[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Must resist temptation to say that thankfully I have a private arsenal in my pants.

Arsenal? What, you got more than one? MUTANT!!!!

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Means they could indentify everything you've ever touched, though (well, unless you wear gloves all the time).  Send an anonymous 'whistleblowing' letter?  They can get epiphelials off the paper, or saliva from the envelope seal, or perhaps your saliva from breathing on it.

DNA start decomposing rather fast in cells detached from the body. If you wait a bit before posting a letter they will find jack ****.

Besides, why do you allways have to be so negative? I'm supposed to do that...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Shrike: That's all well and good, but a bar is still private property. It belongs to the individual, not to the government. And attendance is strictly voluntary. If some bar wants to have a big Friday night orgy then commit mass suicide, it's still private property. I can understand the arguement for public places, but no one is forced to go into bars. If people don't like it, and are unwilling to sit in the no smoking section, they can go find a non-smoking bar and get all their non-smoking buddies to come. Private property, man.

Firstly, by that context all drug use and crime should be illegal upon private property dependent upon the property owners consent.

Secondly, even if smoking occurs upon private property, the damage cause in medical terms places a burden upon the general public in terms of hospital bed space, lost working hours (not just when sick, but when buggering off for a sly ***) and possibly even the cost of fire damage when one is left upon private property.

So I say ban it.  It won't hurt anyone, unless they're addicted to a carcinogen, in which case they'll hurt themselves more to continue.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
And, as far as I'm concerned, the pitbull ban is even better. I've lost track of the number of incidents involving pitbulls killing or maiming people and other animals. Those dogs are dangerous and downright ornery.

It's the owners Im worried about.

dogs take after their owners - a LOT!
I've sene pudles who were more agressive than anything I ever seen in my life.
I myself walked in on a pit-bull female with puppies (she never saw me before) and I played with them in front of her - she didn't even flinch.

People who usually buy the "tough, agressive, big" dogs are ususally brutes themselves, and dogs turn out as they are mostly becouse of them.

[Ford Prefect]

Rictor: Cars are necessary; we tolerate the accidents because we need the cars. These dogs are presenting a danger to the public without balancing it with any kind of benefit. I don't understand why you see this as an unusual situation; state laws forbid private ownership of countless items, from fireworks to switchblades, for the exact same reason: It's simply unnecessary danger. Pitbulls are responsible for twice as many attacks as the next most aggressive breed, which is the Rottweiler. (Got that from here.)

[Rictor]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Firstly, by that context all drug use and crime should be illegal upon private property dependent upon the property owners consent.

Secondly, even if smoking occurs upon private property, the damage cause in medical terms places a burden upon the general public in terms of hospital bed space, lost working hours (not just when sick, but when buggering off for a sly ***) and possibly even the cost of fire damage when one is left upon private property.

So I say ban it.  It won't hurt anyone, unless they're addicted to a carcinogen, in which case they'll hurt themselves more to continue.

The government taxes cigarettes. A lot. That should more than make up for medical costs. Or simply make dieseses which are conclusively found to be caused by smoking exempt from Medicare. But like I said, the tax on cigs should cover the costs.

I believe that if people want to harm themselves they should be allowed to. As long as they're only harming themselves. Aside from that, I believe that all (or most) drugs should be legal. But that's not the arguement. Since tobacco is legal and attendance at bars is consentual - voila! Why should a bar have different regulations than my basement, where I can drink and smoke all I want?

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Rictor: Cars are necessary; we tolerate the accidents because we need the cars. These dogs are presenting a danger to the public without balancing it with any kind of benefit. I don't understand why you see this as an unusual situation; state laws forbid private ownership of countless items, from fireworks to switchblades, for the exact same reason: It's simply unnecessary danger. Pitbulls are responsible for twice as many attacks as the next most aggressive breed, which is the Rottweiler. (Got that from here.)

Switchblades and fireworks? Where? If that's the case, I'm against that as well.

As for unnecessary: so are many things. Alcohol is unnecessary. And yet people die of alcohol poisoining. Fast foods and snacks are unnecessary, and have spawned a generation of fatasses who are draining healthcare money, but I don't see you advocating a ban of McDonalds and Pringles.

The issue, like I've said, is whether the danger pitbulls present exceeds acceptable levels. Without seeing stats (I'm not badgering you, just saying) I can't know for sure, and will assume that, statistically, the danger is miniscule. It's like those people who take crazy precautions against terrorism, meanwhile they're living in the suburbs of Illinois where they're more likely to fall off a ladder or be srtuck by lighting than fall victim to terrorism.

edit: pitbulls are responsible for exactly 3.5 fatalaties a year on average, in a country of 300 million people And this is enough to ban the breed? You've got to be f*cking joking, right?! More people die from killer robot tulips than that.

[Ford Prefect]

Fast food doesn't harm anyone besides the person who's eating it, and alcohol can be consumed in moderation. There's nothing you can do that will make a volatile dog less dangerous. Yes, you can tie it up, but it can't be tied up all the time. The way I see it, those 3.5 fatalities are ones that can easily be avoided by simply telling people they're going to have to find a safer breed of dog. I wouldn't call for federal legislation over something like this, but I would support state laws that ban them. I don't think that makes me a bleeding-heart soccer mom.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Rictor
Why should a bar have different regulations than my basement, where I can drink and smoke all I want?

Is your basement a business establishment?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Fast food doesn't harm anyone besides the person who's eating it, and alcohol can be consumed in moderation. There's nothing you can do that will make a volatile dog less dangerous. Yes, you can tie it up, but it can't be tied up all the time. The way I see it, those 3.5 fatalities are ones that can easily be avoided by simply telling people they're going to have to find a safer breed of dog. I wouldn't call for federal legislation over something like this, but I would support state laws that ban them. I don't think that makes me a bleeding-heart soccer mom.

State, federal, what's the difference? It effects a smaller area. It's still imposing one's will on a large population. In a world where tens of thousands of die every day, for no good reason, and millions more suffer, I am mistrustful of anyone who claims that the fate of 3.5 people a year deeply concerns them deeply. In my experience, and maybe I'm just a sociopath, people feel empathy with distant, anonymous others only because they feel they should. I would be lying to myself if I said that I gave a rat's ass about 3.5 people who I will never meet, in a world of nearly seven billion individuals.

To me, the mere convenience of millions is more important than the death of 3.5 individuals. If you think that it is right to deprive many thousands of their choice of pet, for the mere fact that an absolutely mind-blowingly tiny minority of these will attack a person, you've got your priorities mixed up in my opinion. When all diesese, poverty and war is wiped out, then we can maybe talk about pitbulls. But until then, the impact of pitbulls is so miniscule that it's hardly worth mentioning.

Empathy is one thing. I give money to the homeless, hell I even try to be polite with the telemarketers. But we're talking about, literally, three people. Three. More children have died of hunger while you were reading the last sentence than will be killed by pitbulls in the next decade.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon


Is your basement a business establishment?

What makes a business establishment? A piece of paper?

Let's say my friend Joe Bob comes over. I charge him two dollars for a beer. There. I am now selling alcohol, which makes me equal to a bar. In principle, we are the same, and supposedly the law should function on principles. In every aspect, aside from a) location and visibility of physical premises and b)amount of drinks served, which are both details, my basement and a bar are identical.

[BlackDove]

Originally posted by Rictor
I'm just a sociopath

Yes you are.

Welcome.

That's why issues of human life aren't yours to decide on.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Rictor
What makes a business establishment? A piece of paper?

Let's say my friend Joe Bob comes over. I charge him two dollars for a beer. There. I am now selling alcohol, which makes me equal to a bar. In principle, we are the same, and supposedly the law should function on principles. In every aspect, aside from a) location and visibility of physical premises and b)amount of drinks served, which are both details, my basement and a bar are identical.

No, you're not the same.  Because you don't have a liquor liscence for one, and Bob is your friend.  Regulations vary from place to place, but I imagine that generally speaking to be an actual bar you have to jump through a number of hoops.  Simply selling your friend a brew doesn't make you a bar.

But honestly if you have to seriously ask 'Why should a bar have different regulations than my basement, where I can drink and smoke all I want?' I really don't know what to say.  One is a business establishment, the other is a place of residence.

[Rictor]

Those are names. Presumably, there is good reason why they differ, but I fail to see it, and am wondering whether someone can enlighten me. Looking at it from a legal point of view (what I mean is technical, not necessarily legal), such things as a sign, bar stools and regular clientele are details, which do not alter the fundamental essence of a place.

But that's not even what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the conditions of a bar are such that it is wrong to impose regulations which run counter to the will of those to consentually enter the establishment. And since, regardless of whether the place sells beer, guns or clothes, it is still private property, regulations should not be such that they infringe on the owner's rights within the law (since smoking is still legal). I don't see why the law should apply diffrently for a business establishment. What goes on on private property between consenting adults is no one's business. Which part do you disagree with?

[Kosh]

A bar is a public place, your basement is not.


Smoking harms not only the person doing it, but the other people around that person.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally posted by Rictor
State, federal, what's the difference? It effects a smaller area. It's still imposing one's will on a large population. In a world where tens of thousands of die every day, for no good reason, and millions more suffer, I am mistrustful of anyone who claims that the fate of 3.5 people a year deeply concerns them deeply. In my experience, and maybe I'm just a sociopath, people feel empathy with distant, anonymous others only because they feel they should. I would be lying to myself if I said that I gave a rat's ass about 3.5 people who I will never meet, in a world of nearly seven billion individuals.

To me, the mere convenience of millions is more important than the death of 3.5 individuals. If you think that it is right to deprive many thousands of their choice of pet, for the mere fact that an absolutely mind-blowingly tiny minority of these will attack a person, you've got your priorities mixed up in my opinion. When all diesese, poverty and war is wiped out, then we can maybe talk about pitbulls. But until then, the impact of pitbulls is so miniscule that it's hardly worth mentioning.

[/b]
You're the only one bringing empathy into this discussion. I support laws that ban excessively dangerous things because I, as a member of the society, have a vested interest in it. And if the weakness of the 3.5 figure troubles you, remember that those are only the deaths. There are a lot more attacks, and even more dead pets, my grandmother's last dachshund being one of them. I'm not trying to appeal to your emotions here, I'm just saying that one of the purposes of the law is to say, "No, you can't have that", if it's just plain dangerous. (That's not to say that it always works the way it ought to.) The state doesn't want people carrying switchblades because they're overwhelmingly a weapon of crime, and it doesn't want just anyone buying fireworks because people could get blown up. Do a lot of people get blown up with fireworks? No, but why risk it? We're living under a social contract, not Lord of the Flies, and you are not guaranteed the right to have fun however you want.

[karajorma]

I've already explained to you why smoking should be banned in bars in a previous thread and it's absolutely nothing to do with the patrons.

In almost every job you'll find that there is a limit to the amount of harmful and toxic substances that you can be exposed to. These safety limits exist to prevent the employee being exposed to levels of chemicals that are hazardous to his health.

The amounts are laid down by law and are non-negotiable. You can't get people to give up their right to not be exposed because this prevents the employer exploiting his workers by making them work in an unsafe environment or lose their job.

These rights exist for lab technicicans, construction workers, X-ray machine operators etc. Anywhere where someone might be exposed to chemicals except for people who work in a bar. For some stange reason they can be exposed to whatever level of carcinogens people can put into the air from smoking.

Sorry Rictor but this has nothing to do with any of the arguments you've been making. As soon as you employ someone you are legally responsible for making sure that the environment that they work in is as safe as possible. Why on Earth should bar owners be exempt from that rule?

The only way you could run a bar without breaking that would be to have only the owners of the bar work there. Only then could you make the claim that there is no way for the owners to be exploiting their workers.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor


The government taxes cigarettes. A lot. That should more than make up for medical costs. Or simply make dieseses which are conclusively found to be caused by smoking exempt from Medicare. But like I said, the tax on cigs should cover the costs.

I believe that if people want to harm themselves they should be allowed to. As long as they're only harming themselves. Aside from that, I believe that all (or most) drugs should be legal. But that's not the arguement. Since tobacco is legal and attendance at bars is consentual - voila! Why should a bar have different regulations than my basement, where I can drink and smoke all I want?

Firstly, it's virtually impossible to determine the exact cause of a disease... if you begin denying treatment on the basis of probability...well, I think that's a hell of a lot more inhumane than banning smoking, isn't it?

Secondly, on the issue of taxation.... the actual cost of cigarettes is unable to gauge.  NHS (uk) costs are at between £1.7-2.7bn, fire damage costs are in the hundreds of milllions.  That's excluding the costs of days lost to work, time for smoking breaks, etc.

This is covered by revenue from tax, I think (although I'm not sure if the percentage covered is equal to the percentage increase upon standard goods taxation), of about £10bn. Although elsewhere it's a different matter.  I think the WHO calculated smoking as costing about $200bn across the world (vis-a-vis wealth 'generated' from stuff like employment).

Also there's the financial requirements to build new hospitals and train new staff to replace beds used by dying smokers; I'd imagine that'd take up more than the extra tax added to ciggies.

There is the issue of second hand smoke.  Fair enough, customers can choose where to go (ignoring pressures like not having any nearby smoke free bars, or wanting to keep friends who want to go in for a puff....), but staff cannot choose their exposure.  2nd hand smoke has been linked to SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), heart disease, lung disease, asthma, bronchitus, etc; the cost of treating these will likely be invisible in terms of the NHS figure as they're from non-primary smokers.

Finally....cigarettes are a harmful (used in any quarters) carcinogenic 'thing', which are addictive, and which can harm people indirectly.  What's the difference between that and, say, heroin?

Originally posted by Rictor
Switchblades and fireworks? Where? If that's the case, I'm against that as well.

As for unnecessary: so are many things. Alcohol is unnecessary. And yet people die of alcohol poisoining. Fast foods and snacks are unnecessary, and have spawned a generation of fatasses who are draining healthcare money, but I don't see you advocating a ban of McDonalds and Pringles.

Alcohol isn't inherently harmful if used in moderation.  Small amounts (IIRC about 1 unit a day) actually reduce the prevelance of several major diseases.  Likewise for fast food and healthcare.

(this isn't directly related to pitbulls, though. You'd be best having compulsary muzzles in public at the very least, IMO - like a car, a dog can be a very dangerous thing, so I think the owner has to have a responsibility for mimizing the risk)

I'm quite amused that a state would be switchblades and fireworks but not (I presume) guns.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Kosh
A bar is a public place, your basement is not.  

Erm, please define what makes a place "public". It is private property. Property rights don't magically disappear because someone, you or a politician or whoever, decides to brand it "public". I agree that the government can enforce non-smoking laws on property that belongs to them, but not on other people's land.

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

You're the only one bringing empathy into this discussion. I support laws that ban excessively dangerous things because I, as a member of the society, have a vested interest in it. And if the weakness of the 3.5 figure troubles you, remember that those are only the deaths. There are a lot more attacks, and even more dead pets, my grandmother's last dachshund being one of them. I'm not trying to appeal to your emotions here, I'm just saying that one of the purposes of the law is to say, "No, you can't have that", if it's just plain dangerous. (That's not to say that it always works the way it ought to.) The state doesn't want people carrying switchblades because they're overwhelmingly a weapon of crime, and it doesn't want just anyone buying fireworks because people could get blown up. Do a lot of people get blown up with fireworks? No, but why risk it? We're living under a social contract, not Lord of the Flies, and you are not guaranteed the right to have fun however you want. [/B]

You say "excessively dangerous". But if 3.5 people dead (and let's say another 100 wounded) per year is excessive, in a population of 300 million, then you my friend have some starnge standards. Private possession of ICBM missles is excessively dangerous. Single-digit fatalaties are not. Or else, if that is too great a danger, almost everything else is too. If you want to lower you standards to that, fine. But then you might as well lock everyone in a safety seat from birth to death, because pretty much any stupid thing you can think of is more dangerous. I'm sure more people die from...let's say constipation than that. Or monkey attacks. Or spontaneous human combustion.

I'm not advocating Lord of Flies, any more than you are advocating Stalinism. But there is a balance between anarchy and tyranny. It IS about empathy, because if you are personally terrified of being attacked by a murderous bulldog, given the statitistics, than you're more far more paranoid than even I could aspire to be, and I'm the guy who thinks the Illimunati are putting drugs in our water (well, not really).

Originally posted by karajorma
I've already explained to you why smoking should be banned in bars in a previous thread and it's absolutely nothing to do with the patrons.

In almost every job you'll find that there is a limit to the amount of harmful and toxic substances that you can be exposed to. These safety limits exist to prevent the employee being exposed to levels of chemicals that are hazardous to his health.

All right, you have something there. But. How many bartenders and waiters are very clear on the issue that banning smoking takes money from their pockets.  Here in Toronto I've seen bar owners on TV who say they may have to close their business. Why should you decide for someone else what they are supposed to favour: money or health. Surely, it should be up to the individual.

All I'm sayng is that, in order to be consistant, the same law that allows two adults to penetrate whichever orifice they choose in the privacy of their home also technically allows one adult to murder another and the other to consent to it. Remember that German cannibal a few years back? Sick yes, but not technically (based on the principle, not the actual law) illegal. Now, I'm not such an extremist as to support this unconditionally, though if I did I could only be accused of consistancy, but it's not as black and white as you portray it either. Scale is, to me, an important factor. If one person dies because they chose (-chose-) to bartend in a smoking bar, then it's OK. If a hundred thousand people do, that's a different matter.

And it's not as if though working in a bar is an automatic death sentence. I would imagine that the vast majority of people walk out of their job as bartenders smelling of, if not roses than at least whiskey and sweat.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Finally....cigarettes are a harmful (used in any quarters) carcinogenic 'thing', which are addictive, and which can harm people indirectly.  What's the difference between that and, say, heroin?


Alcohol isn't inherently harmful if used in moderation.  Small amounts (IIRC about 1 unit a day) actually reduce the prevelance of several major diseases.  Likewise for fast food and healthcare.

(this isn't directly related to pitbulls, though. You'd be best having compulsary muzzles in public at the very least, IMO - like a car, a dog can be a very dangerous thing, so I think the owner has to have a responsibility for mimizing the risk)

I'm quite amused that a state would be switchblades and fireworks but not (I presume) guns.

Actually, if you want to make that arguement, then cigs are worse than heroin becuase there's no such thing as a second-hand overdose. But I do support recreational heroin use by adults, if that's what you're getting it. I don't see why I shouldn't.

As for NHS and smoking-related dieseses, it may not be possible to say with iron certainty what the cause of a specific ailment is, but if someone comes down with lung cancer after smoking for 40 years, I don't think there's too much mystery as to what caused it. Or rather, give people a simple choice: every X years, when you come in for a regular check-up, they do a lung scan. If they determine that you smoke, or are exposed to levels of smoke equal to those of a smoker, you get reduced coverage for certain dieseses. If you stop smoking, you get full coverage restored. I'm just pulling these out of my ass, but it's wrong to say that because a perfect solution doesn't exist, it's best to just ignore any possible alternative.

It's a slippery slope, though. First you ban smoking, to protect people, then pitbulls, fireworks and switchblades. Remember, to protect people. Then steak knives (Labour tried this, right? I don't know if it went through) and God knows what other absurd thing. And before you know, you're living in a nanny state, where everything is padded in foam and newspapers have rounded edges. I'm exaggerating, but I'm sure you have plenty of experience with nanny statism, care of Mr.Blair. So I say it's better to put up with the risk, extremely small as it is, of meeting your end at the hands of a pitbull, stray firework, horde of rampaging elephants or somesuch, than to be treated like the kids in the Special Ed. class.

ps: I think that the fact that fireworks and switchblades are illegal, whereas guns are not, is because guns can be used to overthrow the governent if need be, whle the other have no such redeeming features. Kudos to the Founding Fathers for that one.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
All right, you have something there. But. How many bartenders and waiters are very clear on the issue that banning smoking takes money from their pockets.  Here in Toronto I've seen bar owners on TV who say they may have to close their business. Why should you decide for someone else what they are supposed to favour: money or health. Surely, it should be up to the individual.

Why? We don't make the same distinction when chemical companies say that worker safety programs cost them money. We don't pay attention if they say that these programs may lead to them having to shut down. We don't even give a toss if the workers say that they're happy to go on working under these conditions.

Yet again I ask you why should we make an exception just because a corporation is chosing to risk its employees lives in one of their bars rather than a chemical plant?

I'm sure you could find plenty of people who would be willing to work in a factory that didn't obay safety standards if that was their only available job. How many people working in bars and clubs do you think really want to be there? Especially amongst the lower paid jobs like waitresses have?

If you're saying that people can choose to work in a dangerous environment at their own risk then why should that same rule not apply to other occupations?

It's you who's being inconsistant not me. These laws exist to prevent exploitation of the workforce and for that reason alone I would have thought that someone like you would be right behind them.

Originally posted by Rictor
Scale is, to me, an important factor. If one person dies because they chose (-chose-) to bartend in a smoking bar, then it's OK. If a hundred thousand people do, that's a different matter.

And it's not as if though working in a bar is an automatic death sentence. I would imagine that the vast majority of people walk out of their job as bartenders smelling of, if not roses than at least whiskey and sweat.

Have you got any proof of that? It sounds like you're talking from personal opinion that that means f**k all when it comes to something like this. Every study I've seen seems to suggest that there is a appreciable mortality rate. Unfortunately all the studies I could find in a quick search seem gave links to scientific papers which I can't access but most of them put the concentration of chemicals pretty high from what I can see in the abstracts.

[Charismatic]

Originally posted by Kosh


Do you want to make any bets on that?




Yeah, didn't someone post a link a few months ago about a guy who has a big collection of fully functional tanks with ammo?

I actualy recall that myself.
US is gay. People are too lazy to revolt agienst the gov already. The people who suceded in the revolutionary war would be shamed...

And they barely allow us to have arms. Its retarded.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Charismatic
US is gay.

What are you? 5 years old or something?