Alright, this is a little too much from me... (Smoking ban with kids in car)

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No. They are.

I stand by my point. Gov'ts role in morality should be resisted.

Didn't the US government (could just be the Californian one) go against the majority and say that interracial couples have the right to marry. Also, I'm vague on the subject but did the same happen for women's right to vote?

There are times the government has to step in and protect the minority or make sure everyone has the same universal rights and freedoms, and it could be against popular opinion.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No. They are.

I stand by my point. Gov'ts role in morality should be resisted.

You are still being too vague

Are you saying that the government shouldn’t have the right to convict criminals?

[MelBridgeman]

We have universal health care in Canada, which we all pay for, the goverment certainly should do its part in trying to curb the costs of health care and one way, right or wrong is too...
1. tax the hell of smokes
2. ban smoking in certain areas.
Since smoking related afflictions are a huge cost to the health care system. Also things like banning trans fats...face it, there is still a segment of the population that don't make good choices for many reasons....

[onetwo_threefour]

But wait,

This means that the kids won't be able to sue their parents and tobacco companies for millions when they're older and cancerous....

What will the products liability lawyers do with themselves?

BTW not all fat people are a weight on the health care system (get it?) I know lots of over wieght people who never go to the doctor, and live fairly healthily, except that they cary 40-50 lbs extra.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by The Ditch

Didn't the US government (could just be the Californian one) go against the majority and say that interracial couples have the right to marry. Also, I'm vague on the subject but did the same happen for women's right to vote?

Exactly my point. Gender and racial laws were all based on what the gov't perceives as morality (as defined by the majority), and were wrong. Surely someone stood up and said "maybe we don't have the right to do this" and was shouted down by everyone else for their heresy.

I think anti-smoking sentiment is worthwhile and righteous. If I was in power, I would probably vote in favour of the law. However, the fact that we all agree this is wrong does not necessarily mean that we have the right to legislate it.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

We have universal health care in Canada, which we all pay for, the goverment certainly should do its part in trying to curb the costs of health care and one way, right or wrong is too...
1. tax the hell of smokes
2. ban smoking in certain areas.
Since smoking related afflictions are a huge cost to the health care system. Also things like banning trans fats...face it, there is still a segment of the population that don't make good choices for many reasons....

1. They do
2. They have

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

Is it wrong when the government convicts a killer?

Originally Posted by Gozer

No.

Originally Posted by J pold

Are they not imposing on the morality of the situation?

Originally Posted by Gozer

They are.

Originally Posted by J pold

Are you saying that the government shouldn’t have the right to convict criminals?

No.

Originally Posted by J pold

You are still being too vague

You want me to give you and if-and-only-if answer that you can pin down with logic.
I don't have one.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Exactly my point. Gender and racial laws were all based on what the gov't perceives as morality (as defined by the majority), and were wrong. Surely someone stood up and said "maybe we don't have the right to do this" and was shouted down by everyone else for their heresy.

I think anti-smoking sentiment is worthwhile and righteous. If I was in power, I would probably vote in favour of the law. However, the fact that we all agree this is wrong does not necessarily mean that we have the right to legislate it.

What? Isn’t this the entity of democracy?

Issues are put a public vote and the majority vote prevails?

In a democracy the government represents the people so what the government perceives as morality is what its people perceives to be moral

Or else the powers at be wouldn’t remain in power very long

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

What? Isn’t this the entity of democracy?

Issues are put a public vote and the majority vote prevails?

In a democracy the government represents the people so what the government perceives as morality is what its people perceives to be moral

Or else the powers at be wouldn’t remain in power very long

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.

Democracy as we know it is limited by a Constitution or Bill of Rights because the will of the majority is often dangerous.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No.



You want me to give you and if-and-only-if answer that you can pin down with logic.
I don't have one.

Where do you draw the line than? Earlier on you said the government imposing morality is wrong

But it’s OK to convict criminals even though the government is clearly imposing on morality

So your argument falls apart at its roots

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Democracy as we know it is limited by a Constitution or Bill of Rights because the will of the majority is often dangerous.

If the majority is so dangerous who makes the decisions for a country?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Reaper

If smokers simply just died due to cancer as if it were a "times up, you're finished" manner then I'd see reason in the arguement. However, smokers can live without getting cancer but still having a multitude of conditions which can linger on for decades.

I agree in a sense, but not really. Lets consider that smokers as opposed to overweight people:

- Can still work physically intensive jobs, such as construction or oil for the vast majority of thier working career. I would argue the smoker who is not overweight is a more productive member of our society as measured purley on their contribution to the gross-domestic product.

- Can manage to work through their problem of withdrawl (if only temporarily as circumstances demand, such as air travel). There is no ignoring being fat.

- Do not require special seating or take up excessive bus/ctrain room.

- Smell better. I'll take ass smoke smell over sweatty fatty ass smell ANY day.

- Don't generally complain about being smokers. I've heard many more complainers about being fat and how the world hates them.

- Do not attribute any related health problems from smoking to something else. Fat people seem to come up with every excuse they can for their health problems that are in-fact directly a cause of being fat. Stress is the most common "excuse"...

Lastly, people have been smoking things since the dawn of man. Being fat to the point that people are in 2008 is a phenomenon less than 50 years old.

-

[Traditional_Ale]

EDIT: Double post.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

Where do you draw the line than?

I draw the line at telling a bar owner what clientele he may target.

I draw the line at telling a person what legal products he may or may not smoke in his own home.

I do not draw the line at telling a person they may not smoke in a car with the windows rolled up, but I do not believe the gov't may draw the line as flippantly as I. That is the point I am trying to make.

Originally Posted by J pold

So your argument falls apart at its roots

I volunteered that I do not have an air tight argument, you did not need to prove it to me. If you hit me up with enough hypotheticals I assure you that you would find other issues that I believe do not have black-and-white all-encompassing answers.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by J pold

If the majority is so dangerous who makes the decisions for a country?

The majority, within the limits of the Bill of Rights.

You're being obtuse.

Drop the Aristotle act and contribute to the conversation.

[habernac]

anyone stupid and selfish enough to smoke in a vehicle with anyone else in it deserves a ticket.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by J pold

Where do you draw the line than? Earlier on you said the government imposing morality is wrong

But it’s OK to convict criminals even though the government is clearly imposing on morality

So your argument falls apart at its roots

When someone is murdered, rights have been violated. Morals are not involved, only rights.

[jayswin]

Do es anyone else think we will look back on this in 20 years and laugh the way we do now about other "rights" smokers had?

Remember when there was Doctors who smoked in their office, and certain brands of cig's were endorsed by Doctors'? Now we laugh and say "God, I can't believe people thought that was normal, acceptable behavior back then"

..or when smoking ni Airplanes was normal practice?...and now we say "what, I couldn't imagine being stuck in a plane for 5 hours with smoke all around me, they catually allowe that back then?"

I truley believe in twenty years, we will look back and say "oh my god, people were legally allowed to smoke in their cars with their children present?, and there were parents stupid enough to do this? Were they trying to ensure their kid would grow up and get cancer?"

or "Wow, they had bars that were full of people smoking back then? That's insane, could you imagine the health risks associated with that, and man people must have smelled like ass when they left those bars, lol. Man people sure were stupider back then"

I guess I just don't understand smokers. I realize it's an addiction, but can't they just admit how brutal it is and move on. It feels like everytime I have an argument with a smoker, they have some stupid justification for everything, and if you get them backed into a corner, they just hit you with "yeah, well, it's my right, no one can tell me how to live"

I personally dream of a world were smokers have no rights (in terms of smoking), where they can't smoke in their car with kids persent (because that's stupid), where they can't smoke in their own house with kids present (because that's stupid), where they can't smoke anywhere near people who don't smoke in public, where they just have smokers cages (like the one at the airport) where all the smokers are hearded in, and can inhale their smoke together.

Smokers will say this is the most ridiculous thing they've ever heard, but I truley believe we won't be far off from this in 30 to 40 years, and smokers will still be complaining about every little thing that's taken away from them along the way, until one day, when everyone will look back at this century and say "wow, they had sticks full of crap that you inhaled into your body, by lighting it on fire, and leting smoke go down your lungs?.... and a larghe percentage of the population actually did this?...and you could buy them at conveniance stores? what the hell was wrong with the world back then.?

Sorry for the offending rant, but when you see people die at an early age, due to smoking, it just hits too close to home.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by habernac

anyone stupid and selfish enough to smoke in a vehicle with anyone else in it deserves a ticket.

Exactly, I don't even know why this an argument. Smoking in a car with children present? That's just stupid and should be a crime, smokers are the only one's who would try and justify that as a right.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by badnarik

When someone is murdered, rights have been violated. Morals are not involved, only rights.

That's an evasion, Murder is culpable homicide (i.e. a moral judgment) by simply using the term murder you incorporate a moral basis.


The question of whether euthanasia is culpable or non-culpable homicide is a perfect example. If you call it murder you are making a moral statement. If you call it mercy killing, you are also making a moral statement.