(no subject)

[desh]

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.

Comments

[ladykat81.livejournal.com]

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.)

[t3chnomag3.livejournal.com]

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!