What "should" be illegal?

[hifigator]

We're going round in circles and not getting anywhere. You won't budge any. I am willing to meet you half way with "public" places. The library for instance is a public place. The University museum is a public place. Public schools are public places and so on.

You're claim that a bar is a "public" place because people are not to be descriminated against due to race, religion etc... Well age is part of that as well. But we have age requirements. Without getting any further into ticky tack semantics, I think we have finally gotten to the end. I contend a bar is NOT a public place. The parking lot for a bar is generally a "quasi-public" place, meaning that even though it is officially private property, there is a presumption that the public is invited. I know that you could say that of bars, but is that really the case? Kids are not allowed in for instance. A bar is a private place, that people choose to go to or not. The fact that a higher percentage of bar patrons smoke than those who don't frequent bars is irrelevant as an legal position, but should certainly play in as far as common sense is concerned. In any case, you say that if you want to smoke you should go outside. I would contend that if you want to not be subject to any potential smoke then you should go outside. Either way, that issue should fall on the business owner. Essentially, when you do it like it has been done in Florida now, the only people who have their rights are the non smokers. The owners have given up their rights. The smokers have given up their rights. I just think there are all kinds of better alternatives. You could elect to designate your business as smoking or non-smoking. If you want to have the city issue additional permits for the smoking licenses, then that money could be used to promote the cause of not smoking, or could be used to build additional seating areas isolated from smoking sections -- a sort of food courtyard for those who wish to patronize certain businesses but don't smoke. I just don't buy the argument that if smoking is allowed in bars, then non-smokers have "given up" their rights. I have a feeling that smog is more of a problem in big cities than minor second hand smoke. So no one should drive, since I don't want to smell smog and encounter the associated dangers.

One last angle. You said, "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?

The basic premise of your argument is that everyone has a legal right to be in any private business. Aside from obvious age issues -- X rated movies, strip clubs, etc -- I have another question for you. We have all seen signs that say something to the effect of "Management reserves the right to refuse service." That is generally used to ask rowdy people to leave or to not serve obviously drunk patrons any more. It is also used to ask bums to leave without repurcussion. Using your theory, there would be no way to force a bum to leave. Eventually, you would be nothing but a clean airconditioned place for bums to hang out. After all, if the non-smokers have the right to be in your place and not smell smoke, regardless of their opinions, then so do the bums.

Using your language, I just haven't heard a single argument why I, as a business owner, must be told that I cannot allow my customers to smoke, if they so choose. Again, the non-smokers will have plenty of options to wine and dine without smoke. Unfortunately with these silly laws, the same can't be said of those who choose to indulge in a legal activity. Again, I think my view is very objective since I don't smoke and quite honestly, don't enjoy cig smoke.

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

Things that should be illegal:

1) Inane and incessant posting in a forum to which you have no logical connection.

2) Whatever substance you ingest that causes number 1 to occur.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

This is going nowhere. I'm gonna have to pull a Ron Burgundy, Hifi, and agree to disagree.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

This argument is unnecessary since smokers aren't people and therefore have no rights.
There are people and then there are smokers and us people have the right to restrict these sub human creatures as we see fit.

[SirSaxa]

The NY Times today has a story on a report from Secretary of Transportation regarding the number of motorcycle fatalities. A few excerpts below:

The number of motorcyclist deaths jumped in 2007, accounting for nearly one in eight motor vehicle deaths, government safety officials said on Thursday.

Yet ridership has probably become more dangerous mile for mile. One reason is a decline in the number of states requiring the use of helmets. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, in 1975, 47 states required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets, but now only 20 do.


“We are the only industrialized country in the world where there is an organized effort to weaken or repeal motorcycle helmet laws,” Mr. Rader said. “That definitely is a factor in the increasing deaths.”

NY Times on Motorcylcist Deaths

[strummer8526]

Very interesting Saxa. I didn't realize such a movement existed, especially when during my childhood years, there was such a push FOR children/bicycle helmet laws.

I guess my only question is: If you...or lets say hifi...wants to get on a motorcycle and splatter his brains all over the pavement, why should I care? (I'd obviously care in the human "Oh my god, someone died" sense, but as far as our laws--why should we constantly be accounting for dumb people's bad choices?)

[SirSaxa]

Aug 15, 2008 7:36:34 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Very interesting Saxa. I didn't realize such a movement existed, especially when during my childhood years, there was such a push FOR children/bicycle helmet laws.

I guess my only question is: If you...or lets say hifi...wants to get on a motorcycle and splatter his brains all over the pavement, why should I care? (I'd obviously care in the human "Oh my god, someone died" sense, but as far as our laws--why should we constantly be accounting for dumb people's bad choices?)

Why do we have seatbelt laws? Why do we mandate airbags in cars?
Obviously, these are efforts to save lives.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I mean suicide is illegal.( or so i've been told, not sure how you prosecute that) So i suppose it's a logical leap to say well you can't do something that will very likely get you killed. Of course that could lead to all sorts of crazy extrapolations that I'm sure someone will bring up. However I just see this as the government protecting people from essentially themselves int he same way they protect us in the form of health and building codes. It's also comparable to restrictions on how you drive like speed limits. We limit dangerous behaviors not only because you're endangering others but because you're endangering yourself I'd argue. We have speed limits because at slower speeds you're more likely to avoid a crash but also you're more likely to survive a crash at lower speeds.

[Boz]

I haven't been following this thread in a while. Anything banned that I should know about? Is Thai food still legal, because I really kind of wanted some for lunch today.

I'd also like to enjoy my drunken noodles while smoking a cigar laced with pot on my motorcycle without a helmet while I shoot off fireworks through my exhaust. Is all of that OK?

Of course, some might call that suicide.

[JohnJacquesLayup]

Aug 15, 2008 9:46:08 GMT -5 Boz said:

I haven't been following this thread in a while. Anything banned that I should know about? Is Thai food still legal, because I really kind of wanted some for lunch today.

I'd also like to enjoy my drunken noodles while smoking a cigar laced with pot on my motorcycle without a helmet while I shoot off fireworks through my exhaust. Is all of that OK?

Of course, some might call that suicide.

No prostitute on the back of the motorcycle?

[hifigator]

Aug 15, 2008 7:36:34 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Very interesting Saxa. I didn't realize such a movement existed, especially when during my childhood years, there was such a push FOR children/bicycle helmet laws.

I guess my only question is: If you...or lets say hifi...wants to get on a motorcycle and splatter his brains all over the pavement, why should I care? (I'd obviously care in the human "Oh my god, someone died" sense, but as far as our laws--why should we constantly be accounting for dumb people's bad choices?)

I'll take both positions for argument's sake. As for the change in helmet laws, I doubt that most apply to children. At least in Florida, a minor (under 18) must wear a helmet at all times when on a motorcycle. In fact it applies to ATV's as well, even on private property. There was a tragedy two years ago involving a kid from my kids' school. She was killed in an ATV accident. There was even talk in the paper of charging the parents with neglect. I don't know how serious it got and there weren't any charges, but at least from the article, the DA was looking into it. Not to belittle the tragedy though. The sister of the girl who dies is a good friend of my youngest daughter and has spent the night at our house as well as our lake place before. I know that parents and they are not in any way negletful. The kids have always been told to wear their helmets. No one knows for sure why she wasn't wearing one, but much conversation was that this particular type of accident might very well have not been fatal had she had a helmet on. The last point on this was that someone earlier mentioned "on your own property." At least in Florida that isn't the case either. A minor is required to wear a helmet even when on private property.

To answer your second question: the argument is that there is a societal cost in the form of health care and the sort. Sure, we can require insurance, but sometimes policies lapse. And when there is an accident, the injured people are treated first and then who is paying the bill is figured out later. As a result, there is a societal reason to try to minimize the "costs" of an accident. That is the justification for why you would care in the first place. Note, I am not agreeing with that position, just pointing the argument out.

[Boz]

Aug 15, 2008 10:16:22 GMT -5 JohnJacquesLayup said:

Aug 15, 2008 9:46:08 GMT -5 Boz said:

I haven't been following this thread in a while. Anything banned that I should know about? Is Thai food still legal, because I really kind of wanted some for lunch today.

I'd also like to enjoy my drunken noodles while smoking a cigar laced with pot on my motorcycle without a helmet while I shoot off fireworks through my exhaust. Is all of that OK?

Of course, some might call that suicide.

No prostitute on the back of the motorcycle?

DAMMIT!!

I knew I was forgetting something. Either that or watching porn on my phone.

[hifigator]

Here are few links:

This gives the specific laws for the different states:
www.ama-cycle.org/legisltn/laws.asp

(Incidentally, I misquoted the Florida law. It isn't on just minors, it applies to those under 21. I guess the "logic" is that until you are old enough to drink you should have to wear a helmet. ??)


Here is one guys opinion with statistics and links:
www.geocities.com/rt_66.geo/helmet.html

I think he is pretty clear that he is not objective, but logical. To me that type of reasoning, if done legitimately, is fair enough. If it flies in the face of scientific research, that is a different issue. But on any of these grey areas, then such reasoning is worth at least considering.

[hifigator]

On a related note:

Traffic deaths dipped to a 13 year low. U.S. highway crash fatlaities dropped by more than 1,600 in 2007. Some 41,059 people were killed inhighway crashes, down by more than 1,600 from 2006. It was the fewest highway deaths in a year since 1994, when 40,716 were killed.
The fatalityrate of 1.37 deaths for every 100 million miles traveled in 2007 was the lowest on record.
...
"Thanks to safer vehicles, aggressive law enforcement, and our efforts, countless families were spared the devastating news that a loved one was not coming home," said Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.


California had the largest decline, with a 6.3% drop in fatality rate. Florida dropped 4.3% while North Carolina bucked the trend with the largest increase, jumping a whopping 7.8% in highway deaths.

Motorcycle deaths continued their recent trend, increasing for the tenth straight year. However, while the 5,154 motorcycle deaths represent a 7% increase from the 4,837 in 2006, estimates show an approximate 7% increase in registered motorcycles. Peters said with higher furel prices, more people use motorcycles or scooters that can get 50 to 60 miles per gallon.
Additionally, experts are convinced that registered motorcycles are also being used with much more frequency due to the recent, sharp rise in fuel costs.

The net effect will likely show a drop in accidents per mile driven when all factors are considered.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I'm done arguing about helmet laws. That website was logical it just used faulty logic. I mean at one point he even said If riding with out a helmet is so dangerous how come I'm not dead yet. I can't win against people like that. It's the weekend I've got better things to do.

[hifigator]

Aug 15, 2008 16:08:33 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

I'm done arguing about helmet laws. That website was logical it just used faulty logic. I mean at one point he even said If riding with out a helmet is so dangerous how come I'm not dead yet. I can't win against people like that. It's the weekend I've got better things to do.

Yeah, I didn't post it as much for scientific support as a degree of humor mixed with the sentiment from someone other than me that still gets to the point. But I noticed that part too and got a decent laugh out of it.

Along similar "logic" ... I don't think heroin or opium is dangerous either. Not only have I never died from it; I don't even know a single person who has. So why make it illegal?


On Edit: for the record, like I've said, I think that wearing helmets are wise in general and smoking cigs is not wise in general. I do think that motorcycle riders should be free to choose whether to wear a helmet or not, provided there is some kind of mandatory insurance, such as the Florida law states. But I'm not nearly as dogmatic on the helmet issue as I am the smoking ban in bar issue. Again, I don't own a bar; nor do I smoke. I also don't have any really close friends who own bars, so I think I am very objective in this issue.

My helmet law opposition is almost exclusively ideologically based. I don't want the government telling people to do something unless there is a really good reason. The fact that "they" think it to be in my best interests, isn't good enough.

At the risk of opening an entire new can of worms: there are a number of "dangerous" activities. Skydiving comes to mind. Aside from military use, it is almost exclusively used for enjoyment. But it's very dangerous. Cliff diving is also exhilirating, but dangerous as well. What about surfing? Between strong undertows, rip currents and potential shark attacks, that seems like a very unnecessary potentially deadly activity. And the list goes on .... where should we draw the line and why? I just don't get it. And on the larger scale, you know how I feel about limiting personal freedoms.

[AustinHoya03]

Aug 14, 2008 14:05:48 GMT -5 hifigator said:

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.

Smoking is not mentioned in the US Constitution. I would wager it is not mentioned in the Florida Constitution either. There is no right to smoke, nor is there a right to be free from someone telling you when and where you may smoke.

Personally, I agree with your position. I voted against the smoking ban in Austin. But smoking bans across America have largely been voted in directly by the people, whether through a citywide vote or a statewide proposition ballot. The people can pass whatever the Edited kind of crazy laws they want as long as they are not infringing on your rights.

You do not have any right to smoke, anywhere at any time. Starting the above quoted sentence with the word "fundamentally" makes you a rights-maker-upper. And everyone knows rights-maker-uppers are dirty, stinking, liberal hippies.

[strummer8526]

Well-said, Austin.

[AustinHoya03]

Aug 12, 2008 16:25:41 GMT -5 thebin said:

A pays B to screw C, films it, and sells it....LEGAL
A pays B to screw in private...................ILLEGAL.

Well, this is how it would work if prostitution were legal. But not every john is an Eliot Spitzer, and most individuals getting prosecuted for prostitution aren't Ashley Dupres. It often works like this:

Crackhead A has no money for crack rock, so Crackhead A puts himself/herself at risk of rape, robbery, and numerous other crimes by selling sexual favors (sometimes in private, sometimes in public) to gain money to buy said crack rock.

Prostitution often goes along with other criminal ventures. If legalizing prostitution across the board would eradicate the type of prostitution described above, then I'm all for it. If it won't, then I'm not so sure I care either way.

[hifigator]

Austin, using your logic then, everything is illegal unless it is specifically deemed to be legal in the Constitution. I think the opposite. We "should" (and remember, that is the title of this thread ...) have the right to smoke, in as much as it shouldn't be illegal.

That being said, I must agree with you, in that most of the smoking bans have in fact been voted in by the people. In that regard, it is a tough one to argue.