New Year Brings New Laws

[Magic 8-Ball]

I found the warnings in Hong Kong interesting. Instead of the small-print warning from the Surgeon General that we have, on side of a carton of cigarettes simply had written in large type "SMOKING KILLS".

Japan should try that.

[Lief 🗽]

This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

Government protecting me scares me.....

It should be the opposite. I'd be scared if the government were not protecting me in a number of ways every single day (through ensuring that the water coming out of my tap is clean and safe, the air I breathe is healthy, there are police and firefighters nearby in case of emergency, places of work are made safe through regulations, etc.). It's exactly the same with these "nanny state" laws: I shouldn't have to fear some idiot texting on his phone running into me while I'm crossing the street or a cost-cutting restaurateur serving me food that is unhealthy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh Lief I missed you

[Scam of God]

This has become, all the often, all the substance your ilk has been capable of giving. Substance, please. Issues, please. Details, please. Not more of your ideological masturbation and cute reality-impervious one liners. I want facts.

It'd have been nice had you kept to this opinion in my thread on social democracy.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

Government protecting me scares me.....

It should be the opposite. I'd be scared if the government were not protecting me in a number of ways every single day (through ensuring that the water coming out of my tap is clean and safe, the air I breathe is healthy, there are police and firefighters nearby in case of emergency, places of work are made safe through regulations, etc.). It's exactly the same with these "nanny state" laws: I shouldn't have to fear some idiot texting on his phone running into me while I'm crossing the street or a cost-cutting restaurateur serving me food that is unhealthy.

Well, sure, you're a leaping screaming nanny-state lib, I'd expect nothing less. 

[Scam of God]

This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

Government protecting me scares me.....

It should be the opposite. I'd be scared if the government were not protecting me in a number of ways every single day (through ensuring that the water coming out of my tap is clean and safe, the air I breathe is healthy, there are police and firefighters nearby in case of emergency, places of work are made safe through regulations, etc.). It's exactly the same with these "nanny state" laws: I shouldn't have to fear some idiot texting on his phone running into me while I'm crossing the street or a cost-cutting restaurateur serving me food that is unhealthy.

Well, sure, you're a leaping screaming nanny-state lib, I'd expect nothing less. 

It's hardly like you're consistent, either.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

Government protecting me scares me.....

It should be the opposite. I'd be scared if the government were not protecting me in a number of ways every single day (through ensuring that the water coming out of my tap is clean and safe, the air I breathe is healthy, there are police and firefighters nearby in case of emergency, places of work are made safe through regulations, etc.). It's exactly the same with these "nanny state" laws: I shouldn't have to fear some idiot texting on his phone running into me while I'm crossing the street or a cost-cutting restaurateur serving me food that is unhealthy.

Well, sure, you're a leaping screaming nanny-state lib, I'd expect nothing less. 

It's hardly like you're consistent, either.

I'm totally consistent - I know exactly what I believe (You just don't like it)........Lief is consistent too....

[Scam of God]

This way we can protect the people and let the idiots have their trans fats.

Government protecting me scares me.....

It should be the opposite. I'd be scared if the government were not protecting me in a number of ways every single day (through ensuring that the water coming out of my tap is clean and safe, the air I breathe is healthy, there are police and firefighters nearby in case of emergency, places of work are made safe through regulations, etc.). It's exactly the same with these "nanny state" laws: I shouldn't have to fear some idiot texting on his phone running into me while I'm crossing the street or a cost-cutting restaurateur serving me food that is unhealthy.

Well, sure, you're a leaping screaming nanny-state lib, I'd expect nothing less. 

It's hardly like you're consistent, either.

I'm totally consistent - I know exactly what I believe (You just don't like it)........Lief is consistent too....

You don't believe in anything. Your entire political mindset centers around "DURR MUST DEFEAT LIBS DURR *DROOLS*", to the point that, if I point out a single misconceived Statist policy by Saint Ronnie, you will vociferously defend him, even at the long-term expense of your so-called "ideology".

[12th Doctor]

I found the warnings in Hong Kong interesting. Instead of the small-print warning from the Surgeon General that we have, on side of a carton of cigarettes simply had written in large type "SMOKING KILLS".

LOL! And I bet it's more effective.

Nope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6768990/Cigarette-pack-health-warnings-could-encourage-people-to-keep-smoking.html

In fact, it worked so poorly, that Britain is now resorting to images that people would try to censure if they were on TV or in a video game...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/01/britain.cigarettes.warnings/?eref=rss_health

This has been tried all over the world, and has failed each time... PDF go to page 7

http://tobaccofreekids.org/pressoffice/hammond0207.pdf

And now the Obama Administration is talking about enforcing this idiocy here.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The US has basically the highest tobacco consumption rate in the developed world, I'm not saying the warnings are the only reason for that, but lax policy in general is. I like Sweden, where I think all tobacco advertising is banned, including signs in stores.

I think the best policy overall though would be just to adopt federal cigarette taxes comparable to NYC or Canada.

[Mechaman]

The US has basically the highest tobacco consumption rate in the developed world, I'm not saying the warnings are the only reason for that, but lax policy in general is. I like Sweden, where I think all tobacco advertising is banned, including signs in stores.

I think the best policy overall though would be just to adopt federal cigarette taxes comparable to NYC or Canada.

Bans on advertising are unconstitutional.

[12th Doctor]

The US has basically the highest tobacco consumption rate in the developed world, I'm not saying the warnings are the only reason for that, but lax policy in general is. I like Sweden, where I think all tobacco advertising is banned, including signs in stores.

I think the best policy overall though would be just to adopt federal cigarette taxes comparable to NYC or Canada.

Or, we could just quite the hype, be honest about the actual effects of smoking... which is to say that it is not guaranteed to kill you and everyone around you, let people make their own choices, and then move onto bigger problems.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The trend on smoking is quite obvious. Compare now to two decades ago. It used to be you had to specifically request a non-smoking section in a restaurant, now smokers should be considered lucky if the restaurant even offers a smoking section. Smoking used to be allowed on airplanes. College dorms used to allow smoking, or at least had smoking and non-smoking floors, now standard is to ban all in-dorm smoking (I remember my freshman year hearing that there was a total four smoking floors last year, now there were none.) Some college campuses I've read about have gone so far to ban ALL smoking on campus. Workplaces and offices used to generally allow smoking, now that is basically unheard of. Tobacco has gotten socially unacceptable to the extreme, pot is probably now more acceptable.

Actually at the house I used to live in at the beginning of 2008, my roommates allowed anyone over to smoke pot anywhere at any time. Any smoking a cigarette had to go outside or to the garage.

Side note: The police have been known to patrol my work's parking lot and ticket anyone who steps within 25 feet of the building before extinguishing their cigarette even by an inch. Now of course you have to put out your cigarette before leaving your car, even holding a lit cigarette in a parking lot is subject to a fine.

[12th Doctor]

The trend on smoking is quite obvious. Compare now to two decades ago. It used to be you had to specifically request a non-smoking section in a restaurant, now smokers should be considered lucky if the restaurant even offers a smoking section. Smoking used to be allowed on airplanes. College dorms used to allow smoking, or at least had smoking and non-smoking floors, now standard is to ban all in-dorm smoking (I remember my freshman year hearing that there was a total four smoking floors last year, now there were none.) Some college campuses I've read about have gone so far to ban ALL smoking on campus. Workplaces and offices used to generally allow smoking, now that is basically unheard of. Tobacco has gotten socially unacceptable to the extreme, pot is probably now more acceptable.

Actually at the house I used to live in at the beginning of 2008, my roommates allowed anyone over to smoke pot anywhere at any time. Any smoking a cigarette had to go outside or to the garage.

Side note: The police have been known to patrol my work's parking lot and ticket anyone who steps within 25 feet of the building before extinguishing their cigarette even by an inch. Now of course you have to put out your cigarette before leaving your car, even holding a lit cigarette in a parking lot is subject to a fine.

First, that's not surprising... prudes, granny-know's-bests, soccer-moms, and their friend big brother government have stigmatized smokers... tell me something I don't know.

Second, it's sad that you approve of that kind of extreme regulation... especially given your attitude toward laws you don't like.

Third, I have to refrain from laughing in your face if you really think it has become that socially unacceptable.  Smoking goes on everywhere I go, and other than the occasional, loudly coughing, obnoxious jackass no one seems to notice.

[muon2]

I'd like to jump in on one of the specific items from the original post.

From Texting to Tanning, New Year Brings New Laws

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I look at the issue texting while driving, I think there are a number of specific points to be weighed. First is whether the state should take a position, and in this case there is no constitutional right to drive, so the state may provide for a common set of regulations. For those who would rather have no state at all, I would point out that if the roads were private, the owners would establish their own rules for operating vehicles. Since the roads are public, the public through the legislative process can make its set of rules.

The next question is whether the change in regulation is timely. Texting is based on new technology that would not have been anticipated in existing driving regulations. It seems foolish to act like laws should never change when technology changes the facts that would have guided the law in the first place. The world changes, and some regulations should go away and others added to reflect those changes.

The last question is whether the regulation would in fact improve safety. In the case of texting while driving, there has been an increasing body of evidence that there is a significant risk of driving impairment since often both hand and eyes leave the task of driving. There are also a mounting number of accidents where the primary cause was attributed to texting. I don't think that this falls in the category of regulations that only affect individual liberty, since impaired driving impacts other users of the roads. Individual liberty has limits when it would adversely affect the life or liberty of another person.

Though the law to ban texting while driving does provide new restrictions on drivers, I think that the balance of factors weighs in its favor.