Paternalism run amok!

[therealUT]

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:



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.

Smoking causes less economic involuntary demands on the rest of society than does obesity; heart disease and diabetes are much more prevalent and more costly than lung cancer (and, the smoking-lung cancer link is tenuous at best).

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.

Yes, we should allow others to drink and drive. How has someone that has gotten drunk and driven home safely without getting in or causing a wreck harmed anyone? Right, they have not.

 

[therealUT]

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.

So, smokers and restaurant owners must change their lifestyle to accommodate you? A wee bit arrogant, aren't we?

Find another ****ing job; you have no right to be employed at any place and no employer has a duty to hire you.

 

[Thrasher865]

Yes, we should allow others to drink and drive. How has someone that has gotten drunk and driven home safely without getting in or causing a wreck harmed anyone? Right, they have not.

Okay, this proves it. TRUT is an idiot that argues for the sake of arguing.

 

[therealUT]

Okay, this proves it. TRUT is an idiot that argues for the sake of arguing.

Can you tell me who has been harmed in that scenario?

 

[Slydell]

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.

Yes sir. Nicely reworded.

 

[Thrasher865]

Who is harmed when I run a stop sign?

It's the potential to harm, you ignorant philosopher.

 

[therealUT]

Who is harmed when I run a stop sign?

It's the potential to harm, you ignorant philosopher.

So, it is a potential crime then. Not yet a real crime.

 

[Thrasher865]

If it weren't a crime, nobody would have any inhibitions about driving drunk or disobeying traffic control, because they will just assume that they will never cause a crash.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Where does personal responsibility come in to this?

 

[BenGrimm]

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.

It is the same especially it weak economies like today. Just getting a job is hard enough. In hindsight this was a bad example anyway because offices that are not open to the public can set whatever smoking policy the like as long as it doesn't conflict with the rules defined by the owner of the property they may be leasing. In that case it is Upton the individual to choose their employment based on their personal preference.

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.

Ok, let's say it's a private stadium. My point remains that my choice was made for me. Suppose I have asthma as well. Then no matter how much I love that team I can't go to a live game.

By your logic smokers aren't born into smoking so why should everyone around them, who is born a mon smoker, have to breath their fumes when in public (I'm including restraurants and retail)?

Furthermore, at least in TN but Im not sure this is the same everywhere, smoking is allowed in private establishments as long as they are 21 and up. And yes I avoid those places by choice.

 

[therealUT]

If it weren't a crime, nobody would have any inhibitions about driving drunk or disobeying traffic control, because they will just assume that they will never cause a crash.

None of what you just said is valid.

I do not think driving drink is criminal and I do not drink and drive; I understand the decline in motor skills associated with inebriation; I understand the decline in reaction time associated with inebriation; I understand that motor skills and reaction time are critical in the operation of an automobile; I understand that such deficiencies lead to a higher probability of getting in an accident; I understand that getting in an accident is associated with a higher probability of committing harm to myself or others; I try to avoid harming myself or others; I avoid driving drunk. I do not avoid it because it is illegal.

 

[rjd970]

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


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



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

Not saying they aren't similar. Both infringe upon freedom....neither of these bans make any sense. But smoking directly and immediately affects the health of those around you....ie...I can understand the argument (don't agree with it though). I can't even fathom this soda business.

The smoking ban started a slippery slope, no doubt.

 

[BenGrimm]

None of what you just said is valid.

I do not think driving drink is criminal and I do not drink and drive; I understand the decline in motor skills associated with inebriation; I understand the decline in reaction time associated with inebriation; I understand that motor skills and reaction time are critical in the operation of an automobile; I understand that such deficiencies lead to a higher probability of getting in an accident; I understand that getting in an accident is associated with a higher probability of committing harm to myself or others; I try to avoid harming myself or others; I avoid driving drunk. I do not avoid it because it is illegal.

Do you assume everyone thinks like that?

If humans were perfect there would be no need for laws and everyone would get along just hunky dory.

 

[rjd970]

I do not think driving drink is criminal and I do not drink and drive; I understand the decline in motor skills associated with inebriation; I understand the decline in reaction time associated with inebriation; I understand that motor skills and reaction time are critical in the operation of an automobile; I understand that such deficiencies lead to a higher probability of getting in an accident; I understand that getting in an accident is associated with a higher probability of committing harm to myself or others; I try to avoid harming myself or others; I avoid driving drunk. I do not avoid it because it is illegal.

:jpshakehead:

The drunk idiot leaving the bar at 2am doesn't care about any of that. He thinks he is "fine" to drive. The threat of a DUI, night in jail, fine, and suspended license might make him think otherwise. You are completely discounting the deterrent factor, in the interest of public safety.

Methinks you aren't this dumb, and you are just trolling at this point.

 

[therealUT]

It is the same especially it weak economies like today. Just getting a job is hard enough. In hindsight this was a bad example anyway because offices that are not open to the public can set whatever smoking policy the like as long as it doesn't conflict with the rules defined by the owner of the property they may be leasing. In that case it is Upton the individual to choose their employment based on their personal preference.

That is patently untrue. They cannot do so in NYC.

Ok, let's say it's a private stadium. My point remains that my choice was made for me. Suppose I have asthma as well. Then no matter how much I love that team I can't go to a live game.

That is correct, you cannot go to a live game unless you feel as though you should dictate what someone else can do with their private property. Should I be able to simply walk into your house without your permission? Then, once inside, should I be allowed to dictate the rules of your house to you?

By your logic smokers aren't born into smoking so why should everyone around them, who is born a mon smoker, have to breath their fumes when in public (I'm including restraurants and retail)?

Restaurants and retail are private establishments. Your argument regarding "public places" does not apply.

Furthermore, at least in TN but Im not sure this is the same everywhere, smoking is allowed in private establishments as long as they are 21 and up. And yes I avoid those places by choice.

It is not the same everywhere; even if it were, someone who runs a private establishment should be able to dictate the rules of said establishment. Your entry is voluntary; if you do not like the rules of that private establishment, then choose neither to work there nor patronize such a place.

 

[therealUT]

Do you assume everyone thinks like that?

If humans were perfect there would be no need for laws and everyone would get along just hunky dory.

I do not assume everyone thinks that; I assume that a reasonable person can logically come to that conclusion. Therefore, one who does not or chooses not to can, and should be, charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter when they kill someone else while they are driving under the influence.

 

[therealUT]

:jpshakehead:

The drunk idiot leaving the bar at 2am doesn't care about any of that. He thinks he is "fine" to drive. The threat of a DUI, night in jail, fine, and suspended license might make him think otherwise. You are completely discounting the deterrent factor, in the interest of public safety.

Methinks you aren't this dumb, and you are just trolling at this point.

I am not discounting the deterrent factor; as stated above, I think that individuals who actually cause physical harm while driving under the influence should be charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter or negligent assault with a deadly weapon and the sentences should be steep, as they have caused real harm and committed an actual crime.

 

[Thrasher865]

Methinks you aren't this dumb, and you are just trolling at this point.

Don't let the wordiness of his posts fool you.

His entire self-worth is based on him believing that people admire his intellect, and his ability to make choices without the burden of emotion.

When, in fact, he has caused 90% of this board to think he is pretty dumb.

 

[rjd970]

I am not discounting the deterrent factor; as stated above, I think that individuals who actually cause physical harm while driving under the influence should be charged with negligent homicide/manslaughter or negligent assault with a deadly weapon and the sentences should be steep, as they have caused real harm and committed an actual crime.

You absolutely are, because you are saying they should only be punished after somebody has been injured. You are accounting for the deterrent to hurt somebody, not to prevent the risky behavior before it happens.

A cop pulls over a drunk driver in the middle of night. Are you really saying the cop should just let him go because he has yet to harm anybody? Really??

 

[therealUT]

You absolutely are, because you are saying they should only be punished after somebody has been injured. You are accounting for the deterrent to hurt somebody, not to prevent the risky behavior before it happens.

Correct, I am saying that someone should only be punished after having caused harm to others. Do you think someone who simply has homicidal thoughts should be punished? Do you think someone who has the desire to kill someone else, walks all the way to their house with a gun, yet changes their mind before stepping onto that person's property should be punished? What would these individuals be punished with? The potential to commit murder? That is absurd.

Harsh sentencing of actual crimes can and does deter crime (aside from homicide because most homicides are crimes of passion where reason is overwhelmed by feelings); harming someone or someone's property is an actual crime; not harming someone or someone's property is not (after all, who is the victim?)

A cop pulls over a drunk driver in the middle of night. Are you really saying the cop should just let him go because he has yet to harm anybody? Really??

The cop should not charge him with anything. If the cop thinks the person is a risk, the cop can, and should, offer the person a ride home. It is up to that person to accept the ride or take the risk and deal with the consequences if they end up killing themselves or others.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

You absolutely are, because you are saying they should only be punished after somebody has been injured. You are accounting for the deterrent to hurt somebody, not to prevent the risky behavior before it happens.

A cop pulls over a drunk driver in the middle of night. Are you really saying the cop should just let him go because he has yet to harm anybody? Really??

Why not take it one step further and completely eliminate speed limits? After all, wasn't this one of the first steps by government to impose restrictions on people and how they might choose to behave? We didn't need speed limits during the horse and buggy days, or even with the model T... so why do we need them now? As Trut has essentially stated... no one is being harmed if a 16 year old decides to drive his vehicle 150 mph, unless of course said 16 year old causes an accident. Then, and only then, should he be held accountable... assuming he is still alive at that point.

The reality is the world keeps changing and sometimes laws are needed to maintain a "balance of liberties" for everyone. I'm not a big fan of the government deciding how I live. For example... completely opposed to the seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws (because I would cause no risk to anyone other than myself by choosing not to wear them), but completely in favor of child restraint seat laws as the child is too young to protect themselves and some parents are idiots.

 

[therealUT]

Why not take it one step further and completely eliminate speed limits? After all, wasn't this one of the first steps by government to impose restrictions on people and how they might choose to behave? We didn't need speed limits during the horse and buggy days, or even with the model T... so why do we need them now? As Trut has essentially stated... no one is being harmed if a 16 year old decides to drive his vehicle 150 mph, unless of course said 16 year old causes an accident. Then, and only then, should he be held accountable... assuming he is still alive at that point.

India, Germany, the UAE, etc. seem to do just fine without speed limits in many areas; when accidents are caused and individuals are injured as the consequence of recklessness and/or negligence, they are dealt with severely. Guess what? Those ex post punishments serve very well as deterrents.

 

[rjd970]

Correct, I am saying that someone should only be punished after having caused harm to others. Do you think someone who simply has homicidal thoughts should be punished? Do you think someone who has the desire to kill someone else, walks all the way to their house with a gun, yet changes their mind before stepping onto that person's property should be punished? What would these individuals be punished with? The potential to commit murder? That is absurd.

Harsh sentencing of actual crimes can and does deter crime (aside from homicide because most homicides are crimes of passion where reason is overwhelmed by feelings); harming someone or someone's property is an actual crime; not harming someone or someone's property is not (after all, who is the victim?)



The cop should not charge him with anything. If the cop thinks the person is a risk, the cop can, and should, offer the person a ride home. It is up to that person to accept the ride or take the risk and deal with the consequences if they end up killing themselves or others.

That is a far cry from getting in your car and acutally driving drunk through the streets.

For the underlined, that is beyond stupid. The cop lets him go, he slams into somebody killing them. You're saying current laws preventing somebody from becoming a victim are worthless?

This is almost as good as your corpse loving argument...almost.

 

[utvolpj]

You absolutely are, because you are saying they should only be punished after somebody has been injured. You are accounting for the deterrent to hurt somebody, not to prevent the risky behavior before it happens.

A cop pulls over a drunk driver in the middle of night. Are you really saying the cop should just let him go because he has yet to harm anybody? Really??

I think once you get into arresting people for possibly committing future crimes it can get a bit sticky. I've been pulled over once for suspected DUI and the cop allowed me to call a friend to come pick me up (special circumstances in Knoxville- night of 98 UF win). I have no issue with that being an available option if no other offenses have been committed.

Why not take it one step further and completely eliminate speed limits?

traffic enforcement is simply a revenue producer for the local/state govt. The enforcers are its collectors

 

[therealUT]

That is a far cry from getting in your car and acutally driving drunk through the streets.

How so? No harm has been committed in either situation.

For the underlined, that is beyond stupid. The cop lets him go, he slams into somebody killing them. You're saying current laws preventing somebody from becoming a victim are worthless?

Yes, laws that state a crime has been committed when there is no victim are not only worthless but they are fallacious.

This is almost as good as your corpse loving argument...almost.

Some individuals love to feign offense and harm; I guess you are one of those individuals.