FormerHoya on Aug 13, 2008 17:32:57 GMT -5
(Remember the fire in the RI club with White Stripe that killed scores of people?) Great White. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 13, 2008 17:47:49 GMT -5
C2C -- a much better and more complete response on Fireworks than I gave. Nice job.
FormerHoya... you are absolutely correct. It was Great White. Thx.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 13, 2008 18:39:41 GMT -5
On fireworks: regulation is both a valid use of the police power (for reasons mentioned) as well as a good idea, and not just because of safety to people and property. One of the reasons western states have banned them in some cases and places and because (a) fireworks are inherently and stubbornly hard to physically control (who hasn't seen a ground bloom flower squirt off toward some poor kid on a bike?), and (b) their use (or misuse) have caused massive fires in arid places, which endangers safety, property, and nature. Wildfires are one of the major causes of catastrophic ecological change in the west, and account for massive expenditures by governments who fight fires and help clean up after, insurance companies, municipalities, and individuals. So, if you think regulating fireworks is an infringement on individual liberty, it's just as easy to posit that the exercise of that particular liberty creates an undue burden on other individuals' right to property and safety. Simply put, fireworks are dangerous in anyone's hands, even trained professionals, and as such fall within the category of "activities that affect others and risk negative consequences with their use per se, therefore should be regulated." Agreed, but I don't want it to apply to me. |
|
CO_Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,109
|
Post by CO_Hoya on Aug 13, 2008 19:12:16 GMT -5
Regarding motorcycle helmets and health, I came across this recently, from an article in the NY Times. The aforementioned NYT story had additional info from the study: |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 14, 2008 11:05:42 GMT -5
On fireworks: regulation is both a valid use of the police power (for reasons mentioned) as well as a good idea, and not just because of safety to people and property. One of the reasons western states have banned them in some cases and places and because (a) fireworks are inherently and stubbornly hard to physically control (who hasn't seen a ground bloom flower squirt off toward some poor kid on a bike?), and (b) their use (or misuse) have caused massive fires in arid places, which endangers safety, property, and nature. Wildfires are one of the major causes of catastrophic ecological change in the west, and account for massive expenditures by governments who fight fires and help clean up after, insurance companies, municipalities, and individuals. So, if you think regulating fireworks is an infringement on individual liberty, it's just as easy to posit that the exercise of that particular liberty creates an undue burden on other individuals' right to property and safety. Simply put, fireworks are dangerous in anyone's hands, even trained professionals, and as such fall within the category of "activities that affect others and risk negative consequences with their use per se, therefore should be regulated." First things first: on the fireworks question I haven't said anything about certain restrictions, nor have I seen anyone else say so. Certainly, if there is a "burn ban" as we often have in Florida due to unusually dry conditions, then it would be reasonable to prohibit fireworks during that time as well. In fact just a few years ago they cancelled the major fireworks show that usually coincides with the Pepsi 400 Nascar race -- which incidentally used to be called the Firecracker 400. Actually, now that I think about it, I think it is called the Coca Cola 400 now, but that's not the point. Restrictions of that sort are very legitimate. The bottom line is that some restrictions or controls are reasonable. Blanketly criminalizing them because some people aren't careful enough isn't. sirsaxa wrote: OK, so if they have their own money to invest in their own pub, should they be able to tell the fire marshall to buzz off when he limits the amount of people who can be in the place at any one time? (Remember the fire in the RI club with White Stripe that killed scores of people?) SHould they be able to tell the health dept. to take a hike when they look into how the food is stored and prepared? Should they be able to tell the liquor commission to beat it when they determine the age of people who can buy alcohol and what hours it can be sold? Should they be able to shut out OSHA and others who look out for workers' safety? (including second hand smoke?) SHould they be able to tell the building commission they don't give a flying fig about building codes, electical system safety, structural integrity? I think you get the idea.
Those are not all the same types of argument. If you simply mean that as a society, we have certain laws that people must abide by, then no one anywhere is likely to argue with you. But blindly using that logic, you would have to support radical laws that some countries have had limiting children to 2 per couple. In some cases, children beyond that have been killed or taken from the parents. I know you aren't proposing laws of this sort, but when you dismiss criticisms of laws as simply being the law of the land that we must abide by, you open the door for extreme cases such as the sort I mentioned. Similarly, if we take personal freedoms to its logical extreme, then my shooting someone that I don't like could be argued as "acceptable." We would each be free to defenc ourselves from such attacks using whatever we felt was necessary. Anarchism is not the goal anymore than totalitarianism. As for your specific questions: 1. Fire marshall codes are fine. Sometimes I think they might be a bit too restrictive. But by the same token, sometimes they are stretched a bit by a packed venue -- even to being ignored altogether. 2. Similarly, food storage and preparation requirements are fine. Sometimes I think they might be a bit too restrictive. But by the same token, sometimes they are stretched a bit by a venue -- even to being ignored altogether. 3. Liquor laws, specifically the age restriction you mention is fine. Sometimes I think they might be a bit too restrictive. But by the same token, sometimes they are stretched a bit by a venue -- even to being ignored altogether. Personally, on this issue I think you are an adult at some point. I have my own opinions on when that happens, but in any case I think it should be at some point. At some point you are an adult. At that point, you should be able to vote, enlist in the military or get drafted, drink alcohol and buy cigs legally etc... 4. OSHA goes far too far in many cases, but I agree that there are some degrees of necessary regulation. No, working at a smoke-free environment shouldn't be one of them. Again, if there are enough people wanting to attend a smoke free bar, then there will be enough entrepreneurs giving them the opportunity. Look at it this way: some people are offended by nudity. But those who work in a strip joint will necessarily be exposed to nudity. Should nudity be disallowed because "some" will be offended? No, they can simply work somewhere else. 5. As for building codes, I think they are often too restrictive, but are sometimes stretched a bit or ignored altogether. Yes, there is a legitimate need for people to have the confidence that they can shop/eat/visit at a business and not have the building fall down on them for no reason. Here is another anecdotal example: There is a bar here in Gainesville. It is mostly an middle class, middle aged bar. they have a modest sized dance floor with probably a dozen tables scattered around and of course a bar. They also have a very quaint upstairs, with probably a half-dozen tables. It has sort of become the place where couples who want to go talk and get a little bit away from the noise of the band and dancing to be able to do so. Due to city requirements, they were required to put in an elevator, so that the upstairs could be handicapped-accesible. Not that the owners have anything against handicapped patrons -- they just simply don't get that many and if they do, what is wrong with the down stairs? The city would not budge on the issue at first and had issue a stop-work order until they could be in compliance. Well aside from the fact that the elevator was far too expensive to justify the cost in the first place, even if the owners wanted to go to the expense, they needed the money coming in from the bar to be able to do so. They finally worked out a compromise where they were given an extension to become compliant. Donations were raised for about 6 months and then a totally unnecessary elevator was installed, causing the loss of probably a half dozen tables upstairs and down. That was just a classic case of some busy body doing a little social tinkering that damn near put an otherwise succesful business out of business. To steal your line: I think you get the idea. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 14, 2008 11:49:46 GMT -5
4. OSHA goes far too far in many cases, but I agree that there are some degrees of necessary regulation. No, working at a smoke-free environment shouldn't be one of them. Again, if there are enough people wanting to attend a smoke free bar, then there will be enough entrepreneurs giving them the opportunity. Look at it this way: some people are offended by nudity. But those who work in a strip joint will necessarily be exposed to nudity. Should nudity be disallowed because "some" will be offended? No, they can simply work somewhere else. You're right, but strip clubs exist solely as a legal establishment for nudity. I know they have food, music, etc. but the main purpose of a strip club is the nudity aspect. If you don't want to see naked people, don't go there. Right on. But I don't see how the same logic can work for bars/restaurants/indoor public spaces. Bars don't exist solely as legal establishment for smoking, nor do restaurants. Should an asthmatic be prevented from going to certain public places just because others want to smoke indoors? I think your argument would only work if people are discussing banning smoking at a hookah bar. |
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,928
|
Post by Filo on Aug 14, 2008 11:59:25 GMT -5
Personally, I think it should be illegal for anyone with a body mass index over the norm (say 25) to wear spandex. Penalty would be some sort of fine. Although sexist, since it is targeted only to women, I would bring out the death penalty for anyone with a BMI >30 who wears a bikini in public.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 14, 2008 12:02:50 GMT -5
I'm with Filo.
And the idea behind the California smoking ban was based on the employees, not the patrons. It's a workplace safety issue. You can argue it's a matter of degrees, but it poses a health risk to the employees and that's OSHA's role.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 14, 2008 12:09:29 GMT -5
4. OSHA goes far too far in many cases, but I agree that there are some degrees of necessary regulation. No, working at a smoke-free environment shouldn't be one of them. Again, if there are enough people wanting to attend a smoke free bar, then there will be enough entrepreneurs giving them the opportunity. Look at it this way: some people are offended by nudity. But those who work in a strip joint will necessarily be exposed to nudity. Should nudity be disallowed because "some" will be offended? No, they can simply work somewhere else. You're right, but strip clubs exist solely as a legal establishment for nudity. I know they have food, music, etc. but the main purpose of a strip club is the nudity aspect. If you don't want to see naked people, don't go there. Right on. But I don't see how the same logic can work for bars/restaurants/indoor public spaces. Bars don't exist solely as legal establishment for smoking, nor do restaurants. Should an asthmatic be prevented from going to certain public places just because others want to smoke indoors? I think your argument would only work if people are discussing banning smoking at a hookah bar. I'm glad you made that point. I anticipated someone doing that. I would argue that at least in bars, smoking is a main attraction. Especially in the happy hour crowd, the neighborhood pub is a place to relax and kick back after work. Having a drink, a smoke and maybe an appetizer is, in fact, the appeal. As I've said, personally I don't smoke cigs. But that isn't the point. Using another example, going to a casino has a lot of appeal. Personally, I look forward to the "comped" drinks as much as the chance to throw the dice or play some cards. The point being, that enjoying a drink is in fact part of the entire experience. I would bet that smokers would say the same of enjoying a cig with their drink after work. And these types of infringements aren't restricted to the tobacco issue. Here in Alachua County, it is illegal to serve alcohol at a place with nudity. As one who doesn't frequent strip clubs, it hasn't directly affected me, but supposedly it has hurt the business at the strip clubs tremendously. In that case, the city or county is really trying to get rid of the strip clubs in a round about fashion, but it would be easy to argue that having a drink is in fact part of the overall experience. Having seen pictures of some of those hags, a drink (or three) might be absolutely necessary to truly appreciate the experience. On edit: man, I need to start proofreading my material. That was bad. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 14, 2008 12:31:48 GMT -5
I can understand the "part of the total experience" argument, being that anyone interested in going to bars has to recognize that smoking comes with the territory. But the bottom line is that second hand smoke is harmful, and people's choice of social hangout, workplace, etc shouldn't be restricted based on trying to avoid being subjected to this harm.
Both sides of the issue are basically saying "leave us alone." But only one side of the argument results in subjecting the other to a serious health risk.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 14, 2008 13:14:20 GMT -5
jjl, if we restrict the argument to the patrons alone, then you are correct. One patron has a right to smoke while one patron has the right to not inhale smoke. But that view entirely ignores the land owner's rights. He is the one risking his own capital. He is the one paying rent or buying the building. He is the one paying property taxes, insurance, tangible tax, payroll tax, utilities, cable/satelite, phone etc... He is the one paying for the security monitoring service. He is the one paying for an occupational license. He is the one paying for the security, ambulance and fire permits that have now been added in Gainesville. That's a nice one. Under the guise of cutting down on false alarms, and therefore the associated personel costs of sending out police officers and/or emergency medical and firemen, the city now requires a special permit if you have an alarm system. Not only that, but there are escalating rates for alarms per year. The first one is free. After that it goes up to $50. Then $75, $125, $175 and so forth. As usual, I see the problem, and don't have a much better solution, but there's stinks as well. Basically, if a storm is bad enough, even the most modern alarm sensors will trigger. Yet even a sensor with a valid trigger is considered a false alarm unless there is an actual break-in. But I digress ... the point is that the owner is the one responsible for all of these expenses. Yet he isn't allowed to run his business in the best manner for his customers? Basically, your argument that the stray customer who doesn't want to smell second hand smoke overrides that of all of those who do as well as the owner who has already spent bookoodles of bucks satisfying already intrusive and expensive policies. The "result" for his efforts: less business.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 14, 2008 13:20:17 GMT -5
The business owner does not dictate health regulations, and the scientific health risk is not "smelling" second hand smoke. Get real.
Edit: And how are all these bars in DC, Maryland, NYC etc. still open, when they can't possibly afford to operate because their customers have to slide off the bar stools and step outside to smoke?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 14, 2008 14:05:48 GMT -5
You're missing the point. There are universal health restrictions for the serving of food, because there is a presumption that the food is safe and has been handled properly. You or I have no idea that this is or would be the case on our own. Therefore there is a health code, dictating such things as temperature for coolers, temperature for cooking assorted items, date code on certain items etc... We "need" the code in that case, because otherwise we have no idea what we are getting and if it has been kept in a "safe" manner. If a bar allows smoking, then perhaps they should have a sign prominently displayed outside stating as such.
NOTE:
This is a SMOKING establishment.
Smoking is permitted inside. Please show ID at the door.
Fundamentally, neither you or I should have the right to go into someone else home or business and dictate to them how, when and where they can or should smoke.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 14, 2008 14:24:09 GMT -5
I believe that one individual's actions shouldn't be allowed to physically harm another individual, particularly in a public space. Second hand smoke does this. Its just like any other law aimed at protecting the public from dangers caused by others' actions, say like speeding/reckless driving.
Bars and restaurants are public, so the business owner does not have the luxury of making their own rules of what is legal or not within their public establishment (despite being privately funded/owned). The public should be protected from second hand smoke that results in an increased risk of heart disease, emphysema, cancer, etc. There is plenty of research demonstrating that second hand smoke results in the same problems as first hand smoking.
Edit: As a disclaimer to all the lawyers in the bunch, I'm not a lawyer. I'm defining public as a gathering place where your access cannot be restricted based on factors like race, and you are obligated to observe the laws of the governing body. In contrast to a private residence.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 14, 2008 14:34:13 GMT -5
I think we should create smoke bars. Where the sole purpose is to go to a place and smoke. only these specially established smoke bars where you have to smoke will allow smoking. I don't mean a bar where you can smoke I mean a bar where all you can do is smoke no booze or food just smoking.
You go to restaurants to eat. You go to bars to drink. You go to the smoke bar to smoke. And that's the way it's gotta be. That way the only people who would want to go in are smokers.
Yes this is pretty ridiculous idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 14, 2008 14:40:23 GMT -5
I just haven't heard a single legitimate response that justifies why one person should be allowed to hurt another through their decisions/actions. Both people have the right to be in the bar/restaurant/public venue, so why should one person be allowed to create a dangerous environment for the other?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Aug 14, 2008 15:31:15 GMT -5
I just haven't heard a single legitimate response that justifies why one person should be allowed to hurt another through their decisions/actions. Both people have the right to be in the bar/restaurant/public venue, so why should one person be allowed to create a dangerous environment for the other? I think this same argument could apply equally to the case of a person driving a car and, through their decisions/actions, hurt another person. The people driving and the people hurt have the right to be on the road public way, so why should one person be allowed to create a dangerous environment for the other. The prevention of hurt is to close the road or forbid driving. Obviously a stupid argument but the logic could carry you there. If you don't want to be subjected to smoke in a smoke-allowed bar, don't go there. Isn't one argument against porno or sex on the TV: "don't watch it"? If you want to prevent any first- or second-hand smoke from harming anyone, why don't you have your Congressman propose outlawing cigarettes? |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 14, 2008 15:33:54 GMT -5
I would be perfectly happy if we outlawed cigarettes altogether. Ban'em and give current smokers help to fight their addiction and then be done with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 14, 2008 15:55:18 GMT -5
I just haven't heard a single legitimate response that justifies why one person should be allowed to hurt another through their decisions/actions. Both people have the right to be in the bar/restaurant/public venue, so why should one person be allowed to create a dangerous environment for the other? I think this same argument could apply equally to the case of a person driving a car and, through their decisions/actions, hurt another person. The people driving and the people hurt have the right to be on the road public way, so why should one person be allowed to create a dangerous environment for the other. The prevention of hurt is to close the road or forbid driving. Obviously a stupid argument but the logic could carry you there. If you don't want to be subjected to smoke in a smoke-allowed bar, don't go there. Isn't one argument against porno or sex on the TV: "don't watch it"? If you want to prevent any first- or second-hand smoke from harming anyone, why don't you have your Congressman propose outlawing cigarettes? 1) Not really. Ideally, a person operating their automobile as designed and within the law would not be a threat to other drivers. Of course accidents happen though. (Edit: With many variables like weather conditions). Creating dangerous second hand smoke is not an accident. Driving is not illegal, but driving in a manner outside the law which creates a dangerous environment to the others on the road is. The road is not the danger, the car is not the danger, its certain individuals acting outside the law that become the danger. Same goes for bars. Bars are not inherently dangerous, but the actions of some within the bar can make it so. 2) Porn on chanel 200 doesn't make television as a whole a porn-ridden experience. Indoor smoking makes the entire enclosed area a threat to one's health. 3) I don't want to outlaw cigarettes. I have no problem with people who choose to smoke, but their decision should not be allowed to affect my health. Smoke at home, light up in the car (although that can be a distraction), smoke in a nice meadow and enjoy the fresh air. I don't care. |
|
