Smoking, same rights as free speech?

Interesting thread. You all can probably figure out on which side of this divide I am.

Oden, Atl, PJ: So to expand this thread

Are fasten seat belt laws ok?

How about drunk driving laws? If you want to truly take the logic to its limits why should government have the right to tell me that I cannot consume a certain level of alcohol and drive? Heck why shouldn't I be able to drink alcohol and drive at the same time? If I drive drunk and injure someone then I of course should assume the consequences (as one of Mr. O'Rourkes tag lines states); however, legislating up front that the mere fact that I have consumed alcohol makes it illegal to drive should be in the same category as smoking. Right? Originally Posted by discreetgent

The actual line is: "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

The problem with that concept as it applies to such things as drunk driving and to a lesser extent seat belt use is that many of the perpetrators are not prepared/responsible enough to take the consequences -- which include paying for the tort they cause (a subject for TTH to expound upon).

If that's the best you got, you got nuthin'. Originally Posted by Doove

It was all the moronic opinions expressed to date were worth. I don't do heavy intellectual lifting in response to fluff.

OK, I'm sitting here on a Sunday morning listening to the Sunday talking heads. All of them seem to be proposing expanded gov't regulation and oversight with regard to the oil industry and the Gulf Oil Spill.

Now, should the gov't get into more regulation or less. I have mixed emotions. As bad as the spill is, there does not appear to be a pattern of spills with regard to deep wells. A fact Obama recognized 20 days prior to the explosion.

OTOH, BP seems to have a history of safety violations where other drillers do not.

Do you regulate for the minority? Or do you regulate in such a way that most self-regulate, but those that have regular safety violations or spills would be subject to a "death penalty?" Of course, it has to be a real death penalty, not an SMU death penalty.

It was all the moronic opinions expressed to date were worth. Originally Posted by pjorourke

You've got as many posts in this thread as anyone. Just sayin'.

I don't do heavy intellectual lifting in response to fluff.

In other words, you got nuthin', so let's term everyone else's opinion as 'fluff'.

The problem with that concept as it applies to such things as drunk driving and to a lesser extent seat belt use is that many of the perpetrators are not prepared/responsible enough to take the consequences -- which include paying for the tort they cause (a subject for TTH to expound upon).

Replace the term "tort" with the term "bills", and you've got a perfect argument FOR mandated health insurance. Thanks PJ.

I do not think the government should tell a private business how it should run its business in this regard. That said I'm glad they did! I hate that smoky shit unless I'm trying to get laid! LOL

It's like the law about who you let in a establishment.....the Fed's had to step in and speed up the equality process. Do we want it where eatries can bar blacks just because we do not want the Feds stepping into private enterprise?

This is one of those tough one's for me. The problem with smoke is second hand nature.

Now, should the gov't get into more regulation or less. I have mixed emotions. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Hi Charles,

You might find this short article on regulation interesting. (I did, but then I'm a huge James Surowiecki fan!)

I must admit I am so grateful that smoking's been banned in so many restaurants. In addition to the second-hand health effects, it ruins the experience for non-smokers. (How can you appreciate the smell and taste of a delicious meal with someone blowing smoke at you?) But I understand why some people find the legislative approach problematic.

Hi Charles,

You might find this short article on regulation interesting. (I did, but then I'm a huge James Surowiecki fan!)

I must admit I am so grateful that smoking's been banned in so many restaurants. In addition to the second-hand health effects, it ruins the experience for non-smokers. (How can you appreciate the smell and taste of a delicious meal with someone blowing smoke at you?) But I understand why some people find the legislative approach problematic. Originally Posted by AveryMoore

I could become a fan also. He has a better grasp on regulatory history failures than I have.

You have the same right to breathe smoke into my air in a restaurant as my right to come over to your table and piss in your drink.

Interesting thread. You all can probably figure out on which side of this divide I am.

Oden, Atl, PJ: So to expand this thread

Are fasten seat belt laws ok?

How about drunk driving laws? If you want to truly take the logic to its limits why should government have the right to tell me that I cannot consume a certain level of alcohol and drive? Heck why shouldn't I be able to drink alcohol and drive at the same time? If I drive drunk and injure someone then I of course should assume the consequences (as one of Mr. O'Rourkes tag lines states); however, legislating up front that the mere fact that I have consumed alcohol makes it illegal to drive should be in the same category as smoking. Right? Originally Posted by discreetgent

I don't think adults should be forced to wear seat belts. Not wearing one is stupid, but we shouldn't regulate stupidity.

Drunk driving is a whole different animal. Your (the driver's) actions can hurt someone else.

Back to the smoking. I have no problem with a ban in true "public" places: schools, government buildings, the train terminal. All of us, from time to time, have to use these places & we shouldn't be subjected to them smoke.

On the other hand, a privately owned business, where reasonable substitutes exist, should not be subject to such bans. The ownership of each should make a decision for their business.

If Tudor's Steakhouse allows smoking & I don't want to be subjected to the smoke I can walk down the street to PJ's Steakhouse, which has a no smoking policy. As an informed adult, I am able to make a choice.

Again, I'm not a smoker. I think it is disgusting. If I spend a night in a smokey bar the first thing I do when I get home is strip off all my clothes and take a long shower. That said I don't think my preferences should interfere with others ability to make an informed choice.

I wonder what the productivity loss is as a result of most offices banning smoking. That is, the crew that every hour has to go outside or to the designated area to get their fix....

Back to the smoking. I have no problem with a ban in true "public" places: schools, government buildings, the train terminal. All of us, from time to time, have to use these places & we shouldn't be subjected to them smoke.

On the other hand, a privately owned business, where reasonable substitutes exist, should not be subject to such bans. The ownership of each should make a decision for their business.

If Tudor's Steakhouse allows smoking & I don't want to be subjected to the smoke I can walk down the street to PJ's Steakhouse, which has a no smoking policy. As an informed adult, I am able to make a choice. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Bingo!

Replace the term "tort" with the term "bills", and you've got a perfect argument FOR mandated health insurance. Thanks PJ. Originally Posted by Doove

Wrong Liberal Lightweight. If you don't want to provide for your own health insurance, the alternative is for you to suffer (or even die) -- i.e., do what you want but take the consequences. Its only when bleeding hearts like you blather that unlimited health care is a "right" that it becomes an issue for others.

The difference with a tort is that it is something that you did to someone else and you have the responsibility to make them whole. When you don't, its their loss, not yours. There, it is society's role to protect them from your irresponsibility.

I wonder what the productivity loss is as a result of most offices banning smoking. That is, the crew that every hour has to go outside or to the designated area to get their fix.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Alt, isn't your new avatar a little late? Didn't roundball end in March or early April. Try soccer...

Contrary to popular belief, there is no "right" to a smoke break. About 30 states have legislated 2 15 minute breaks, one in the AM, one in the PM. The rest of the states and the feds have no break in regs or legislated.

Smokers invariably take more than the 15 minute allotment. The non-smokers are screwed in this system. Theoretically, in "break" states, they get a 15 minute break, but the smokers always take more time. They tend to talk on break, form cliques, and smoke more than one cigarette. The better employees are the non-smokers. They don't take long breaks and get more done.

I wonder what the productivity loss is as a result of most offices banning smoking. That is, the crew that every hour has to go outside or to the designated area to get their fix.... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

In theory, there shouldn't be any loss in productivity. Even is states where you have a right to go take a smoke break, if you aren't carrying your share of the workload, expect to be fired whether the reason is basic incompetence of time off for a smoke break.



"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."

In theory, there shouldn't be any loss in productivity. I don't remember reading about any right to take off work to go smoke a cigarette*. If you aren't carrying your share of the workload, expect to be fired Originally Posted by pjorourke

See my comment above, written while you were writing this...