Call inn nanny-state! (now about smoking laws)

[obsidianavenger]

2. do you think people should be allowed to subject themselves to harm willingly?

In terms of law, my criterion is the harms principle, so yes, they should be allowed to do so. But this doesn't translate into allowing people to harm each other just because there's some vaguely offered form of consent like entering a building. Allowing someone else to harm you should be a much more involved process than that as coersion exists everywhere in many forms, and there's already been arguments offered to that effect in this topic in particular.

ah, so people are allowed to harm themselves.

what if smoking restaurants had you sign a consent form to the effect that "i will be exposed to secondhand smoke if i go in here and i am ok with it"? and the employees did the same as a condition of employment? if people are allowed to harm themselves if they so choose i don't see how you could deny them this...

 

[Nogre]

ah, so people are allowed to harm themselves.

what if smoking restaurants had you sign a consent form to the effect that "i will be exposed to secondhand smoke if i go in here and i am ok with it"? and the employees did the same as a condition of employment? if people are allowed to harm themselves if they so choose i don't see how you could deny them this...

Allowing someone else to harm you should be a much more involved process than that as coersion exists everywhere in many forms, and there's already been arguments offered to that effect in this topic in particular.

Among debaters, this is called a spike. It's an argument I made in addition to my main point in order to pre-emptively refute a counter argument. Normally debaters hide these because they can provide several tactical advantages, but I occasionally use them to limit some of the back-and-forth that takes place, and I don't try to hid them. Unfortunately, I sometimes get the former effect rather than the latter effect, although I don't understand why... :?

 

[obsidianavenger]

nogre, i read that and i don't think it adequately addresses my point since signing a consent form is quite a bit more involved than just walking into a building.

i admit "coercion exists everywhere in many forms" but that is a very vague and bland statement that communicates nothing about why signing a consent form is not "active" enough to allow people to take it upon themselves to suffer harm. its enough for an invasive medical procedure but not for a meal in which you might be exposed to secondhand smoke?

 

[Nogre]

nogre, i read that and i don't think it adequately addresses my point since signing a consent form is quite a bit more involved than just walking into a building.

i admit "coercion exists everywhere in many forms" but that is a very vague and bland statement that communicates nothing about why signing a consent form is not "active" enough to allow people to take it upon themselves to suffer harm. its enough for an invasive medical procedure but not for a meal in which you might be exposed to secondhand smoke?

If you're willing to sign a consent form to allow people to poison the air you breathe, you're probably insane and shouldn't be making the decision. Are you happy with that answer? :evil:

...Anyway... Are we really going to go through such painful and obnoxious measures so that we can preserve the autonomy of bussinesses? The bussinesses lose nothing because every bussiness has the same rule. In fact, I could see more bussinesses losing bussiness if they weren't able to get the lawyers to draft whatever complex legal stuff was going on, and then lots bussiness to restaurants/bars that could pay the lawyer. I mean, I guess the problem we have here is that you seem to think that liberty is this inviolable value that must be protected whereas I see it only as a general value that looses its luster when people start harming each other.

The only people that lose anything are the people who choose to smoke, and all they "suffer" is the slight inconvenience of stepping outside for a few minutes while they take their smoke. And if you would honestly risk your health to provide them with that convenience, then you seriously must be insane.

 

[obsidianavenger]

If you're willing to sign a consent form to allow people to poison the air you breathe, you're probably insane and shouldn't be making the decision. Are you happy with that answer? :evil:

...Anyway... Are we really going to go through such painful and obnoxious measures so that we can preserve the autonomy of bussinesses? The bussinesses lose nothing because every bussiness has the same rule. In fact, I could see more bussinesses losing bussiness if they weren't able to get the lawyers to draft whatever complex legal stuff was going on, and then lots bussiness to restaurants/bars that could pay the lawyer. I mean, I guess the problem we have here is that you seem to think that liberty is this inviolable value that must be protected whereas I see it only as a general value that looses its luster when people start harming each other.

The only people that lose anything are the people who choose to smoke, and all they "suffer" is the slight inconvenience of stepping outside for a few minutes while they take their smoke. And if you would honestly risk your health to provide them with that convenience, then you seriously must be insane.

yes, well... at least you admit it. you don't like smokers, and their rights and the rights of businesses to allow them aren't that important to you in the greater scheme of things. which is fine, its just not principled. this is kind of why i don't like utilitarianism... it allows you to censure people and activities you don't care for under the auspices of the "greater good" or matters of personal preference/convenience.

 

[Unwardil]

Well, this is a sort of a blanket statement of morals than it is directly aimed at smoking laws, but I think that people should be allowed to do basically whatever they want with chemicals and whathave you, just so long as they aren't endangering the well being of anyone else by doing so. Consensually or otherwise.

I'll liken it like this, if someone handed you a gun, told you to shoot them in the foot, signed in triplicate a waiver saying that you wouldn't be at fault and that you were acting entirely with thier permission and at thier request, that they understood the risk of death, who would still legally be responsible if you accidentally killed them?

It might provoke a court battle, but you would still be at fault.

Same thing with smoking, it's proven by now that the second hand smoke is hazardous to others, even other smokers, to the extent that smoking indoors is vastly more harmful to the smoker than smoking outside and given all that, I wouldn't mind a total ban on cigarettes as just being a hazard to public health and a totally unessecary one at that.

I don't have a problem with tobacco in other forms. People have every right to get thier nicotine fix and I wouldn't want to deny anyone that right, but smoking, that has the potential for harm for everone around them. This extends to other drugs being smoked too. Special brownies, A-OK, Big spliffs hotboxed in a closset, not so much.

 

[obsidianavenger]

if i can't subject myself to second-hand smoke willingly, why can i subject myself to firsthand smoke willingly? i don't understand that distinction.

and if you wanna ban cigarettes, why not ban alcohol?

 

[Unwardil]

Well, you can subject yourself to second smoke willingly by smoking indoors and I wouldn't want to take that liberty away from anyone... Unless there was anyone else in the room, or sharing the same ventilation shaft as that room.

It's a matter of legal responisbility. Who is at fault if the person who breathed the second hand smoke developes lung cancer? Is it that person's fault that they allowed the other person to smoke? Is it the fault of the smoker for smoking or is it the fault of the cigarette companys who manufacture the product? It's a giant legal cluster-rape of an issue when you start to break it down and in that case, it's probably more in the intrest of society generally than it is counter to individual liberties, that smoking cigarettes be baned in like, 99% of casses.

I guess if you want to build yourself a personal smoking shed in your back yard and you smoke exclusively in that shed, fine, knock yourself out.

And again, it's smoking that's the problem, not nicotine or marijauna. Or if you could somehow construct a hookah with a rebreather in it which kept your breath and the smoke seperate from your surroundings, same deal.

Oh, also, as a corrolary, all drug bans should be lifted for terminal patients.

 

[Nogre]

yes, well... at least you admit it. you don't like smokers, and their rights and the rights of businesses to allow them aren't that important to you in the greater scheme of things.

Don't insult me. I have family that smoke, but that in no way means that I'm going to start feeling some special sorrow for a small inconvenience. Whether I like or dislike people who smoke is irrelevent. I care about the fact that the action harms people and banning it is good from the standpoint of utility.

this is kind of why i don't like utilitarianism... it allows you to censure people and activities you don't care for under the auspices of the "greater good" or matters of personal preference/convenience.

And this is why I despise such rights-based moralities. They care more about these abstract, mental creations deemed "rights" than they do about real people. They argue for all manner of things where people are asked to suffer, are put at risk, or are generally screwed over. All in the name of "rights." (This is directed at your ideology, not you personally.)

You cannot act like everyone in every society can choose where to shop and where to work. That's simply not true, and likely never will be. So you can never really expect this to be as consensual as you probably wish.

 

[obsidianavenger]

You cannot act like everyone in every society can choose where to shop and where to work. That's simply not true, and likely never will be. So you can never really expect this to be as consensual as you probably wish.

ah you're right.... someone held a gun to my head and forced me to go to mcdonalds just the other day... :roll:

an undesirable consequence is not *coersion* unless it is put in place and enforced by human beings. if you choose to feel coerced by the unavailability of jobs you like or the harmful nature of cigarette smoke so be it, but its not the world's job to make things easier for you. i don't understand this conception of coercion as any negative consequence of a freely chosen action, regardless of the *reason* for that action and the nature of the consequence.

you are saying that some people would have to deal with cigarette smoke they would prefer not to deal with and this justifies the law. however, there is no reason why anyone would *have to* deal with cigarette smoke if they didn't want to; they just might find it more convenient to do so. i don't find "convenience" a compelling reason to support coercion

 

[stratos]

Who is at fault if the person who breathed the second hand smoke developes lung cancer? Is it that person's fault that they allowed the other person to smoke? Is it the fault of the smoker for smoking or is it the fault of the cigarette companys who manufacture the product?

It's obviously the fault of god for creating the tobacco plant.

On a serious note however. I am not familiar enough with the legislation in america but the anti-smoking legislation here where I live is based around the concept that a employer is responsible for the working conditions of their employees. As such they should ban smoking in the working area's. This created here the concept of both smoking outside and/or a special enclosed smoke room. (For which I assume the employer has protective gear for the employees to wear when cleaning that place)

This to me is acceptable. This reasoning. However, saying that smoking is bad for you and as such should be banned is not. That is the government playing god over our lives, which to me is unacceptable. There have to be rules, even rules for our own safety. But these should be very carefully made, and only in the most extreme cases should substances be banned. More often then not governments should inform the public, unbiased and factual. Which is more-or-less what is happening right now, at least in my country. (Little messages on the packages like "When you stop smoking you will lower the risk on deadly heart and lung diseases" all very acceptable.)

 

[Nogre]

ah you're right.... someone held a gun to my head and forced me to go to mcdonalds just the other day... :roll:

I'm assuming that this isn't serious. But even so, there's so many more ways that people are forced into bad situations (which some people make worse) by their circumstances in life. Things more subtle, less visible, and simply not recognized as widely as they should be. Not everyone is so priveleged as to even be able to afford McDonald's. Some people are so much more limited in what they have available to get eek out an existence from... I can't honestly say that they shouldn't get the protection of the law simply because a more priveleged person in a similar situation can just leave.

I mean, if what you're proposing is truly so easy, no labor laws, safety laws, or anything else would ever be necessary because someone could just leave if the employer wasn't offering what was reasonable. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that and likely won't work like that for a very, very long time.

 

[obsidianavenger]

I mean, if what you're proposing is truly so easy, no labor laws, safety laws, or anything else would ever be necessary because someone could just leave if the employer wasn't offering what was reasonable. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that and likely won't work like that for a very, very long time.

i honestly believe this would be the case if people chose to exercise their right to leave. a company with no employees either changes it ways or collapses. the failure of workers to exercise this right mystifies and frustrates me (rather like a wife staying with an abusive husband ) but to say since people are disadvantaged/afraid/not wanting to find another job that they *can't* and some rights must be curtailed on that account is unjust.

many times people do not act in their best interest... and they should be the ones to suffer the consequences, not anyone else. is it their fault they were born poor? nope... nor is it anyone else's... except maybe their parents. to make "eveyrone" responsible for their wellbeing is an unwarrented leap.

 

[Nogre]

i honestly believe this would be the case if people chose to exercise their right to leave. a company with no employees either changes it ways or collapses. the failure of workers to exercise this right mystifies and frustrates me (rather like a wife staying with an abusive husband )

Because I respect you and don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions, I just won't say anything about this. Suffice it to say that when you have to choose between working a crap job or failing to put food on the table, you generally choose the former.

but to say since people are disadvantaged/afraid/not wanting to find another job that they *can't* and some rights must be curtailed on that account is unjust.

Rights and justice... And I thought this couldn't get any farther from utilty. :cry: As far as people being disadvantaged/afraid/not wanting...see the above statement. The choice between dealing with a job you don't want and putting food on the table is not a choice at all. And the mobility you're probably going to try to point out simply doesn't exist for a great number of people.

many times people do not act in their best interest... and they should be the ones to suffer the consequences, not anyone else. is it their fault they were born poor? nope... nor is it anyone else's... except maybe their parents. to make "eveyrone" responsible for their wellbeing is an unwarrented leap.

We're not even talking about welfare here. We're talking about people not harming anothers' health. And the fact that it's not always voluntary is just negating your argument that it's consensual.

 

[obsidianavenger]

i honestly believe this would be the case if people chose to exercise their right to leave. a company with no employees either changes it ways or collapses. the failure of workers to exercise this right mystifies and frustrates me (rather like a wife staying with an abusive husband )

Because I respect you and don't want to make any unwarranted assumptions, I just won't say anything about this. Suffice it to say that when you have to choose between working a crap job or failing to put food on the table, you generally choose the former.

We're not even talking about welfare here. We're talking about people not harming anothers' health. And the fact that it's not always voluntary is just negating your argument that it's consensual.

my point was that you can't consider someone "oppressed" by circumstance. if i honestly think i cannot do better and end up working a job where i am exposed to cigarette smoke (when i don't care to be) then i am the one responsible, since i gave up my job search and settled for something that was, in the end, harmful. the fact that some people are desperate and will take less-than-ideal working conditions isn't really a justification for laws against it since they are the ones choosing to put up with it. just because something is *hard* doesn't make it oppressive or impossible.

EDIT:

in reference to my last comment, i just meant that to say restaurant owners are responsible for the harm done to their employees if they choose to allow smoking is misguided. they, nor anyone else, forced the employees to work at that particular place.