Author Topic: Is this freedom? (Read 3116 times)

miko2d · « **Reply #45 on:** December 31, 2002, 02:14:53 PM »

AKIron: You're kidding right?!? Health care costs for diseases such as heart disease and lung cancer can cost more than the idividual may have paid in taxes his whole life.

I am not kidding. I do not wish for any people to die but if we rationally discuss costs to society, death from smoking-related cancer is less expensive then other kinds - in many cases. Actual studies were done to that effect.
All people die from something sooner or later. Even a person in perfect health dies from general deterioration of tissues - slowly, painfully and expensively. Keeping a stroke-afflicted person on life-suport costs millions and lasts for years.

Of course the situation changes with scientific progress and locality. As new treatments are found that allow to keep smokers alive longer, the expense mounts. So while a smoke-related cancer case may be a drain on US society - though I find it hard to believe - for Hungary, where such treatment is not commonly available it's a huge savings.

AKIron: Who pays for that?

That is another violation of liberty - coercing people to subcidise someone else's destructive habits or lifestyle/religious choices. The whole thing was originally intended as a safety net for few people who fall. Now it is used for people who jump intentionally. Wasting resources on self-destructive elderly unproductive people that could have been used for the next generation.

And there is such a concept as "moral hazard" - by ameliorating consequences of people's irresponcible behavior you cause them to behave more irresponcibly.

No wonder that european-derived population is going extinct.

Wlfgng: yeah that's comparable... NOT

They had to start somewhere but it's a necessary process. Forcing collectivized healthcare on people and then taking control of with people's lifes because it costs money to the system is just a step in development of collectivism. Sure, if the master pays for the healthcare of the serfs, he is entitled to a say in their behavior.

Curval: ..and those same gun owners are here in support of it.

What gives you that idea? There are relatively few gun owners in liberal New York and those I know all oppose the regulation.

it's simply a ban on endangering the health of workers in a workplace

The workers are free to choose employment. There are plenty of risky occupations. Stewardesses get increased doze of radiation. Do you really need to fly on vacation? Maybe we should limit air-travel to (state approved) business trips - all for the people.
Police risk their life saving you - so a curfiew is in order. No people out at night, no healthcare expenses. It's not like you really need to go out. Of course if you do, you can apply for a special pass.

miko

lazs2 · « **Reply #46 on:** December 31, 2002, 02:24:52 PM »

miko... I see your point but if it is a workmans comp issue then there is nothing to be done about it.. every day private places have to comply with restrictive (to personal freedom) laws in the workplace. I don't wish to wear a hardhat in "hardhat areas" or safety glasses or hearing protection or... post msds sheets all over the place. If a worker is brave enough (or broke enough) to climb down into a poorly shored and possible gaseous hole in the earth then I guess it is ok for the employer to allow it on his property?

I believe in the case of a family owned business with no employees there is no workmans comp issue involved. So long as it was clearly posted that smoking was taking place inside.... no one would have a right to squeak. It would seem that a bar that had smoking would do a thriving business... Is that true MT?
lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #47 on:** December 31, 2002, 02:28:56 PM »

Quote

. It would seem that a bar that had smoking would do a thriving business... Is that true MT?

It's not the busiest place in town, but it does OK for a small bar. The salesmen like it.

miko2d · « **Reply #48 on:** December 31, 2002, 03:05:32 PM »

lazs2: If a worker is brave enough (or broke enough) to climb down into a poorly shored and possible gaseous hole in the earth then I guess it is ok for the employer to allow it on his property?

Speaking generally, I would prefer such situation to one where we are ruled by arbitrary decisions of a despot. Once personal freedom becomes unimportant, you are on a necessary path to despotism. And onece people become cogs in a state machine, quite a few of them will be sent into risky/unhealthy situations for the "common good". I am from Soviet Union, remember? People were sent into "poorly shored and possible gaseous hole in the earth" all the time there. Politicians make personal safety an issue to get power for the state. They may even mean it - though their inconsistency is obvious. If people are too stupid to decide their own safety issues, how can you expect them to vote in a worthy individual as a ruler? Anyway, once the power is there, other uses will be found for it, with nice justifications for every step.

Less generaly, free state must be based on the sanctity of the contract and prevention of fraud - as well as protection of property and prevention of violence.
So if a worker completely understands implications of his actions, fine. But if a case can be made that an owner was expected to provide certain level of safety - in explicit or implicit contract - and failed to do so, such an individual can and must be punished in a free society.

It's just that every well-informed person should be allowed to make his own choices based on his circumstances. Yes, there must be disclosure and information and testing provided and State can play role in contracting and dissiminating it. But action and decision should be people's prerogatives, not bureaucrats'.

miko

funkedup · « **Reply #49 on:** December 31, 2002, 03:25:14 PM »

Curval, now you can see why we are so protective of our 2nd Amendment rights. Because it's clear to us that the safety nazis are out to take away every freedom they deem too risky or unneccesary.

NUKE · « **Reply #50 on:** December 31, 2002, 05:59:50 PM »

....... hate cigarette smoke.

Toad · « **Reply #51 on:** December 31, 2002, 08:19:04 PM »

Curval, I think I view freedom from a different point of view.

I'm free to NOT smoke right? My choice?

The smoker is free to smoke; his choice.

But if I'm in an enclosed space with a smoker and he chooses to smoke, my choice is removed. I'm breathing smoke.

Now, if the smoker is in an unconfied space, we BOTH have a choice. He can smoke and I can move away into a clear area.

Better that both have freedom than just one.

Here in my area, restaurants simply have smoking and non-smoking sections. No problemo, all are happy.

And here, as someone pointed out about another place, you'll wait twice as long for a table in the no smoking area as the smoking area.

But all are free to choose. They smoke if they like, they don't smoke if they don't like, they don't worry about what the other guy chooses. It's a free life.

beet1e · « **Reply #52 on:** January 01, 2003, 04:17:04 AM »

Curval - LOL! That's great going. The thread extends to two pages in less than 24 hours. I think that beats my record. WTG!

I will go and read it all now, and may post back...

beet1e · « **Reply #53 on:** January 01, 2003, 04:43:53 AM »

Hehe Curval - great way to start the New Year! I see I can take a couple of days off!

I don't really have an axe to grind. I do remember revisiting New York City in 1995, and finding that all restaurants in the city were smoke free. That was such a welcome change from Europe - especially countries like France, Spain and Italy where they seem to have a lot of smokers. I could walk into a restaurant in NYC without banging my nose into a wall of smoke. The whole dining experience was so much better. I never saw anyone violate the smoking ban, and I never heard anyone complain about it.

But in CA, where there is a ban on smoking even in bars, I have seen people smoking overtly, right at the bar.

Not sure whether the New York law is nannying, as I believe that smokers have been in a minority for many years, so it's arguable that the law change is to benefit the majority.

Curval · « **Reply #54 on:** January 01, 2003, 08:41:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Curval, I think I view freedom from a different point of view.
Here in my area, restaurants simply have smoking and non-smoking sections. No problemo, all are happy.

I think we view it exactly the same way Toad.

I agree with smoking and non smoking sections...it gives both parties the freedom to do as they wish.

In New York it is an accross the board elimination of the rights of smokers, in favour of the non smokers. Why? Because it is being done to protect the non smokers.

Nannying at it finest.

Beet1e...just doing my bit.

Funked...best answer in this thread. Consistency at its finest. (hehe on the sig)

lazs2 · « **Reply #55 on:** January 01, 2003, 10:39:20 AM »

miko... I am from an earlier time in the U.S. we did a lot of things that weren't particularly safe on construction sites. I seen a lot of bad accidents that could easily have been avoided by taking a few precautions and/or using proper equipment...I don't know the answer. I don't like government intgerferance either because it tends to run amuck... our safety programs are like that now... run amuck... I would prefer that the employer do it voluntarily or that the workers demand/negotiate for it. smoking... tough one. I believe that if the owner of a building posts that it is a "smoking" place then fine but.... How would he get around the workmans comp thing? It is required to have workmans comp insurance. I like what motels are doing... they have smoking and non smoking rooms... most have voluntarily converted to non because of lack of interest in smoking rooms.

curval and beetle... I think the point has been well made why smoking and guns are such different issues freedom wise... thank you for again providing a forum for gun owners to show how silly and idiotic the oppossition is.

when in england I had people constantly blowing smoke at me through their rotted and yellowed teeth everywhere I went. I had no freedom to avoid em. I don't care if people smoke so long as it isn't around me.
lazs

Rude · « **Reply #56 on:** January 01, 2003, 11:00:12 AM »

I've smoked for 25 years....I don't like smoke blown in my own face much less making anyone else deal with my habit.

I'm ok with all of these laws as I'm free to do business with the establishments that allow smoking. Now when they tell me I cannot smoke outside, that will become an issue for me personally.

ra · « **Reply #57 on:** January 01, 2003, 12:11:31 PM »

Quote

when in england I had people constantly blowing smoke at me through their rotted and yellowed teeth everywhere I went.

Laz, I am sending you my medical bills for one busted gut.

lazs2 · « **Reply #58 on:** January 01, 2003, 12:12:19 PM »

When they tell yu that you can't smoke outside... not bothering anyone... I will join u. If they tell you that you can't smoke in your own huse I will join you.
lazs

Toad · « **Reply #59 on:** January 01, 2003, 12:12:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
In New York it is an accross the board elimination of the rights of smokers, in favour of the non smokers. Why? Because it is being done to protect the non smokers.

Frame it this way, Curval:

In New York it is an accross the board restriction of the rights of smokers indoors in public places like restaurants, in favour of the non smokers. Why? Because it is being done to protect the non smokers freedom of choice.

No one lost any Constitutionally guaranteed rights here. Two things have happened: The non-smokers have been allowed to choose not to smoke. The smokers have been restricted to smoking in areas that do not remove a non-smokers choice.

"Nannying" would be banning smoking altogether and although I don't smoke, even I'd protest that.