Come to New Zealand, where "you can marry a fag but you can't smoke one"

[Lan Barnes]

On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:26:27PM +1300, Stephen Cope wrote:
> Lan Barnes wrote:
> > [re: smoking ban]
> > Yeah, we already did that in California. I personally think it's great.
> > But I gave up smoking (lemme see .......) I guess it was October 1979.
> 
> But this is social engineering, telling people how to live. Government
> should be concerned with the BIG things in life, and leave the LITTLE
> things for people to decide.
> 

Not so. The only justification for law is to protect us from each
other, not from ourselves.

This can become slippery, as is always true in human affairs. For
example, one of the arguments against allowing others to use drugs or
steroids is that they drive the insurance rates up by making themselves
sick. But this is IMO a fig leaf for moralizing other people's behaviors
into restrictive laws. Otherwise we would have to have laws banning
certain foods and restaurant chains, since diet kills far more people
that drugs. Oh, and compulsory exercise and a federally mandated bed
time ...

So if you smoke at home or in a place where the smoke blows away w/o
harming anyone, no sweat. I'll visit you in the hospital and cry at your
funeral, but it's your choice. But if you smoke in a restaurant, gassing
me and my children, you're harming our health (yes, the literature is
conclusive), and you don't have that right. Take your cigarette outside.


> What really annoys me is it was based on a flawed EPA study, and the
> health troubles young children have when their parent smokes are not
> covered with this law. This law does nothing to better young children,
> because it doesn't control smoking in the home. Instead it controls
> smoking in the workplace and bars, which are mostly empty of young
> children.
> 

Flawed EPA study? You analyzed it? Or did the Tobacco Council or one of
its front groups save you the trouble?

You concede that passive smoke is dangerous in the home (magically,
not in a public place), but only point out the inconsistency of the law.
OK. The business of parental harm to children by their practices is a
BIG area for those slippery human conflicts. And if you expect me to
have a definitive answer, sorry, no can do.

But here are some Lan thoughts (discard after using). We've got this
freedom of speech thing -- what's that all about? Well, the underlying
idea is first, that there will be disagreements over time and at any one
time as to what is True or Good or Right; and also, if we can't discuss
that, even if our opinion is unpopular, then there's no progress in
ideas. Oh, and no freedom, too.

Well, part of child rearing is passing on all sorts of ideas as to
what's right. We learn how to dress, how to eat, how to interact, who to
trust, who to vote for and why, who/what to worship, all from our
parents. If we let the government control that, there is no dialog and
no freedom. And BTW, that's one of the reasons I think it's so important
to keep religious instruction out of the schools. It competes with the
parental religious teaching.

So am I saying that parents who smoke might be teaching their children a
positive value? Hell no. Not in my humble opinion. But ... what about
parents who do something else that the majority disapproves of, but that
we later find out was a good idea?

The slippery part is, what about parents who have beliefs or habits
(let's even recognize that they might be sincere or even based in
religion) that damage the child? In the US, we are all considered
interested parties in the welfare of children, and any of us can go to a
judge if we think we have evidence that a child is being endangered in
the home. Usually teachers, social workers, or relatives ask the courts
to intervene, but anyone can do it. It's a tribute to the tolerance of
this country that it happens relatively rarely, and almost always
through official channels.

Used to be that smoking and drinking during pregnancy were normal (I was
probably a smoked up fetus -- explains a lot, eh?). Now it shocks
people.  And it's pretty well established that a heavily smoke filled
home can cause all kinds of infant respiratory illness. But it's still
on the borderline for me. I just don't want to see the state ... and all
the state's moralistic little helpers ... interfering in how parents
raise their kids. It's too important.

> Who receives the fine for the patron's behaviour? The bar owner! His
> only crime was letting in people that smoke, and that was probably
> done by the bouncer. So it also punishes the wrong people.
> 
> I made a list of all the social engineering slogans I could recall.
> These are only the slogans that stuck in my head, and I don't watch
> television, so my list is probably incomplete.
> 
> Just for the record, here's the list:
> 
> Country people die on country roads
> One more bro for the road.
> Don't drink and drive.
> Safe as houses.
> Meningococcal B vaccine ...
> Heart disease is the biggest killer of ____ aged 35+
> 5+ a day
> Jump rope for heart
> Press play
> Always wear your safety belt
> If you drink and drive you're a bloody idiot
> The faster you go the bigger the mess
> Thinksafe
> Come on guys, get firewise.
> Prepared to speed? Be prepared to kill.
> Take another look at intersections.  	
> Friends don't let friends drive drunk.
> Stay on Top with a lifejacket
> 
> 18 slogans, each backed by a very expensive advertising campaign on
> billboards, fliers, television, radio, movie trailers, bus adverts,
> etc, etc.
> 

That's not social engineering by my definition. That's discourse in the
marketplace of ideas.

Social engineering would be programs that use tax dollars to "promote"
marriage. We're doing that here, or is it just an idea. I loose track
...

-- 
Lan Barnes                    lan at falleagle.net
Linux Guy, SCM Specialist     858-354-0616