Post #244,698
2/15/06 3:17:22 PM
|
Nanny state
Posted in what language? And are you going to give foreigners crash courses on all of the various sign icons that they might come across in different municipalities as they travel about? You could say the same about nutrition labels on food. How many languags are they in? Oh wait, the law mandating labels also mandates format, size, placement and language. I think we could work something out for buildings. What if the sign (or not) gets burned down with the building? "Honestly, it *was* posted! It just burned down with the rest of the building!" As a business owner, I guess you'd want to make sure it was in a location of made of a material that wouldn't disappear so easily, wouldn't you? Your mother's opinion is noted, but I'd rather see what everyone who's in a wheelchair thinks about ramps, and especially the people who can't use crutches. I can answer that for you. Some of them agree with my mother, some violently disagree. Same as people like you and me who wouldn't be affected by those regulations. I know this because she speaks to a post-polio support group where they discuss this stuff. To be fair, I should point out that there are some other implications of accepting all of this. Anyone choosing not to meet the codes should have some added responsibility. You don't have to follow the fire code, but if you don't, you get to pay the cost to fight any fires. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,703
2/15/06 3:27:39 PM
|
Basic public health and safety isn't nannying.
Raw capitalism isn't capable of providing for the public welfare (no, not THAT welfare).
And what about the building next door that *doesn't* follow the fire codes? Just move your business after they move in, right?
And I'm sure the grocery stores that don't follow the health codes will be cheaper. So who's going to buy food there? Poor people, of course, but they have a choice, right?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,708
2/15/06 3:41:09 PM
|
I'm reminded of an old saying
Animal rights activists are more violently opposed to fur than to leather because it's easier to throw paint on rich old ladies than on Hells' Angels.
So it's about public health, right? How many people die each year as a result of lung cancer? How many from heart disease? What percentage of the lung cancer deaths can be attributed to secondhand smoke? What percentage of heart disease deaths can be attributed to fast food?
So why is smoking the great evil? Because smokers are a minority. When they outlaw the Big Mac, tell me it's still OK.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,710
2/15/06 3:49:12 PM
2/15/06 5:28:16 PM
|
Actually in Helena...
The percentage of heart attacks caused by secondhand smoke is apparently 40%.
And outlawing Big Macs doesn't make any sense. You're doing that to yourself, not having someone else do it to you.
[Edit: fixed statistic]
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
Feb. 15, 2006, 03:50:13 PM EST
Edited by admin
Feb. 15, 2006, 05:28:16 PM EST
|
Post #244,716
2/15/06 4:06:34 PM
|
60% of all heart attacks are due to 2nd hand smoke?
seems like you need to bookmark snopes.com :-)
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #244,717
2/15/06 4:09:19 PM
|
Wait, I missed something
Heart attacks caused by secondhand smoke? I missed that study.
Just to change tack for a second. Why does the solution that works for hotels not work for bars? Hotels noticed people wanted no-smoking rooms. So now they have them. In fact most of the rooms in hotels are no-smoking rooms now. You can take a smoking room and not smoke in it, so they're not losing non-smoking customers to do this. The only potential losses are smokers who can't get a smoking room and go somewhere else.
If hotels are able to see the financial benefit to possibly driving away smokers who simply can't go outside to smoke, why don't bars see this?
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,723
2/15/06 4:17:37 PM
|
Dunno, why don't they?
I'd be perfectly happy with an actual functioning non-smoking area. Most of them don't work. It's very rare that I go to a restaurant and NOT smell smoke, even in the non-smoking section. There's one restaurant here (a Big Boy) where that happens, and that's because the whole restaurant is non-smoking.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,732
2/15/06 4:35:39 PM
|
So they *do* exist
There's one restaurant here (a Big Boy) where that happens, and that's because the whole restaurant is non-smoking. If there's only one, then it's not (yet) required? Then it is possible that someone can see the benefit and do it without being forced. Does that location get more traffic than comperable smoking-allowed restaurants? Do they pay the wait staff more or less than other places? ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,740
2/15/06 4:52:36 PM
|
Re: So they *do* exist
If there's only one, then it's not (yet) required? Then it is possible that someone can see the benefit and do it without being forced. Does that location get more traffic than comperable smoking-allowed restaurants? Do they pay the wait staff more or less than other places? Not required, no. The traffic doesn't seem any more or less since the change. I have no idea about the pay. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,746
2/15/06 4:59:02 PM
|
Why not?
If there are people who don't go out because there's no place to go, they should be flocking to this one. If they're not, either they don't exist or they don't mind the smoke that much.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,748
2/15/06 5:02:44 PM
|
Many times it easier to breathe
the smoke and be with friends than to listen to those same friends whine and cry when they go to a smokefree area.
I'm glad St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, and a few others have banned smoking in all public buildings, including resturants and bars.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #244,754
2/15/06 5:10:47 PM
|
So *you* would rather breathe smoke than hear whining
So everyone else is told what to do.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,932
2/16/06 10:45:19 AM
|
Hell no
The only two establishments that I visit that allow smoking are: The bowling alley, 'cuz I joined a work league. Will quit after this year as I don't like the smoke and TGIFriday's when I have to pick up items (my wife is partial to their French Onion soup).
If I had my way, I'd just put a $10-$20 tax per cigarette and raise it annually by the same amount. I'd arrest anyone smoking in their vehicle, when they have children with them for child endangerment. Same for smoking at home when children are present. As I said, I have very strong anti-smoking views.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #244,935
2/16/06 10:57:50 AM
|
And you'd create a drug war to make our existing one...
pale to insignificance.
That is the main reason why I am for making it possible for smokers to smoke. No matter how much I dislike smoke, I'd dislike far more the increased violence from making smoking illegal.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #244,939
2/16/06 11:06:43 AM
|
I didn't say make it illegal....
Just illegal to endanger children.
Good point though on taxing it too high. How about until starts to hurt, but before it's cheaper to smuggle? :-)
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #244,951
2/16/06 11:37:10 AM
|
It's already cheaper to smuggle...
if you can tolerate risk for guaranteed profit.
The question is when mainstream smokers will start smoking smuggled cigarettes. And that does not have a simple answer.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #244,954
2/16/06 11:40:31 AM
|
now? I can mail order 4 cartons a month from Israel
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #244,980
2/16/06 12:53:29 PM
|
Now.
Smuggled and/or 'native' smokes are already a big feature here. A carton costs ~60 bucks, but I can get 200 smokes for fifteen from the right person. Mind you, they're manufactured on Mohawk reserves in the area (mostly Kahnesetake near Montreal) which is perfectly legal for them to do and sell sans federal and provincial taxes, but they do tend to be a lot harder on the lungs than tailor mades.
Smuggled is because I can legally go to a reserve and buy them for cheap, but if I want to get them here in Kingston from the right person, he and I are breaking the law if we don't pay taxes.
For the most part, I go with the cut rate smokes (I've been smoking a brand called Canadian Classics, manufactured north of Toronto); they cost about a buck and a half less of a mainstream brand (duMaurier or Players, for example) but are still legal and are better made than the KMT (Kahnesetake Mohawk Territory) smokes.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #244,984
2/16/06 1:26:17 PM
|
Canada's taxes are higher than US taxes
And I already knew that boxley has a high tolerance for risk if he gets guaranteed reward.
Most smokers around here don't smoke smuggled cigarettes. But if the price changes enough, they would.
However it isn't just price. For instance if the postal service began monitoring better, boxley might be less inclined to mail order. And if it weren't for a ready supply of untaxed legal cigarettes, Jake wouldn't face such an easy choice.
But still at some point, people will break the law.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #244,985
2/16/06 1:29:19 PM
|
do people around you go to Indian Smokeshops?
if they buy there, then dont mail a check to the california state government they are breaking the law.
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #244,988
2/16/06 1:38:03 PM
|
Not that I know of.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #245,009
2/16/06 3:45:31 PM
|
Not true when it comes to smokes
The price of cigarettes in the border states to Ontario and Quebec are now very comparable to the price within Ontario and Quebec; in some cases they are even higher than they are in these two provinces (I'm talking about New York, Vermont, and Maine here).
When the price differential was large a few years back, there was a big smuggling operation from the US to Canada across the St. Lawrence River, mostly near Cornwall. However, that trade has dried up.
The history is that Ontario and Quebec dropped their taxes on cigarettes significantly after negotiating with the feds to do the same, resulting in a huge price cut in Canada, and esp. in Ontario and Quebec. This was done specifically to remove the economic incentive to cross border cigarette smuggling; the public order problem had become unmanageable, with running battles on the St. Lawrence involving automatic weapons between police and smugglers as well as between different groups of smugglers. It was becoming very risky to boat on that part of the river, and since that area is also a major tourist area, the decision was made to kill the smugglers by rendering the activity unprofitable instead of through interdiction; the lesson of prohibition (where we were the country doing the supplying) was well learned and not forgotten by law enforcement as well as by government.
After that happened, in the US the states won their suit against the tobacco companies (ISTR 300 G$ being the amount won) on the basis of medical expenses or some such, which resulted in the price of smokes skyrocketing as the industry had to hit consumers to pay the legal bill at the same time that these states started charging more taxes on cigarettes to ostensibly cover the increased medical costs that smoking incurs on the part of medical consumers. Since then, Ontario and Quebec have gradually increased the prices over the course of the last four or five years to a point where they brought the price up into the range of that being charged on the other side of the border.
There's more history to it than that, of course; the era of hard core smoke smuggling across The River near Cornhole is as colourful as any other smuggling story (like prohibition, for example). But the economics of it are basically as above.
Right now, smokes cost marginally more in Watertown than they do in Kingston (though perhaps the recent tanking of the US dollar will have changed that). There is no impetus to smuggle across the border anymore.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #245,023
2/16/06 5:05:46 PM
|
Good to know. My impression was out of date.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #244,749
2/15/06 5:03:03 PM
|
The restaurant was always busy before the ban.
My uncle had a book with a mathematical "proof" that you could always get one more person in a full hotel by moving everyone around.
There are no conclusions to be drawn from this particular instance.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,718
2/15/06 4:10:17 PM
|
funny I dont even see a listing for that here
[link|http://www.emedicinehealth.com/articles/11029-2.asp|http://www.emedicine...icles/11029-2.asp]
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #244,727
2/15/06 4:21:06 PM
|
...
"Cigarette smoking or other tobacco use, including cigars and chewing tobacco"
Are you just trying to be funny or something?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,734
2/15/06 4:36:24 PM
|
doesnt mention second hand anything
and 60% isnt listed anywhere
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #244,739
2/15/06 4:47:56 PM
2/15/06 4:50:54 PM
|
Oh, right, because smoke magically only affects the smoker.
[link|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/980|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/980] - "A substantial body of epidemiological and laboratory data indicates that, unlike the case with lung cancer, the risk of acute myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease associated with exposure to tobacco smoke is non-linear at low doses, increasing rapidly with relatively small doses such as those received from secondhand smoke or actively smoking one or two cigarettes a day." (emphasis mine) And the original study: [link|http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7446/977|http://bmj.bmjjourna...full/328/7446/977] The [link|http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3557|mechanism]: The mechanism for this effect is likely to be that the inhaled smoke stimulates the immediate production of macrophages - white blood cells that "clean up the system".
But these break down and lead to the production of blood clotting agents. "So if someone is teetering on the brink of a heart attack, this clotting is likely to tip them over," says West. And sorry, it was 40%, not 60%. Same diff. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:36 PM EST
Edited by admin
Feb. 15, 2006, 04:50:54 PM EST
|
Post #244,743
2/15/06 4:58:07 PM
|
That's new to me
I never heard that before. So basically the smoke was the last straw.
Hmm, is it fair to say that the smoke is the "cause" of a heart attack when the person had to be already "teetering on the brink"? Trigger, yes.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,747
2/15/06 5:01:47 PM
|
Re: That's new to me
So if there was someone with a deadly peanut allergy, and someone else aerosolized some peanuts and sprayed them, causing anaphylactic shock, was the spray the cause of the death, or just the trigger?
In other words, if the person is not dead without the extra little bit, they're still not dead no matter how close they are to the brink or not.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,752
2/15/06 5:09:40 PM
|
Not at all the same
In your scenario the peanut was the only factor.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,757
2/15/06 5:14:52 PM
|
Uh, no.
Both situations have a pre-existing medical condition and an external exacerbation.
Are you in sophist mode or something today? This is getting tiresome.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,764
2/15/06 5:23:49 PM
|
I'm the sophist?
Someone with a peanut allergy is exposed to peanut. Peanut was the only factor.
Someone with fatty deposits on their arteries is exposed to smoke. Multiple factors. One was the trigger, one was the underlying condition.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,769
2/15/06 5:32:25 PM
|
Re: I'm the sophist?
Peanut allergy is to fatty deposits as peanut is to smoke.
wtfever, Drew.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,845
2/15/06 10:04:11 PM
|
Ah.. It's-Good-for-You -- is Enough: OK, suppose we PROVED
the proposition that ~
Organized Religion is/has been the catalyst for virtually every major war in history.
(Let us say that the Boolean is done meticulously, arrayed about the Root proposition, common to all Major\ufffd 'Religions': Our God is the ONLY Real-God - ergo if you aren't with US - you WILL go to {etc. etc.}
Let us suppose further, that there is so little %chance that these organizations DO NOT seduce their membership into such an inherently bellicose mindset towards Others - - - that causality is deemed to be established, (at least as inerrantly? as in the extrapolations from? '?measured?' effects of second-hand smoke inhalation, as of 2/'06.)
What're the odds on the first church-closing?
(Or especially, after the blood & guts are cleaned up: on the second??)
Poor George Boole - he actually *thought* that his cute, ever-so-mechanically productive little algebra: applied to human discourse, too! and would eliminate all that Reasoning stuff, argument and thrashing.. Why .. a machine could finally end the necessity for Compromise! - (why, it all reduces to a 1 or a 0, after all the factoring-out.) er, cha :-\ufffd cha
|
Post #244,711
2/15/06 3:49:22 PM
|
I don't get cancer if you eat a Big Mac
I do if you smoke.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
lister
|
Post #244,720
2/15/06 4:11:58 PM
2/15/06 4:12:23 PM
|
Right back at you.
Why do you have the right to prevent me from opening a 'smoker's club'?
Oh, that's right - because you can. Right after you rationalise that somehow, I'm forcing you and all the workers into the building.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
Edited by imric
Feb. 15, 2006, 04:12:23 PM EST
|
Post #244,736
2/15/06 4:44:23 PM
|
You do pay for his decrease in health
through higher medicare and insurance premiums.
And since higher expenses increase your stress...that increase in stress can be statistically linked to higher probability of heart disease and stroke.
Thus he should be banned from eating Big Macs.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #244,926
2/16/06 10:03:28 AM
|
<smack location=back_of_head />
jb4
"Every Repbulican who wants to defend Bush on [the expansion of Presidential powers], should be forced to say, 'I wouldn't hesitate to see President Hillary Rodham Clinton have the same authority'."
&mdash an unidentified letter writer to Newsweek on the expansion of executive powers under the Bush administration
|
Post #245,030
2/16/06 5:24:22 PM
|
Hey
Don't smack me...there was logical reasoning in that post (for once ;-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #244,704
2/15/06 3:31:28 PM
|
On fire codes and such...
Would you really want compliance with fire codes to be optional? In a city or in a dense housing development? I sure wouldn't. Fire has a nasty habit of not confining itself to where it starts...
And on smoking in public places - I think it should be forbidden in confined public spaces (especially inside buildings). Just as there are noise ordinances (someone can't have a 100 dB boombox playing where ever they want in public), things that cause a nusiance to others that 1) don't involve freedom of expression; and 2) have demonstrated negative health effects on those who don't partake; should be reasonably restricted.
On handicapped access: Public buildings should be reasonably accessable to the public. Defining reasonable is the rub.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Whose paternal grandmother and maternal grandfather died of smoking-related illnesses, and who hates cigarette smoke.)
|
Post #244,714
2/15/06 4:01:03 PM
|
Insurance
Your place burns down. It didn't meet fire code. You have to pay for the cost of fighting it. While I didn't specify, that includes the cost of damage to others' property. Now go try to insure your building. Oh, it will cost more to insure it than to comply with the fire codes? Works for me. Thought experiment. - Laws are as they are today. You are required to meet fire code. A city-paid inspector signs off on it. You have insurance. The place burns down. The city absorbs the cost to fight the fire, passed on to everyone through taxes. Your insurance company covers the damage to your property.
- Second case, you decide meeting the fire code is too expensive. You try to get insurance. The cost is more than complying with the fire code. You decide to comply. The insurance company sends out an inspector. The place burns down. If your insurance company can't prove the building was up to code, they are on the hook for not just your damages but everyone else's, and the cost of fighting the fire.
In which case is the inspector more likely to be thorough? And for the non-financial, what if someone next-door dies because your non-code building burns down. Sounds like negligent homicide to me. It all comes down to a simple idea. Anything I do that causes demonstrable harm to someone else, I'm respnsible for making it right. Not things that may cause harm, things that do cause harm. Anything else is no one's business but mine. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,721
2/15/06 4:13:46 PM
|
Comes under the category of "reasonable"
Or case 3: You decide meeting the code is too expensive, you don't care about insurance, and you burn down your neighbor's business, killing 3 people, after which you skip town.
If there's a reasonable chance that your firetrap will burn down and possibly kill someone in my building, then yes, I should be able to prevent a situation that *may* cause harm. Because an upset insurance company doesn't do jack for the person dead in the fire. You can't fix everything with money, and there's always someone out there greedy or stupid enough to Just Not Care.
Do whatever you like that can only cause harm to yourself. You can go stuff yourself if you think I'm not going to get upset when you open Moe's Indoor Open Pit Barbecue And Pinata Festival next door, though. If there's a reasonable expectation that your actions can cause harm to me, then I don't want them happening in the first place, insurance or no. I also don't want blind people driving or drunk pilots flying airlines.
I don't trust people's ability to overcome their own stupidity and greed when it comes to my personal safety. Post facto is too late.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,729
2/15/06 4:30:03 PM
|
You just jumped the shark
Or case 3: You decide meeting the code is too expensive, you don't care about insurance, and you burn down your neighbor's business, killing 3 people, after which you skip town. You just argued that we need a strict law to regulate risky behavior on the basis that some people will run from the law after committing actual harm to others. This is the same reasoning that says that because we have some people who keep driving drunk even after we take away their license, that we have to lower the allowable BAC. The problem in both cases is that we are trying to solve a problem with one group of people -- the ones who Just Don't Care -- by applying a law to everyone else. ===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,735
2/15/06 4:40:28 PM
|
WTF?
And you think that one line was the sum total of my post... why? Hello, Bryce, is that you? But just to play along: This is the same reasoning that says that because we have some people who keep driving drunk even after we take away their license, that we have to lower the allowable BAC. Uh, wrong. That would be true only if there were no law against driving drunk in the first place. The reason we don't let people drive drunk is because there is a reasonable expectation that they will cause someone else harm. You're saying we should just let them drive drunk, even though we have a pretty good idea that someone is going to get hurt, because we can just raise their insurance rates and throw them in jail afterwards and that will Make It All Right. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #244,741
2/15/06 4:53:34 PM
|
Do you support random roadblocks?
Because otherwise, the only time police stop a drunk driver is when they see him driving badly. And once that happens, I don't care why he was driving badly. Is it OK to weave from lane to lane because you're on your cell phone? Is it OK to run a red light because you're tired? Is it OK to cut someone off because you're eating while you drive?
All those are cases of actually doing something wrong. We already have laws against them. If that's not enough, if we want to pre-emptively arrest anyone who we suspect is more likely to do something wrong, then we need the roadblocks. And while they've got us stopped, they might as well check for unregistered weapons, in case we might go hurt someone. And they can check for fertilizer in case we might want to blow something up.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #244,755
2/15/06 5:11:17 PM
2/15/06 5:16:21 PM
|
No.
I'm fine with stopping them when they're weaving.
Buildings don't move, so it's more effective to inspect them as part of the process of creating the building. Different situation with a different practical solution.
I'm going to repeat all of this too, since you insist on dragging this off track:
If there's a reasonable chance that your firetrap will burn down and possibly kill someone in my building, then yes, I should be able to prevent a situation that *may* cause harm. Because an upset insurance company doesn't do jack for the person dead in the fire. You can't fix everything with money, and there's always someone out there greedy or stupid enough to Just Not Care.
Do whatever you like that can only cause harm to yourself. You can go stuff yourself if you think I'm not going to get upset when you open Moe's Indoor Open Pit Barbecue And Pinata Festival next door, though. If there's a reasonable expectation that your actions can cause harm to me, then I don't want them happening in the first place, insurance or no. I also don't want blind people driving or drunk pilots flying airlines.
I don't trust people's ability to overcome their own stupidity and greed when it comes to my personal safety. Post facto is too late.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
Feb. 15, 2006, 05:16:21 PM EST
|
Post #244,724
2/15/06 4:17:41 PM
|
That's too simplistic.
IMO. The fire code laws don't exist to make insurance affordable, they exist to reduce the risk of fire in the first place. Fire departments, and regulations designed to limit fires, existed [link|http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_031400_firedepartme.htm|before] insurance: The history of the fire service in the United States begins in New Amsterdam (later New York), when Director-General Peter Stuyvesant appointed four fire wardens in 1648. Similar legislation followed in Boston in 1653, and this city purchased its first fire engine in 1654. Philadelphia secured an engine in 1719, and New York in 1731.
Early efforts at fire prevention and extinction relied on chimney laws, bucket brigades, simple ladders, and hand-pumped engines imported from Europe, all manned by loosely organized volunteers. Actual fire companies and departments, however, were active in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia early in the eighteenth century. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, as well as other prominent men, were among the ranks of these early volunteers. The earliest mention I've found of fire insurance is [link|http://www.firemarks.co.uk/History.htm|1667] in the UK. Society doesn't merely exist to retroactively punish people for offense or lack of foresight - it exists to "promote the general welfare". Having safe public places certainly fits within that mandate. Cheers, Scott.
|
