NY passes same sex marriage

[_Bond James Bond]

Unfortunately for those of us against gay marriage, the people of New York elected liberals mainly for economic reasons and wound up with the rest of the liberal agenda as well.

Feel the frustration of those who elected Republican majorities to Congress and state legislatures and instead of jobs bills have gotten a slew of draconian abortion legislation.

They have nobody to blame but themselves if they were against gay marriage. It's one thing for a court to impose it, but when the elected representatives approve of it then the system worked as it was supposed to work.

Amen.

[_EAllusion]

Harm -

You are switching your arguments based on my response to them. When I respond to your argument that smoking bans in private establishments are justified based on second-hand smoke dangers by pointing out chewing tobacco bans don't even entail second hand smoke, you switch to insurance premium rates. When I point out that this should be an issue that should affect what people do in their own home just the same, you switch back to second-hand smoke dangers again. There's responding to this muddled argumentation but to point out you can't stay on point.

Asserting that science is somehow in favor of banning people's choice to smoke at private businesses is insulting. What you mean is that there is some scientifically established risk in breathing in second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces, but that doesn't tell us the proper legal policy response.

As for this argument you've offered a couple of times:

Actually, in my world, I work to protect the public from a known carcinogen, just like I would work to protect them from nuclear radiation or diseased meat. Unless you're saying that nuclear power plants should be able to contaminate the air and water supply with impunity? And cattle with mad cow disease have just as much right to be in your grocery store as any other cow?

I make a distinction between risks people can reasonably be said to voluntarily take on for themselves, such as walking into a business that allows smokers, from involuntary risks like negative externalities from polluting businesses. I also make a distinction between what happens within privately owned property and what happens to publicly owned goods, such as the air or water supply.

[_harmony]

Harm -

You are switching your arguments based on my response to them. When I respond to your argument that smoking bans in private establishments are justified based on second-hand smoke dangers by pointing out chewing tobacco bans don't even entail second hand smoke, you switch to insurance premium rates. When I point out that this should be an issue that should affect what people do in their own home just the same, you switch back to second-hand smoke dangers again. There's responding to this muddled argumentation but to point out you can't stay on point.

I don't stay on your point? So? I have my own point(s). There's more than one point to tobacco vs public health. Of course it's muddled! Good grief, because state law requires that state retirement funds be invested in the highest rewarding investments, those funds are invested in Big Tobacco stocks! The whole issue is murky, yet the public uses it's voice (the ballot box) over and over again, requiring clean indoor air.

I'm still not seeing the public health issue that's tied to gay marriage, though. And the public is muddled about that too.

Asserting that science is somehow in favor of banning people's choice to smoke at private businesses is insulting.

Why? There is no such thing as a private "business". If there was, those so-called private businesses would still be discriminating against women and blacks.

The only place that is private is the home, and even then, when compelled by circumstances, that is an illusion too.

What you mean is that there is some scientifically established risk in breathing in second-hand smoke in enclosed spaces, but that doesn't tell us the proper legal policy response.

Protect the public, is the proper legal policy response.

[_EAllusion]

Protect the public (from their own choices), is the proper legal policy response.

Fixed.

I think this conversation is plenty of illustration of my initial point to Cal.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Fixed.

I think this conversation is plenty of illustration of my initial point to Cal.

It takes a peculiar kind of optimism to think that people don't need to be "protected from their own choices" to at least some degree. Only in America.

[_JohnStuartMill]

I make a distinction between risks people can reasonably be said to voluntarily take on for themselves, such as walking into a business that allows smokers, from involuntary risks like negative externalities from polluting businesses.

When can people be reasonably said to "voluntarily" take on risks? If I want to cross the bridge, but only because I'm ignorant of its true danger, can you restrain me from running across it?

If people act irrationally in predictable ways, it's hard to say they're acting voluntarily; a better characterization would be that they're compelled by a non-human force. If we had a bright-line rule saying we couldn't have any laws for people's self-protection, we'd gain a little bit of freedom, but we'd lose a lot of lives and limbs unnecessarily.

[_EAllusion]

When can people be reasonably said to "voluntarily" take on risks? If I want to cross the bridge, but only because I'm ignorant of its true danger, can you restrain me from running across it?

I think the dangers of second-hand smoke and the obviousness of its presence are clear enough that we can hold a presumption of informed risk when people walk into privately owned property - be it a business or a home - and decide to stay. This isn't asbestos in the walls. Of course there will be people ignorant of the risk, either because they over or underestimate it, but I don't see why the liberty of all should be crushed by the ignorance of few.

[_EAllusion]

It takes a peculiar kind of optimism to think that people don't need to be "protected from their own choices" to at least some degree. Only in America.

I'm hardpressed to find a moral justification for nearly any instance of paternalism in the kind circumstances being talked about. I'm not sure why this is optimistic. I mean, I know why you are saying that. I just don't see the fact that some people will make inevitably bad risk/benefit choices for themselves as a clear justification for stripping away people's right to choose. It is the ability of people pursue experiments in the pursuit of happiness as they see fit that maximizes the best chance for general fulfillment in the first place.

I do like the symmetry of where this discussion went vs. my initial examples. Harm is essentially advocating arguments that favor taking the drug war to cigarettes too. Privatized morality indeed.

[_CaliforniaKid]

EAllusion,

1) I don't see how asking people to step outside before they light up a cigarette is an abominable breach of liberty that interferes with people's pursuit of happiness.
2) I also don't think awareness of the risks of secondhand smoke is quite as universal as you seem to think it is. Frankly, most people are dumber than you think they are. The only reason there's any awareness at all is the vigorous "paternalistic" advertising campaign a few years back.
3) Even when people are aware of the risks, they can't and don't want to think about them all the time. Generally speaking, people would prefer not to have to engage in market activism to be safe in their favorite restaurant. That's presumably why their response to increased awareness of the risks has been to pass legislation limiting smoking in private establishments.

As far as I'm concerned, limiting smoking in private establishments is a fair way of balancing liberty and health, and has very little to do with the morality of smoking in the sectarian, deontological sense.

Peace,

-Chris

[_JohnStuartMill]

When can people be reasonably said to "voluntarily" take on risks? If I want to cross the bridge, but only because I'm ignorant of its true danger, can you restrain me from running across it?

I think the dangers of second-hand smoke and the obviousness of its presence are clear enough that we can hold a presumption of informed risk when people walk into privately owned property - be it a business or a home - and decide to stay. This isn't asbestos in the walls. Of course there will be people ignorant of the risk, either because they over or underestimate it, but I don't see why the liberty of all should be crushed by the ignorance of few.

Businesses are privately owned, yes, but they can have a quasi-public function as well, which is why we don't let some businesses refuse service to members of protected classes.

I actually agree that the smoking ban in New York City is ridiculous -- the market for restaurants is so robust and competitive that it's hard to imagine someone getting dragged into one against their better inclinations. But what about rural areas, where the only reasonable place to have a small business meeting is a nearby restaurant? There's a kind of coercion in that scenario, and this quasi-coercion runs a spectrum to which your bright-line rule is blind.