Paternalism run amok!

[therealUT]

Who did not see this coming when the first bans on smoking in private establishments were introduced?

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/nyregion/bloomberg-plans-a-ban-on-large-sugared-drinks.html

Unfortunately, anyone who supported bans on smoking has no principle to stand upon and oppose this measure taken by Bloomberg.

 

[utvolpj]

heard about that on the way in this morning. Land of the free!

How can anyone think this is the role of govt?

 

[therealUT]

heard about that on the way in this morning. Land of the free!

How can anyone think this is the role of govt?

It is a perfectly natural result of paternalist policies; the reason that this one is more shocking than prohibitions against smoking, drinking, weed, etc. is that so many individuals drink soda.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

heard about that on the way in this morning. Land of the free!

How can anyone think this is the role of govt?

The sad thing is, there are a lot of folks that think this is the role of government. It's the world we live in now sadly.
Nanny state ran wild.

 

[Thrasher865]

Okay, this is dumb, but WTF does it have to do with the smoking ban? That's a reach, as per usual, trut. Smoking is banned because it's detrimental to THOSE AROUND YOU. Drinking a 40 oz coke has no immediate effect on those around you. Dumb comparison.

I'm all for the smoking ban, but not this. And I absolutely have a moral leg to stand on.

 

[utvolpj]

I know it's the natural progression but how can so few actually understand that once you give govt any tiny crack to enter they will continue to expand until you create the Grand Canyon? I may not personally like some things but I don't want them banned just because of my personal feelings.

Oddly enough we spent the weekend with my dad and were discussing what kind of country/world my son will grow up in. None of us had very optimistic outlooks but we made some good plans just in case

 

[therealUT]

Okay, this is dumb, but WTF does it have to do with the smoking ban? That's a reach, as per usual, trut. Smoking is banned because it's detrimental to THOSE AROUND YOU. Drinking a 40 oz coke has no immediate effect on those around you. Dumb comparison.

I'm all for the smoking ban, but not this. And I absolutely have a moral leg to stand on.

The justification that the state gives for curbing obesity is that it is costly for the entire society; that is the state's rationalization for directly affecting (restricting) consumer choice. So, not a dumb and irrelevant comparison; in fact, a completely germane comparison.

You have no principle to stand upon in objecting this measure.

 

[MG1968]

Okay, this is dumb, but WTF does it have to do with the smoking ban? That's a reach, as per usual, trut. Smoking is banned because it's detrimental to THOSE AROUND YOU. Drinking a 40 oz coke has no immediate effect on those around you. Dumb comparison.

the smoking ban is enforced on private businesses which should have a right to cater to a particular type of clientele.

I grew up during the '70's, every restaurant allowed smoking, news anchors smoked on live TV, and the Marlboro Man was a national hero. Somehow, I and millions of others survived all of this without an overbearing nanny-state government deciding that it knows best.

 

[therealUT]

First, they came for the smokers,
But, I didn't say anything because I'm not a smoker;
Then, they came for the trans-fatters,
But, I didn't say anything because I'm not a trans-fatter;
Then, they came for the sodapop drinkers,
But, I didn't say anything because I'm not a sodapop drinker;
Finally, they came for me,
And, I had no principle to stand upon to oppose their draconian measures.

 

[rjd970]

The justification that the state gives for curbing obesity is that it is costly for the entire society; that is the state's rationalization for directly affecting (restricting) consumer choice. So, not a dumb and irrelevant comparison; in fact, a completely germane comparison.

You have no principle to stand upon in objecting this measure.

No. Second hand smoke causes immediate health concerns to those around it. According to you, the sugar drink issue is economic in nature. Not the same.

I disagree with all these bans, ftw. But the concerns in these two instances are not germane. I can understand the stupidity of the smoking ban, the stupidity of this sugar drink nonsense is at another level.

 

[therealUT]

No. Second hand smoke causes immediate health concerns to those around it. According to you, the sugar drink issue is economic in nature. Not the same.

I disagree with all these bans, ftw. But the concerns in these two instances are not germane. I can understand the stupidity of the smoking ban, the stupidity of this sugar drink nonsense is at another level.

Second hand smoking has just as much of a "direct effect" on others as obesity; the effect of one is on health and the other on finances. That is the only difference. Moreover, there is more individual choice involved in being around second hand smoke and suffering from the effects than there is in having to pay taxes to support the health of individuals who are obese.

If one is going to make any distinction between the justifications of these laws, they would have to come to the conclusion that the ban on soda is more reasonable, if looking to the involuntary demands obesity places on the rest of the society.

There is no manner in which one can reasonably support the smoking bans yet oppose the bans on soda. Those two positions just do not reconcile.

 

[BenGrimm]

I didn't go into the link but does the proposed law limit going back for a second soda? If not then I don't have a problem with this. But I dont think it will fix anything either. A better strategy would be to make restaurants charge full price for refills. It may give someone pause to think about what they are doing before ordering that second sugary drink. It cant be argued that the rate of obesity and diabetes is quite alarming.

And for the record there was a time when the average bottle of soda was only 8oz. Over time it went up to 12, 16, and then 20. Meanwhile the people have gotten fatter too.

And while the overall health of the community does effect the individuals cost of health care you still cannot compare this to smoking bans which has an immediate impact on those around you and their personal health.

 

[BenGrimm]

Second hand smoking has just as much of a "direct effect" on others as obesity; the effect of one is on health and the other on finances. That is the only difference. Moreover, there is more individual choice involved in being around second hand smoke and suffering from the effects than there is in having to pay taxes to support the health of individuals who are obese.

Not neccecarily. For example, if you sit in a cubicle office space that's filled with second hand smoke your choice to be there is limited in jobs available that don't have the same environment. Saying "get another job" is the same argument as "if you don't like the state law then move".

Another example is Neyland Stadium. If smoking was allowed in stands then non smokers who don't want to sit in a cloud of cigerette smoke are basically having their choice of going to the game made for them.

 

[therealUT]

Not neccecarily. For example, if you sit in a cubicle office space that's filled with second hand smoke your choice to be there is limited in jobs available that don't have the same environment. Saying "get another job" is the same argument as "if you don't like the state law then move".

Get another job; work for an employer who privately chooses to prohibit smoking. That is an economic issue (the justification for banning soft drinks due to obesity) and, no, it is not the same argument as "if you do not like the state law then move." You are not born into an employment; further, no employer promises to protect your individual liberty (like our government does) nor do most state that their employees are sovereign.

Another example is Neyland Stadium. If smoking was allowed in stands then non smokers who don't want to sit in a cloud of cigerette smoke are basically having their choice of going to the game made for them.

Neyland is a government-funded and -run facility; if a privately-funded and -fun facility wanted to allow smoking and you did not want to attend games because you do not like being around smoke, then do not attend the games.

 

[therealUT]

And while the overall health of the community does effect the individuals cost of health care you still cannot compare this to smoking bans which has an immediate impact on those around you and their personal health.

It actually doesn't; the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is quite tricky. For example, in Israel over 45% of individuals aged 15 and over identify themselves as smokers and smoking is allowed in privately owned establishments; the rate of lung cancer in Israel is 38.1/100,000 (0.038%). In Japan over 59% of individuals aged 15 and over identify themselves as smokers and smoking is allowed in privately owned establishments; the rate of lung cancer in Japan is 47.9/100,000 (0.048%). By comparison, only 28.1% of Americans aged 15 and over identify themselves as smokers and smoking is prohibited in many privately owned establishments, smoking is stigmatized, and smokers are to some degree ostracized; the rate of lung cancer in America is 85.9/100,000 (0.086%). So, less than half the percentage of smokers as Japan; yet almost double the lung cancer rate.

These statistics are based upon World Health Organization reports. And, they are enough to provide ample cynicism and skepticism for the claim that smoking and smoking in public will lead to a higher risk of lung cancer. In fact, they probably point the way toward a more genetic disposition to certain cancers, as is argued by Matt Ridley in Genome.

 

[Weezy]

Agree with TRUT, you can't be ok with one and not the other. And I've left plenty of places because of smoke. That's my right as a consumer, and everybody else's. And if enough people leave, then private businesses will adapt themselves. No need for government. There's no way the general public will ever understand this concept though, and will continue to vote for their short term personal gain.

And the second hand complaint always seemed to be a vehicle for people's general dislike. For me personally, the complaint is much more based in the smell and breathing difficulty.

 

[Thrasher865]

Get another job; work for an employer who privately chooses to prohibit smoking. That is an economic issue (the justification for banning soft drinks due to obesity) and, no, it is not the same argument as "if you do not like the state law then move." You are not born into an employment; further, no employer promises to protect your individual liberty (like our government does) nor do most state that their employees are sovereign.



Neyland is a government-funded and -run facility; if a privately-funded and -fun facility wanted to allow smoking and you did not want to attend games because you do not like being around smoke, then do not attend the games.

You're so full of it, trut. So non-smokers have the option to not leave their house, because smokers irritate us everywhere we go? Smoking is a triple threat. It affects the health, finances AND comfort of those around you.

Regardless of what it does to my health, I don't want to breathe in somebody else's smoke while I'm having a burger. I should have that freedom. These are two completely separate issues.

But, I know you're never going to give ground, because you are the most intelligent man on Earth. I will just have to keep thinking about it until I come to the proper understanding, I guess.

 

[utvolpj]

Regardless of what it does to my health, I don't want to breathe in somebody else's smoke while I'm having a burger. I should have that freedom. These are two completely separate issues.

but why do you feel it necessary to dictate to a privately-owned business that they can't allow smoking? Do your rights to a burger at their establishment trump their rights to run a business as they see fit?

there is very little difference in the soda/smoking issues in that both are govt telling business how to operate

 

[therealUT]

Regardless of what it does to my health, I don't want to breathe in somebody else's smoke while I'm having a burger. I should have that freedom. These are two completely separate issues.

Then go to a restaurant in which management has personally decided not to allow smoking; if none exist, then open your own or fix your food at home.

But, I know you're never going to give ground, because you are the most intelligent man on Earth. I will just have to keep thinking about it until I come to the proper understanding, I guess.

The proper understanding is that you have no right over the private property or private decisions of another individual. A restaurant is private property and, moreover, unless you are the owner it is not your private property.

 

[therealUT]

You're so full of it, trut. So non-smokers have the option to not leave their house, because smokers irritate us everywhere we go? Smoking is a triple threat. It affects the health, finances AND comfort of those around you.

Individuals who play loud music irritate me, even in my own home. They affect my health (insofar as my hearing is already damaged and sometimes they interrupt my REM sleep), my finances (insofar as I have to run my A/C to keep the noise out on some nights, instead of just keeping the windows open and allowing the breeze in), and my comfort. They still have the right to play their music louder. I can move; I can install thicker windows.

Loud, obnoxious "bros" irritate me wherever I go. In Boston, it seems as though these individuals find their ways into the best sports bars anytime after 8pm. Either I stay in the sportsbar and remain uncomfortable or I pay for a TV and cable to watch in my home. Maybe there should be laws that keep loud, obnoxious "bros" out of sportsbars so that I can enjoy my own experiences there.

 

[rjd970]

but why do you feel it necessary to dictate to a privately-owned business that they can't allow smoking? Do your rights to a burger at their establishment trump their rights to run a business as they see fit?

there is very little difference in the soda/smoking issues in that both are govt telling business how to operate

With me, I don't thnk we should dictate anything. Businesses should be able to run how the owner see's fit.

What trut is saying is absurd:

If one is going to make any distinction between the justifications of these laws, they would have to come to the conclusion that the ban on soda is more reasonable, if looking to the involuntary demands obesity places on the rest of the society.

Ridiculous. Smoking causes involunatary demands on the rest of society, with the added benefit of directly affecting those around you. I can't believe I am sitting here defending a smoking ban, but your stance they are exactly same, and that the soda ban is more reasonable is flat stupid.

 

[Thrasher865]

Individuals who play loud music irritate me, even in my own home. They affect my health (insofar as my hearing is already damaged and sometimes they interrupt my REM sleep), my finances (insofar as I have to run my A/C to keep the noise out on some nights, instead of just keeping the windows open and allowing the breeze in), and my comfort. They still have the right to play their music louder. I can move; I can install thicker windows.

No, they don't. Call the police next time, fool.

 

[rjd970]

Individuals who play loud music irritate me, even in my own home. They affect my health (insofar as my hearing is already damaged and sometimes they interrupt my REM sleep), my finances (insofar as I have to run my A/C to keep the noise out on some nights, instead of just keeping the windows open and allowing the breeze in), and my comfort. They still have the right to play their music louder. I can move; I can install thicker windows.

Loud, obnoxious "bros" irritate me wherever I go. In Boston, it seems as though these individuals find their ways into the best sports bars anytime after 8pm. Either I stay in the sportsbar and remain uncomfortable or I pay for a TV and cable to watch in my home. Maybe there should be laws that keep loud, obnoxious "bros" out of sportsbars so that I can enjoy my own experiences there.

We should allow others to drink and drive to then. Nobody is forcing you to drive on the road with them. This intellectual excercise crap can get absurd real quick.

 

[Thrasher865]

but why do you feel it necessary to dictate to a privately-owned business that they can't allow smoking? Do your rights to a burger at their establishment trump their rights to run a business as they see fit?

there is very little difference in the soda/smoking issues in that both are govt telling business how to operate

You make valid points, but the two are still not comparable. Furthermore, part of the ban including public buildings. I don't want to smell that garbage as I walk into the library. Even though nobody adheres to the distance from entrances to public buildings part of the ban, it's a good one.

The restaurants are the only place I'll give you any ground, because there were some restaurants that didn't allow smoking. Most of them, however, allowed it. I still maintain that I shouldn't have to change my lifestyle to accommodate smokers.

Banning smoking in public workplaces... TRUT's argument that you can find another job is simply absurd.

 

[utvolpj]

You make valid points, but the two are still not comparable. Furthermore, part of the ban including public buildings. I don't want to smell that garbage as I walk into the library. Even though nobody adheres to the distance from entrances to public buildings part of the ban, it's a good one.

public is different than govt dictating to private businesses how they must operate.

I still maintain that I shouldn't have to change my lifestyle to accommodate smokers.

do you frequent restaurants that serve food you don't like? If you wanted a steak would you go to a vegan restaurant?

With me, I don't thnk we should dictate anything. Businesses should be able to run how the owner see's fit.

and both bans infringe on that. How are they not similar?