The bottom of a slippery slope

I'm not going to argue with you on that. I try to be as considerate as possible in a casino where I do most of my smoking. I ask people if they mind or I just find a machine that's away from everyone else. What gets me are the people that choose to sit next to me in a half empty casino, while I'm already lit, and then complain. Body odor,too much perfume/cologne and liquor breath bug the hell out of me and affect my play but I just get up and leave. I dont force my will on others.

Quote: weaselman

Why isn't cocaine legal for the same reason? Or marihuana?

Because they were never legal and widely used in the first place. We're used to them being illegal so we can't compare prohibition to anything. Personally, I'm hugely in favor of legalizing marijuana, and would at least decriminalize cocaine.

Quote: weaselman

The question was if you support those bans (lead paint & asbestos).

Of course. The is a proper role of government to ensure that consumer products are safe.

Quote: weaselman

I said "safe enough in the eyes of government. If it was not safe enough (in their eyes), it should be illegal, unless the government is consciously trying to kill its own people.

That is more of a matter for an ethics class, but everybody knows that a prohibition on cigarettes would just drive the business to the black market. I also think that society turns a blind eye to the enormous casualty count from tobacco, because the victims tend to take older people, saving the government money on Social Security and Medicare, because the victims don't live as long.

Finally, somebody mentioned the seat belt law.

Normally I have a libertarian philosophy, but sometimes you have to look at the lives saved by the inconvenience of putting on the seat belt. I don't have a study to quote, but seat belts have saved thousands, maybe millions of lives. I think it is worth losing a little civil liberties over. Air bags are another story, the cost per saved life is in the millions, which I think is too much.

Also, not wearing a seat belts costs more than just the person in question. If not wearing a seat belt results in a serious injury, and the victim doesn't have cash to pay the hospital bill, you and me wind up paying the cost, either in higher taxes or insurance premiums.

Since seat belts were brought up. What about helmets for motorcycle riders? Here in the lone star state we didn't have a helmet law, then we did have a helmet law, now we don't again, unless you're under, either 18 or 21 I don't recall which(under whichever of those ages stated, you have to wear a helmet by law). And trust me, many choose not to wear their helmets, which I think is pretty stupid.

Quote: Wizard

Of course. The is a proper role of government to ensure that consumer products are safe.

But you said that you did not support a ban on tobacco because you believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt each other. Do you think tobacco is safer than asbestos?

Quote:

That is more of a matter for an ethics class, but everybody knows that a prohibition on cigarettes would just drive the business to the black market.

I don't believe the issue would be as huge as what happened with prohibition. If for nothing else than only because there are far less smokers than drinkers. And most of them know they should not smoke already. Yes, there would be some black market for tobacco. So what? There is already black market for weed.

Quote:

I also think that society turns a blind eye to the enormous casualty count from tobacco, because the victims tend to take older people, saving the government money on Social Security and Medicare, because the victims don't live as long.

Well, with that objective in mind, the government should *mandate* smoking in restaurants, airplanes, offices, even buses and train, not prohibit it :)

Quote:

Normally I have a libertarian philosophy, but sometimes you have to look at the lives saved by the inconvenience of putting on the seat belt. I don't have a study to quote, but seat belts have saved thousands, maybe millions of lives. I think it is worth losing a little civil liberties over.

Do seat belts save more lives than tobacco?

Quote:

Also, not wearing a seat belts costs more than just the person in question. If not wearing a seat belt results in a serious injury, and the victim doesn't have cash to pay the hospital bill, you and me wind up paying the cost, either in higher taxes or insurance premiums.

Fat people definitely hurt us more in this sense (the person injured in a car crash is at least covered by the car insurance).
Would you be in favor of a legislation limiting everyone's daily calorie intake to 1500? How about banning fat people from restaurants?

Quote: gofaster87

I smoke and Im probably in better shape than 75% of you.

It is probably related. One of the effects of smoking is suppressing the appetite. I used to weigh 150 pounds (I am 6" tall) when I smoked. Now, I am about 190, and I gained those 40 within, maybe, six months after I quit.
Funny thing is, if you quit smoking and gain weight, and then star smoking again, that won't make you slim again. If then you quit again, you'll still gain. Etc. The bottom line is - do not quit smoking unless you are sure you are not going to relapse. Quitting, and starting again multiple times makes things worse, not better.

Quote: gofaster87

I smoke and Im probably in better shape than 75% of you.

You're in good shape despite smoking. Some people are functional alcoholics too. And so on, and so forth...

When they start banning cigarettes due to performance enhancement issues with athletes, I'll then be interested.

.....

Quote: gofaster87

I eat like a pig regardless of smoking or not because I'm in the gym 6 days a week.

Yes. That's what I always thought when I smoked - that I ate like a pig :)
Turns out ... well ... I guess I have discovered a whole new meaning of that metaphor after I quit :)

.....

.....

Quote: weaselman

But you said that you did not support a ban on tobacco because you believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt each other. Do you think tobacco is safer than asbestos?

I've never heard of someone moving into a house only to discover that they now have to smoke two packs a day to live there. However, if asbestos were legal, it is possible that you could buy a house and discover it is full of asbestos.

Quote: gofaster87

Now that I think about it, maybe we should ban ourselves from living since we kill each other off everyday.

Starting with the smokers?

Quote: gofaster87

Alcohol leads to many deaths because of drunk driving and I dont hear anyone in an uproar about banning it.

Really? Google "MADD".

Quote: gofaster87

There are plenty of non smoking establishments including areas of the casino.

And about as effective as a non-peeing area of the pool.

.....

The government is not above being hypocritical.

- Smoking isn't banned because the governments need the revenue. If say, cigarettes all of a sudden appeared out of nowhere, and everyone understood the health risks, do you think government would legalize it?
- Alcohol isn't banned because for the vast majority of drinkers, there isn't a problem (same is true for gambling). And at low consumption levels, alcohol is beneficial.
- Yet Marijuana is banned even though for the vast majority of consumers, there isn't a problem and is medicinally beneficial to many. It's banned because of perceptions of it being a gateway drug and government hasn't figured out a way to sell it legally and make money on it.
- Seat belts save lives and is a very minor inconvenience to wear. However, the jury is still out on the safety of infant and toddler child seats, which apparantly doesn't improve mortality rates in vehicle accidents (vs seatbelts) at all.

Quote: weaselman

But you said that you did not support a ban on tobacco because you believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt each other. Do you think tobacco is safer than asbestos?

Here is what I stand for, in order:

1. Freedom to do as you wish, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
2. Government has a proper role to ensure public safety.

About asbestos, other people are being hurt than the person who puts it in. For example, the person who has to remove or repair it.

Quote: weaselman

I don't believe the issue would be as huge as what happened with prohibition. If for nothing else than only because there are far less smokers than drinkers. And most of them know they should not smoke already. Yes, there would be some black market for tobacco. So what? There is already black market for weed.

The degree is the issue. For soft natural drugs, that harm only the user, I oppose prohibition.

Quote: weaselman

Well, with that objective in mind, the government should *mandate* smoking in restaurants, airplanes, offices, even buses and train, not prohibit it :)

That is not an objective, it is just a consequence.

Quote: weaselman

Do seat belts save more lives than tobacco?

I don't know, and don't think it matters.

Quote: weaselman

Fat people definitely hurt us more in this sense (the person injured in a car crash is at least covered by the car insurance).
Would you be in favor of a legislation limiting everyone's daily calorie intake to 1500? How about banning fat people from restaurants?

I would favor efforts at healthier eating in this country. For example, calorie counts on packaging and menus. More of an emphasis on teaching about heath in school. Healthier meals in schools. Still, what outweighs all that is peoples right to do what they wish with their body. I have no right to forbid you from eating what you wish.

Quote: gofaster87

I dont smoke when I'm working and my appetite doesn't change.

I did not notice any changes in my appetite since I quit smoking actually. I thought that my weight gain (and not just mine, it's very common to gain weight when you quit) was due to smoking somehow affecting metabolism. But several doctors I chatted with on this topic have told me, that there are no (known) effects of smoking on metabolism, but appetite suppression is very well known, researched and documented. Apparently, it is quite subtle, so you don't easily notice it.

P.S. 8K calories a day is brutal. For your sake, I hope you are exaggerating :)

Here in California, calories are labelled pretty much everywhere and it's steered away from alot of choices I would have otherwise chosen, so I support publishing the nutritional content in restaurants. It's informational and provides a good way to discriminate among meal choices. Because I basically am forced to eat out from Sundays to Thursday, it's very helpful.

I don't support the cops coming along and saying, "you can't provide that to your customers because it's too fattening". However, that said, there are plenty of trans-fat and sodium bans going on in the country. That's the slippery slope. Perhaps there will be a law in place stating that you can't consume more than 1,200 calories at a meal; that would be wrong. However, adding a fat "tax" for these meals would be a way to curb consumption of these meals. That wouldn't be wrong in my opinion (though I don't support it either).

I think it's generally wrong to establish a level of bureaucracy to raise revenue to essentially pay themselves while providing only marginal "good" to the masses. For example, I support electronic tolls over toll booth operators.

Quote: Wizard

About asbestos, other people are being hurt than the person who puts it in. For example, the person who has to remove or repair it.

Nobody has to do it. You can always just refuse.

Quote:

The degree is the issue. For soft natural drugs, that harm only the user, I oppose prohibition.

Like you say in other cases, other people get hurt too. Second hand smokers. Children of smoking women.
Tax payers, who need to pick up the medical bills for poor cancer patients. The families of people who get strokes at young age because of smoking.

Quote:

That is not an objective, it is just a consequence.

I thought you were quoting it as one of the reasons the government won't do away with smoking.

Quote:

I don't know, and don't think it matters.

It's just that you oppose prohibition of one, but not the enforcement of the other. I am looking for a rationale in that position.

Quote:

I would favor efforts at healthier eating in this country. For example, calorie counts on packaging and menus.More of an emphasis on teaching about heath in school. Healthier meals in schools. Still, what outweighs all that is peoples right to do what they wish with their body. I have no right to forbid you from eating what you wish.

This is different. Saying "smoking kills" on a pack of cigarettes would be equivalent to this.
We are talking about prohibitive actions. If unhealthy eating hurts other people besides the eater, according to your earlier statements, it should be prohibited, like smoking on a plane or driving without seat belts.
How is it that you think you have no right to forbid me from eating what I wish, but still can exercise control over my riding in my own car?

Quote: boymimbo

- Yet Marijuana is banned even though for the vast majority of consumers, there isn't a problem and is medicinally beneficial to many. It's banned because of perceptions of it being a gateway drug and government hasn't figured out a way to sell it legally and make money on it.

What's wrong with government making money on it the same way it makes money on tobacco?
I tend to agree with the "gateway drug" statement, although I think, it only is a gateway drug because it is illegal, so in the mind of the consumer, the difference between weed and, say crystal meth, is minimal - if I am already doing the former, could as well try the latter. If weed was legal, this perception would be significantly different. Besides, blackmarket weed sometimes comes tainted with crystal meth or some other bad substance than can cause addiction, this would not be an issue anymore if weed was being sold legally under strict government control.

Quote: boymimbo

...Yet Marijuana is banned even though for the vast majority of consumers, there isn't a problem and is medicinally beneficial to many. It's banned because of perceptions of it being a gateway drug and government hasn't figured out a way to sell it legally and make money on it.

This is the one issue I hear often, and it kind of makes me smile like an idiot. For $20 you get enough weed to fill 3-5 king sized cigarettes. Say it's 5. That's $80 a pack or $800 a carton, prices people already readily pay everyday. Weed grows, well, like a weed. In any viable soil, which excludes only maybe the Vegas/Arizona type places, give it water and sun and viola. Seeds are basically free or you can clone one same as a lilac tree or rose bush. The only cost is minimum wage type labor, basically a water boy. With almost no overhead, very little cost of production and a potential profit of hundereds of dollars PER PLANT, the gov can't find a way to make money? I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

Quote: weaselman

What's wrong with government making money on it the same way it makes money on tobacco?
I tend to agree with the "gateway drug" statement, although I think, it only is a gateway drug because it is illegal, so in the mind of the consumer, the difference between weed and, say crystal meth, is minimal - if I am already doing the former, could as well try the latter. If weed was legal, this perception would be significantly different. Besides, blackmarket weed sometimes comes tainted with crystal meth or some other bad substance than can cause addiction, this would not be an issue anymore if weed was being sold legally under strict government control.

The "gateway" idea is just more propaganda. While it maybe partially true, by that logic, beer, cigs and energy drinks should also be prohibited. Could even throw sugar in with it, IMO. I do agree with your blackmarket issues, though. Same as the bootleggers making blindness inducing swill, weed sometimes comes in tainted with pesticides, or dealers do some terrible things to increase potency (adding drugs, lacing with ammonia). Gov control, I would think, would eliminate that. As a former user, I'd still probably not start partaking if it became legal. But I'd sure like the -illion dollars in extra tax revenue and removal of simple stoners from our police/correction burden.

Quote: SOOPOO

Smoking is likely worse for you than being moderately overweight. But unless you are seated near a lardo on a plane, on obese person's problems do not affect me.

Yes they do: they cost you money. More than zero of your tax dollars are going toward treating obesity in some form or another.

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2011-01-12-obesity-costs-300-bilion_N.htm

I think some of the arguments are getting into the territory similar to arguing why we decide 18 or 21 year olds are either too old or too young.

Once you decide that the age limits are arbitrary, you can throw up your hands and declare that you can't have an age limit. Because you can keep digging at that well, that some 17 year old can do this, and even some 16 so why do we keep them from doing this or that..

Is it really all or nothing proposition for restrictions because you can always point out that one thing is only slightly worse than another?

If you want to live in a garbage filled, chemical laden waste piles because you can't find arguments to restrict anything -- well, yuck.

Quote: MathExtremist

Yes they do: they cost you money. More than zero of your tax dollars are going toward treating obesity in some form or another.

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2011-01-12-obesity-costs-300-bilion_N.htm

Did you actually read the article you referenced?

Of course -- it was about the societal costs of obesity. But taxes are a direct extension of societal costs: some of your money does indeed go to Medicare, and some of Medicare goes to treating obesity. My point was that it's shortsighted to think that someone else's actions don't affect you in a society where we are all connected by an overarching government, even if it doesn't seem like they do. Butterfly in Japan and all. It's like the argument that building codes aren't important because the only person you hurt if your house falls down is you. We know that's not true.

A primary purpose of government is to restrict individual behavior for the benefit of the collective society. That includes all taxes -- a tax is a restriction on your ability to keep your money. The slippery slope is always going to be where to draw the line between individual liberty and public welfare, but most sensible people agree that the line shouldn't be at "100% individual liberty and no government whatsoever".

Quote: MathExtremist

Of course -- it was about the societal costs of obesity...

OK. I'll agree with all of that.

It could also be argued that the smokers, obese, etc, contribute to the growth of society. Smokers enable farming and cigarette manufacturing. The obese enable MacDonalds to have over X billion served. Both groups generate lots of revenue for the medical industry. Invest in MacDonalds and Merrik and encourage the obese. Invest in RJ Renolds and encourage the smokers.

Quote: MathExtremist

A primary purpose of government is to restrict individual behavior for the benefit of the collective society.

No, that's a primary purpose of socialist governments.

Quote:

The slippery slope is always going to be where to draw the line between individual liberty and public welfare, but most sensible people agree that the line shouldn't be at "100% individual liberty and no government whatsoever".

The purpose of a liberal (in the classic sense) government is to protect teh rights of the governed, from whom it obtains the consent to govern at all. And yes, that requires restrictions on liberyt, but only a few. You need a police force, at all levels, you need courts, jails, prisons, and you need armed forces. The thing in order to work, government has to have a monopoly on the use of force. And that means limiting individual liberties.

But of course modern governments have gone a lot further than that. Now government force is sued to win elections. Money taken, forcibly, from one person is given to another more likely to vote for you or your party. That's what's wrong these days, and why debt just keeps mounting up. There ins't enough taxable income to go around.

Quote: weaselman

It's just that you oppose prohibition of one, but not the enforcement of the other. I am looking for a rationale in that position.

In all issues you have to look at the pros and cons. I'm not dogmatic and in some cases would favor curbing some liberty in favor of the greater public good. Seat belt laws, for example. I generally oppose candidates that make hard and fast statements like "Read my lips, no new taxes." I'm a pragmatist and believe there is a common sense middle ground to most things.

In the case of cigarettes, I think the pros of legalization outweigh the cons. In the case of asbestos, I favor I think the cons win.