Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
occasional:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on November 11, 2012, 10:41:51 AM ---One of the bullshit political parties in my country actually suggested to ban smoking in cars. The reason they presented is a real kicker: think of the children! Yeah, they actually claim that smoking in cars should be banned for everyone just because some parents may be irresponsible.
--- End quote ---
Isn't smoking in a car with children illegal already?
jaybug:
--- Quote from: occasional on November 11, 2012, 02:31:12 PM ---
--- Quote from: AceHigh on November 11, 2012, 10:41:51 AM ---One of the bullshit political parties in my country actually suggested to ban smoking in cars. The reason they presented is a real kicker: think of the children! Yeah, they actually claim that smoking in cars should be banned for everyone just because some parents may be irresponsible.
--- End quote ---
Isn't smoking in a car with children illegal already?
--- End quote ---
Uh...not if they have their medical marijuana card??? Or...if whatever they are smoking causes them to vote Republican in future??? And if it is like the Oregon Cell phone while driving law, smoking only a ticketable violation if doing some other violation concurrently. ( My mother voted for it while she was in the state legislature, but she still can't stop using her phone while she drives. sigh)
Burkingam:
@AceHigh They banned smoking in public places in 2008 with the Quebec's Tobacco Act. At first I was against, just like you AceHigh and for the same reasons. Although many people was in favor, there was also people yelling "dictatorship" and "discrimination against smokers" all over the place. Bar owners would complain on TV that it's gonna ruin their industry. There was caricatures in the news paper people smokers being sent in concentration camps. Oh the humanity it was the End of the world!
Turns out reality fell short of the drama. Every bars didn't start going bankrupt. We didn't have to create a special anti-tobacco police force. Nobody was stone but a mob for smoking in front of children. What actually happened is that smokers spent a few mouths whining and eventually got over it and now we can finally go wherever we want without the smell. Now it's just part of our culture. You want to smoke, you go outside. Even most smokers I speak to nowadays are satisfied by this law.
What really made me change my mind was the effect on public health. Turns out it's a lot harder to stop smoking if every places you usually go to allow smoking. As a result from the law, in the year following the act's enforcement, the percentage of smoker fell dramatically. I wish I could remember the exact numbers. Something ridiculous like 10-20% of all smokers who quit.
Ultimately what makes a policy a good policy is it's effect on actual people. This law is gonna save thousands of lives.
If someone really wants to smoke cigaret we are not gonna do it and if someone really want's to drink enough soda to drown himself he can buy two bottles instead of one, in other words, if people really want to hurt themselves, they will, it doesn't mean we should make it as easy as possible. You can argue all day long about how building a fence around a mine field is gonna ripe people from their right to blow themselves I don't give a shit. A policy which improves people's life is a good policy.
AceHigh:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on November 11, 2012, 07:54:56 PM ---You can argue all day long about how building a fence around a mine field is gonna ripe people from their right to blow themselves I don't give a shit.
--- End quote ---
You don't have to give a shit, ultimately I explained to you how some laws are specifically aimed at forcing behaviour change and habits commonly known as "social engineering" and why the term is distasteful and rather insulting to a human being which is supposed to live in a free world and having control over his life. In conclusion it doesn't make me an anarchist as you so ignorantly labelled me, since I support laws that keep order in our society.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on November 11, 2012, 08:20:03 PM ---You don't have to give a shit, ultimately I explained to you how some laws are specifically aimed at forcing behaviour change and habits commonly known as "social engineering" and why the term is distasteful and rather insulting to a human being which is supposed to live in a free world and having control over his life. In conclusion it doesn't make me an anarchist as you so ignorantly labelled me, since I support laws that keep order in our society.
--- End quote ---
The kind of freedom you appear to be talking about doesn't exist, AceHigh. It is impossible in our world to make a decision in a vacuum. Any choice you make is always the result of external influence.
The restaurant who sell oversize sodas is just as guilty of "distastefully" trying to force behaviors on its clients as the NYC who ban them. Again people are perfectly capable to buy several small sodas in a restaurant where they don't sell big ones. The difference is that they won't. All NYC are doing is taking an environment which influences people toward self-destructing behaviors and they are modify it to mitigate its negative influence. The restaurant owner is pushing them to hurt themselves and NYC is pushing them to stop hurting themselves and we are supposed to think that NYC are the bad one.
You might find it distasteful to be treated like a puppet but that won't change anything to the fact that you are just a puppet.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version