desh | (no subject)

(no subject)

After long delay, Philadelphia city council suddenly passes smoking ban legislation

I practically jumped out of bed when I heard the news. Finally! Assuming the mayor signs the bill (and smart money is that he will), then starting in 2007 I'll be able to go out with my friends without feeling sick for the rest of the day! Congrats to city council for doing the right thing, and congrats to Michael Nutter for finally getting this through, and probably earning a few thousand votes for mayor at the same time.

I know some of you disagree with this, or think it makes me a bad liberal or something. And you're probably right, but dammit, I just want to be able to go out at night without spending the whole time counting the minutes until I can jump in the shower. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

In my mind, liberal values grant individuals and businesses a certain amount of personal rights. The right to have an abortion if that decision agrees with their own values. The right to serve alcohol in their restaurants even if it may go against the religious value system of others.

A restaurant should likewise also have the right to allow smoking on the premise. The owner is sure to be aware that this may decrease business to his restaurant by people who are bothered by secondhand smoke, but the proprieter should have the right to make that decision, it shouldn't be up to the state to regulate.

The state doesn't regulate unhealthy food, at most it requires that food state its ingredients and relevant health values. Packs of cigarettes already have health warnings on them. If the state required restaurants where smoking was permitted to post a sign on the door stating that the restaurant had a smoking section, fine. McDonald's has all the calories/saturated fat/etcetera tables posted and available for customers as well. But no one's prohibiting McDonald's from serving a super value meal that contains more calories, in one fell swoop, than the daily recommended total for grown men.

You said that you support these sorts of governmental interventions. Do you really want the government to start intervening on your fast food menu? Also at nicer restaurants? What about loud concerts, those can be dangerous, should the government prohibit music at outdoor concerts from reaching a certain decibel? Crossing the street is dangerous, too, maybe the government should regulate that anyone who may find themselves in a situation that would necessitate street-crossing should have a helmet with them at all times?

You're right, there are many cases in which "liberal values" advocate protection of individual rights. But I objected to your statement, "What the fuck happened to, well, liberal values?," that seemed to imply that liberal values do not include support of governmental interventions. I apologize if I misinterpreted your meaning.

Governmental regulation and individual rights are not mutually exclusive. One might even argue that a number of our "rights" are protected by governmental regulation. In NYC, for instance, women who have been raped have the right to obtain a prescription for emergency contraception - even from Catholic Hospitals. They have that right because it's the law.

Moreover, because I support a number of governmental interventions does not mean I support all governmental interventions. I oppose, for instance, laws that outlaw marriage between consenting homosexual adults. And I would oppose laws that would ban smoking or drinking - I think people should have the right to choose whether to engage in those activities. But I don't think they should have the right to impose their choices on others.

I support bans on smoking in most types of pubs, clubs, bars, and restaurants because they help protect customers who choose to frequent them in order to dance, eat, drink, or enjoy music in public (which, generally, are the primary purposes of such places!), but do not necessarily choose to be exposed to secondhand smoke. Smoking bars and clubs are a different story: they exist primarily as places where people can smoke in public. So I would oppose a law that would ban smoking those establishments.

And that's the difference between the smoking bans I support and the governmental interventions you describe.

I don't smoke, but I don't think smoking should be outlawed. I avoid fast food, but I don't think fast food should be outlawed.

I also think it is necessary (although not sufficient) to consider costs and benefits when considering governmental interventions. To me, at least, it's pretty clear that the benefits of banning smoking in restaurants outweigh the costs. I don't see how the benefits of requiring pedestrians to carry helmets at all times (which probably would have negligible impact on injury and mortality rates for street-crossing) would outweigh the costs.

(Oh yeah - and many cities, counties, and states do have legal decibel limits for outdoor events. Just FYI.)

Gack, necessary but not sufficient? That sounds like lawyer talk to me. I should know. I've been taking LSAT prep tests for the past 6 weeks and it's driving me batty!

Heh. I was just rereading my old posts for no particular reason, and I found this comment.

The state doesn't regulate unhealthy food, at most it requires that food state its ingredients and relevant health values.

Phila. City Council Votes for Trans Fat Ban

I'm pretty sure this only strengthens your argument, but I really don't know what to think anymore.

Insane. America is insane. I leave for a few years and the entire nation jumps off the deep end. That's all there is to it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only