Needs of the Many, Wants of the Few (?)

[IJ]

Suppose there was a cult that liked to wear crystals as necklaces. It's part of their religion--or maybe it's just fun. In any case, they happen to like radioactive ones. And that means that they, if they choose to wear their crystals long term, have a 1/3 chance of dying from damage to nearby heart, lungs, or cancer developing, although many people use them with no ill effects. It's also hazardous to their born or unborn kids and costs a lot to take care of them, but they die sooner so it may save $ in the long run. Should we let them wear their necklaces in most public places (maybe they also give off a stinky gas) if that public use also led to a couple thousand deaths among the noncrystal set every day (a very very low percentage)?

Why, or why not?

Then ask yourself if you'd ban smoking in bars and restaurants, because that's where boston is as of a few days ago. The difference is only that the cigs are more common than the radioactive crystals--in fact, the latter don't exist just yet. Figured I'd make something up in the off chance someone would visit the topic with a fresh start rather than triggering previously held viewpoints.

Freedom of radioactive crystal, or public safety?

[Le Haggard]

Ok, based on John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" in defense of a minimal government when considered in contrast with total anarchy, YES we should ban the wearing of radioactive crystals that would harm others. Harm of others can feasibly be interpreted to be not only physical, but psychological damages, financial loss, and undue burden placed on society from their actions. Admittedly this is a semi-grey area for Mill, but similar justification has been extended to a wide variety of issues and is not too much of a stretch for radioactive crystals. Since they could harm even one person other than themself, according to Mill, their actions should not be permitted. Even the threat of harm is reason to restrict their actions accordingly.

This is further supported perhaps by the constitutional concept stated in the preamble that we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a self evident truth. Depriving an individual of life is the utmost violation of this constitutionally stated right. Though it could be argued that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being marginally infringed upon (and free exercise of religion) by stopping the crystal wearer, other means of achieving and exercising these rights are available while alternative means of maintaining life for those harmed are not. The minimal loss of freedom is justifiable for the greater good (utilitarian justification). I believe this could be equated in some ways to banning polygamy for the greater good despite certain religious beliefs to the contrary.

So, there is a highbrow philosophical answer for you that doesn't even deal with the morality of if smoking cigs..errr wearing crystals is right or not on their own.

Now..What about Cell phones and Microwaves??

heeheeeheee

Le'

[regkray]

Hi,


I'm in a room I am a non smoker. A smoker enters.

I ask him to put out his cigarette. He says no.

I tell him I don't want to breath in his smoke, I have the right to fresh air.

He says he wants to smoke he has the right to smoke.

Who is right.

We both are.

What right do I have to make him put his ciggy out?

It affects my health.

So do lots of things, do we ban them all?

People driving cars are a danger to me, do we ban tham?

People who are drunk are a danger to me, do we ban alcohol?

Are there universal laws of right and wrong?

Do we have a right to stop people doing things that harm their health?

Is that why we ban drugs?

Are ciggys drugs?

Who are we to legislate a persons actions?



RK

[ljr]

I guess it would depend on whether or not the crystals were legal to be worn.

If they were legal to be worn and the bar owner wanted to allow people in his bar to wear them and all the patrons knew that people in the bar could and did wear them.... Yes I would let them wear the crystals.

don't forget, a bar is not a public place, it is a private place that allows the public in.

Before this ban, there were many restaurants/bars in my area that did not allow smoking at all. if I wanted a completely smoke-free meal that is where I went.

I always have the choice not to go into a bar that allows smoking.

[Gene DeMambro]

What right do I have to make him put his ciggy out? It affects my health.

You asked and then answered your own question. In these United of States, states may make reasonable restrictions, necessary to protect the health and safety of the populice. The key word here is reasonable.

So do lots of things, do we ban them all?

If these things adversely effect health and safety, then we can ban them, but that doesn't mean we do.

People driving cars are a danger to me, do we ban tham?

We ban driving a car in a dangerous fashion (speeding, improper starting, no turn signals, etc).

People who are drunk are a danger to me, do we ban alcohol?

We ban public intoxication, driving drunk, drinking in public and it's illegal for a bar to srve a patron who is already drunk and those under a certain age. Adn we can ban alcohol, if we want, but we just choose not to.

Do we have a right to stop people doing things that harm their health?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Is that why we ban drugs?

Long story.

Are ciggys drugs?

Yes.

Who are we to legislate a persons actions?

If the regulation is reasonable, we can. No flames please.

Gene

[regkray]

Hi

what do you mena by flames?


RK

[Le Haggard]

what do you mena by flames?

My definition of...
Flames: When someone attacks another verbally (online in writing of course), berating or insulting them for having an unpopular position, or simply for disagreeing with them. Sometimes people will harshly attack the opinion, calling it "stupid," "ignorant," etc. without actually expressing a reason why they disagree. It is not a debate/discussion, but an argument. (Debate: When you listen and interact with those holding different views. Argument: When you just attack without honestly listening to the other's view.) Usually though, "flames" refers to a personal attack against the individual or group expressing the view or making the statements.

Just my Definition.

Also...Legislative action, by definition, is governmental. Rights and laws are creations of society. Though there are a few that will argue for "natural law" or "god's law," it is an excepted fact that the "state of nature" without society has never existed. People need societies to survive. Therefore, those who are part of society and the government are the ones that undertake legislative action.

In the US version of representative democracy, that legislative action can be undertaken by a variety of means, as established by our constitution. Our "rights" are also defined, in concept, with that constitution. As citizens, one of those rights is to produce laws.

If there is a question about this, try defining the legislative version of "law" (rather than say scientific) and "rights" without reference to society and government. You end up with an individual set of "morals" for which you wish to punish those who disagree with you. They, of course, will try to punish you for punishing them, since they acted according to their own personal morals...and on it goes. Just think how messy that would get without legislated laws, society, and government. Anarchy.

In short: Those in the society establish government institutions as they choose, based on whatever moral system or concept they choose. Governments make laws and enforce them. How those government structures differ is another matter....

[ljr]

quote: What right do I have to make him put his ciggy out? It affects my health.

You asked and then answered your own question. In these United of States, states may make reasonable restrictions, necessary to protect the health and safety of the populice. The key word here is reasonable .

but if the smoker declines you always have the choice to leave the area.

what is to stop the govnment for outlawing smoking any time there is a non-smoker withing 5 feet from the smoker... even in your own home? A smoker invites someone over that does not smoke and then is not allowed to smoke in their own house.

peple get hurt in karate classes, should the government require all karate schools to have govenment certified instructors and be taught by a goventment schedule and with govenment lession plans? I can see it now... "Arm conditioning causes bruising, no longer allowed."

This is a tough one for me, I have already gone out twice with the ban in effect and I love it... but I still think it is one more freedom we are losing.

[Gene DeMambro]

peple get hurt in karate classes, should the government require all karate schools to have govenment certified instructors and be taught by a goventment schedule and with govenment lession plans? I can see it now... "Arm conditioning causes bruising, no longer allowed."

Knowing that the governement can make reasonable restrictions, necessary to protect the health and safety of the populice, does this potential action fit the bill?

And the other key questions that need to be asked are: Is what the government wants to do reasonable and is the law rationally related that purpose? If the answer is yes to both questions, then the government has all the power to go forward.

what is to stop the govnment for outlawing smoking any time there is a non-smoker withing 5 feet from the smoker

Nothing.

This is a tough one for me, I have already gone out twice with the ban in effect and I love it... but I still think it is one more freedom we are losing.

Possibly, but if smoking adversely effects the health and safety of others, what freedom is it?

Gene

[IJ]

I'll admit I'm pretty conflicted about this myself. I find smoking REALLY disgusting. It stinks, it's addictive, and generally my only intereactions with it are dealing with it's long term health consequences including seeing people die of it on a regular basis, and generally I breathe the stuff when others smoke by hospital entrances under the no smoking signs and I'm forced to pass them. There's also the wafting on the streets, and in restaurants. If I am forcibly dragged to a club, then I stink of it and invariable get a sore throat. Most people who do it litter tremendously. Many smoke when they ought to be buying food shelter or medicine with the money, because they're addicted. I really really hate smoking.

Yet I support the right to smoke, just as I support the right to smoke crack, THC, or snort coke or inject heroin. I dislike the drug war more than I find good in it... I just think these noxious substances should be available, and only with a lot of education and side by side treatment and discouragement efforts. I suppose I chose to work in a bar as a waiter bartender for a while, tho honestly there weren't too many options for short term emplyment at the time. If there were a trial that enrolled patients for exposure to something like cigarette smoke without making an equally available no smoking alternative, it would be ruled unethical and coercing people with pay into unhealthy choices--that's what jobs around smokers do--but I also suppose if people want to designate places to smoke cancer sticks I guess that's their business. there are a lot of unhealthy behaviors that I would like to see efforts to change for, yet, really don't want our government to have the power to outlaw.

That said, most people would FREAK if there was a radioactive threat at the same exact level as cigs at work or in restaurants. That'd be outlawed ASAP with near unanimous support.

The major difference is that cigs have caught on. They're part of society, some people's livelihood, other people's "killing," and they're the source of tons of $ to government officials. The radioactive crystal nuts and meth lab freaks aren't lobbying as hard.

Anyway, I remain conflicted between personal choice and public health here. I also submit it'd be damn hard to get a nonsmoking club going but now they should do ok. And I further dread the idea it'll be easier for peole to drag me to them now that one of my cheif excuses evaporated.

[ljr]

Possibly, but if smoking adversely effects the health and safety of others, what freedom is it?

here is an interesting article on the dangers of second-hand smoke
http://www.forces.org/research/files/politics.htm

also, even if smoking adversly effects others, people always have the choice to leave the bar or start a non-smoking bar.

Also, It looks like the smoking ban may go state-wide..... http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/128/m ... ing+.shtml

ljr

[Gene DeMambro]

also, even if smoking adversly effects others, people always have the choice to leave the bar or start a non-smoking bar.

Yes they do, You're correct. But the state also has the power to regulate or ban smoking.

Gene

[ljr]

But the state also has the power to regulate or ban smoking

They also have the right to ban the eating at McDonalds or Burger King for anyone that is concidered overweight. Or the regulation or the ban of firearms. Or the regulation of karate instructors....

I agree they have the power, but that does not mean I have to agree with it....

[Panther]

They also have the right to ban the eating at McDonalds or Burger King for anyone that is concidered overweight. Or the regulation or the ban of firearms. Or the regulation of karate instructors....

I agree they have the power, but that does not mean I have to agree with it....

Actually... they don't. Most notably because of:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The biggest factor in the smoking bans is the unproven allegation that "second-hand smoke harms non-smokers". Which leads to the principles already put forth in this topic. Eating at McDonalds or Burger King or any other fast food joint is only regulated in so far as the ingredients must meet certain food standards. In other words, if our radioactive jewelry crowd opened a restaurant and started serving radioactive food to unsuspecting patrons, that can be regulated out of existence. To change it to a better analogy, say there is a group that believes that injestion of small doses of arsenic is good for the health. (actually a common belief in some circles ~1.5 centuries ago)... They carry small vials of arsenic in the form of necklaces they wear. Those necklaces are completely harmless to others... unless the contents are put in a consumable food item. In small doses, it is not fatal, but over time the effects build up causing the demise of those in the Arsenic Jewelry group. As long as they do not give this poison to others, they are free to injest it all they wish. They are not harming anyone but themselves. That's the difference.

Although the regulation and ban of firearms is an on-going reality, most reputable Constitutional scholars now recognize (what they refer to as) "the Embarassing Second Amendment". Which places gun control in a shaky position from a Constitutional perspective.

Similar arguments can be made against the regulation of martial arts instruction.

[ljr]

I guess it all depends on the definition of "harms others"....

there are alredy people suing Mc.D's because they are fat...

I agree that the IX amendment should stop it, but as you said "the ban on firearms is an on-going reality" if the gov't can stop people from smoking in private establishments (and a bar or the VFW is a private establishment) what is to stop them from going the next step (whatever that step is).