[FoRK] Welcome to the American Totality. You've been warned.

Lawnun <lawnun at gmail.com> on Mon Feb 4 12:34:48 PST 2008

On Feb 4, 2008 2:46 PM, Kevin Elliott <k-elliott at wiu.edu> wrote:

>
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Lawnun wrote:
> >
> >>> Jeff: As far as your original statement re: smoking -- I don't
> >>> think it
> >> follows.  As Stephen said, regulation of smoking in food/business
> >> establishments regulates a public health concern that impacts
> >> everyone --
> >> both smokers and non-smokers alike.
>
> Public health is a big slice of bullshit served up to the American
> people.  If I need a nanny I'll hire one.
>

Using your nanny-state argument (of which I heartily disagree in the case of
smoking), the nanny isn't targeting your health concerns insamuch as
protecting mine (i.e. the non-smoker).  Its my honest to god belief that
smokers find these rules so horribly nanny-statish principally because many
(but by no means all) of them have been such vocal assholes about respecting
the likes of others in the past. I equate smoking/drinking laws less with
public health in all honesty, and more with laws against nuisance, assault
(in the strict 'threat' sense of the term), and other rules against bad
public behavior that affect others.

After all, if everyone was civilized about their behavior and their effect
on others, I'd wager the laws wouldn't exist. OR perhaps I'm being a bit
idealistic.


> >> Appropos of nothing -- I'm always blown away with arguments made
> >> from the
> >> staunch personal liberties camp re: the smoking ban.  Do the folks
> >> who
> >> viscerally object to smoking regulation in restaurants also feel
> >> that state
> >> regulation of drunken driving is also abhorrent ?
> >
> > For my part, yes --- I do to some degree find drunk driving
> > regulations abhorrent.
>
> Same here.  If a jackass falls asleep at the wheel because he's tired
> why is he somehow superior to someone who does it because he's tired?
>

I'm guessing you meant drunk.  In most cases, the state punishes drivers who
fall asleep while tired OR drunk the same if they cause injury / death to
another (E.g., reckless driving, involuntary manslaughter).  I do believe
that some states _may_ add an additional penalty for recklessness while
consuming an alcoholic beverage though.

It's not a superiority thing; in all honesty, I'd chalk up the enhanced laws
(where applicable) to robust efforts on the part of organizations like
MAAD.  Set yourself up a anti-drowsy org and you'll likely get the same
results.


> And If someone is driving safely, why should it be legal to set up a
> drag net and make everyone blow in a tube to see if their breathe
> smells like liquor.  Target things that are _WRONG_.  Don't target
> things that sometime lead to wrong.


I actually agree that roadside breath tests are silly.  IMHO, its lazy
police work to stop everyone going down the road, when cops could (and
should) just target the folks who are genuinely driving recklessly.

More information about the FoRK mailing list