Cigarette Smoking Bans. Yeh or Neh?

Seatbelt Laws. Yeh or Neh?

Helmet Laws. Yeh or Neh?

I'm just curious to know what the FTE crowd has to say about these. The past couple of months, I have moved to 3 different states. Me personally? I say the town, state, federal gov. has no business in any of the three. Smoking/Non-smoking...leave it up to the owner/s of the public venue. Seatbelts and helmets...leave to the up to the person driving or riding. To me it's that simple. But we all know it's just not that simple...lol.

 

Your idea makes sense to me. If you want your brains splattered over the interstate,thats your call. As for the smoking thing, its a toss up, but I hear that the smoke free states are pleasent, and wouldnt mind a ban as I dont smoke.

 

Smoking Laws: Since second hand smoke affects others, absolutely ban smoking in government buildings, office buildings, schools, etc. Any place that people have to go to , and is not voluntary, smoking should be banned.

Seatbelt and helmet laws: I'll lump these together because the rationale is the same. While you should have the right to decide what happens to yourself, there's an issue of "health care cost" for the rest of the people that share the insurance pool with you. There is absolutely no doubt that seat belts and helmets both save lives and minimize injuries in accidents. Minimizing injuries means minimizing insurance costs for everybody.

 

Helmet laws were put in place to reduce the number of vegetables at the public trough.

Seat belt laws are just smart. For kids if no one else.

Smoking bans everywhere but bars and outdoors when not crowded like a stadium are fine by me and I smoke.

 

Smoking ban ---yes
seat belt laws -----yes
Helmet law-----I don't care!

The way I see it, I don't smoke so don't make me breath your poluted air.
I don't want higher insurance bills because of people getting worse injuries due to no seat belt requirements.
I don't ride a motorcycle, and usually people who ride motorcycles get killed in simple accidents when not wearing a helmet as opposed to wearing a helmet and surviving. Dead people do not incur much health care costs. Why do you think the insurance companies did not fight the recinding of most helmet laws. It will save them money in the long run!

 

Legislation to ban freedom of choice in any most any personal matter where that individual poises a danger to himself/herself is currently a politically correct way of eventually refusing them insurance coverage or using surcharges without industry being sued for discrimination and being able to reduce their accidental death claims. California banned smoking in all indoor public and government entities. When businesses requested 'smokers only' bars, restaurants, etc. to avoid second-hand smoke exposure to non-smokers, they were refused on the grounds it would discriminate against potential non-smoking employees and the 'increase public health costs' banner was waved..

Regardless of anyone's position on smoking, helmets or seatbelts, using public health care costs to deny them those actions is pretty close to the socialist definition of government taking care of the citizenry through legislation 'for their own good' with a big push by insurers. Especially since most states squandered the tobacco settlements meant for such health care. But that does seem to be the trend with many issues. How the spin is applied is always the difference between success and failure of additional controls.

Personally I have no objection to banning smoke from all public facilities, but think commercial businesses should be able to dictate their own rules. People do have a choice of avoiding those establishments. The 'buckle up' and helmet laws are pure insurance lobby that politicians jumped on.

 

I was going to give a simple answer but after reading all the responses I'll make it even more simple...

"yea, what george said."

 

Interesting topic. As for smokes, politically correct or not, I think people should be able to fire up anywhere it doesn't bother others. That is, well-ventilated areas of bars, restaurants, upper areas of stadiums (the smoke tends to rise), outside, etc. My national association would ban me for saying that, it is not the party line. I think it infringes on individual rights to not allow smokers to fire up after reasonable accomodation.

Helmets and seatbelts are a big lump. I think people should be able to ride without skid lids or seatbelts as they please. That is AFTER they sign a waiver that their insurance and my tax money will not pay for injuries caused by their exercise of freedom. It is a fallacy that riding without a helmet causes people to be dead or alive, no in-between. Most of the gorks I've seen after motorcycle crashes were not wearing helmets. WITH the helmet, you either get up and and break the nose of the guy who pulled out in front of you, or you're dead, that simple. When I rode, I actually liked wearing my helmet because it was warm and comfortable (I rode in the snow too). My crashes were survivable only because of the helmet. I destroyed my helmets each time (4), and was able to extract revenge for my crunched bike. My daddy told me when I got my first motorcycle: people who don't wear helmets, boots, and jackets are generally the ones who haven't crashed their bikes. The ones who do wear them often survived their first crash because they wore helmets.

Seat belts are similar. As a firefighter, most of the really screwed up people I saw had been ejected. Seat belts tend to limit that. If they were in the car, we generally could save them.

Working at the other end of EMS, in the ER, Most seat belted passengers were salvagable, un belted were pretty messed up.
You have to think of their families , too. It is devastating to lose mom or dad. Kids, yeah, but you get over it.

So, yeah, it IS an infringement of rights to demand helmets and belts. It is an infringement of MY rights to have to pay for gorks who don't use them. I vote for my rights first.

Wear 'em and smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

Cigarette Bans.....yes inside public buildings. Seat belts.....no. Helmets.......no. Although I quit smoking some years ago and will never do it again, always wear my seat belt, and would most definetly wear a helmet if I rode.

 

Leave it up to the individual, except for places where you have no choice to be around smoke (i.e., office buildings). If you say your motivation is to reduce health care costs for everyone, then where will you stop? It's just another way to control every little detail of peoples' lives. Let's pass a law that everyone must not eat fast food, everyone must eat his/her veggies, your BMI must be acceptable and everyone must get at least 30 minutes of exercise daily. After that, no more skiing (too many knee injuries), no roller blading, etc, etc. After all, it will reduce our health care costs.

 

I can see everyone's point. I just wanted to know what some more people thought. Seems that the main arguments for seatbelts and helmets are the costs involved regarding health care/insurance. I'm forced to ask why not ban alcohol then? How many lives are lost and injuries occur each year as a result of drunk driving, or other alcohol related illnesses? They must have an affect on health care cost also. As for smoking...I suppose I'm a bit biased as I do enjoy smoking while I'm at the local bar. What's wrong with the smoking section? What's wrong with having a non-smoking bar on that corner, and down the road having a smoking bar? Please! I've sat in the non-smoking section at restaurants and have never seen the smoke pouring in from the smokers over in the next room. As for office buildings...I wouldn't have a problem with banning smoking there. Most of us don't want to be at work anyway, let alone having to tolerate a light haze all day in your work area...lol.

But seriously. There are many more similar issues out there. The way I see it....people are starting to think that somewhere in the constitution it says "you are guaranteed the right to a risk free life". anybody else feel that way?

 

Actually, nobody is talking about banning smoking, only banning smoking in areas that the smoke will affect other people.

 

Except for The Republic of Kalifornia. Strangely enough, Californians pushed for smoking bans in Las Vegas Casinos (ex-Californians are now a very big percentage of Nevada's population), so most casinos put aside large areas with special ventilation and declared them non-smoking. Guess what? They were deserted. When the casinos did their homework, they discovered non-smokers felt gaming machines and tables where smoking was allowed ‘paid off better’ and they would ‘put up with the smoke’. Idealism is fine, but herd instinct is more normal.

 

I smoke. Like a chimney. I make a very concious effort to keep it away from non-smokers.

But if you require me to spend time in your non smoking environment you must equally provide me a smokey environment in order for the arrangement to be mutually equitable. Woops - I think you just cut my 8 hour work day in half.

Now, regarding second hand smoke:

"I drive far too fast to worry about cholesterol."

My favorite bumper sticker ever. It reminds me to keep things perspective. You please be so kind as to do the same and we will always get along just fine.

 

smoking ban - no
seatbelts- no
helmets - no

especially when it comes to seatbelts, its only you that will be affected so the government shouldnt be able to tell you to wear something that wont effect anyone else but yourself.