Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Ionori]

It was not a comparison or equating a vape to a seat belt, those were examples of regulations, some of which you obviously favor. They are some examples of what people consider good ideas and we need a law. Where would you draw the line and do you think other, rational, people might disagree with you?

There are several factors that are a matter of preference, such as how much of a safety net you want your society to have; if one lives in a society where there is no safety net, and therefore any harm you do to yourself or deprivation you cause to your dependents is strictly your problem, I don't see a justification for regulation on suicidal behavior; however in a society where one's suicidal behavior will mean their dependents are going to become a burden on the society, there is a justification to regulate suicidal behavior.

I harbor no illusion of being able to convince everybody that the wellbeing of their children is worth putting the seat belt on.

 

[CMD-Ky]

Correct.

That seems to me to be a reasonable position. Kind of a "my rights end where yours begin". I can swing my fist as long as I don't hit your nose or, extending a little, so long as I don't put you in reasonable fear of being hit.

 

[Bronze]

That seems to me to be a reasonable position. Kind of a "my rights end where yours begin". I can swing my fist as long as I don't hit your nose or, extending a little, so long as I don't put you in reasonable fear of being hit.

I'm gonna stay away from you!

 

[ScottP]

There are several factors that are a matter of preference, such as how much of a safety net you want your society to have; if one lives in a society where there is no safety net, and therefore any harm you do to yourself or deprivation you cause to your dependents is strictly your problem, I don't see a justification for regulation on suicidal behavior; however in a society where one's suicidal behavior will mean their dependents are going to become a burden on the society, there is a justification to regulate suicidal behavior.

I harbor no illusion of being able to convince everybody that the wellbeing of their children is worth putting the seat belt on.

By that logic skydiving should be banned, bungee jumping should be banned, maybe scuba diving and even driving should be banned too? I dated a girl who's dad died falling off of a bicycle and hitting his head on a rock, so I guess cycling should be banned. I personally know a guy who's mother died falling off the BOTTOM rung of a step ladder, hit her head on the corner of a table, so ladders should be banned. Lots of people die every year in the shower and in house fires caused by electrical shorts. Should they ban showers and electricity? You could use that logic to make it so everyone has to live in a bubble, with no electricity, never take showers, and never do anything else that could potentially be dangerous at all. Sorry but no thanks.

EDIT: I forgot to add another important point. If your goal is that ones dependents are not societal burdens, then where is the regulation that REQUIRES people to have gainful employment to support those dependents while the person is actually still alive?

 

[CMD-Ky]

I'm gonna stay away from you!

At my age, have no fears, I can barely lift my arms, let alone swing 'em.

 

[Ionori]

By that logic skydiving should be banned, bungee jumping should be banned, maybe scuba diving and even driving should be banned too? I dated a girl who's dad died falling off of a bicycle and hitting his head on a rock, so I guess cycling should be banned. I personally know a guy who's mother died falling off the BOTTOM rung of a step ladder, hit her head on the corner of a table, so ladders should be banned. Lots of people die every year in the shower and in house fires caused by electrical shorts. Should they ban showers and electricity? You could use that logic to make it so everyone has to live in a bubble, with no electricity, never take showers, and never do anything else that could potentially be dangerous at all. Sorry but no thanks.

You've clearly failed to understand my logic if you think I want to ban ladders.

 

[Bronze]

At my age, have no fears, I can barely lift my arms, let alone swing 'em.

Well, I can barely stand and breath so it wouldn't take much to knock me out cold. Harsh words might do it.

 

[ScottP]

You've clearly failed to understand my logic if you think I want to ban ladders.

No I totally got your meaning. You are OK with regulations that prevent an individuals choices if those choices could lead to the death of the individual thereby causing that individuals dependents to become societal burdens.My point is that slope is a very steep one, coated with Teflon(r) and silicone lubricant.

Please read the "EDIT" section of my previous post.

 

[Kent C]

To me the line is drawn so that your freedom of choice ends where it can start negatively affecting other people. You wearing a seat belt or not, wearing a helmet or not, vaping or not, only affects you. Ingestion or injection of substances that can cause you to become violent and harm others is crossing that line.

When you say 'ingestion or injection of substances that can cause you to become violent and harm others'.... I disagree in this sense. Someone could be 'mad at their spouse, dog, cat and jump into a car cause an accident; drop a french fry on the floor of a car, be texting, etc. but....It's the 'harming others' that is the operative part of violating rights. What made you do it, is not the concern of gov't (except perhaps determining between 1st and 2nd degree murder/manslaughter).

The one thing one can do without harming others and still be liable, is to wield a weapon where any reasonable person would consider it an immediate and imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Nor is harming oneself no business of gov't. Which is why the second hand smoke hoax and now the second hand vapor is part of why certain antis attempt to enter it into the discussion. They also grasp at whatever level, that harming oneself is not something gov't should get into. (I say 'certain antis' because there are other antis - the puritanical faction - who definitely Do think they can intervene of someone harming themselves).

Another Jefferson quote from his Notes on Virginia:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

 

[CMD-Ky]

I guess that I am going to watch "Longmire" with the very lovely Mrs CMD. I will see you all in the AM, if not plagued by insomnia later in the night.

But before I go, a city nearby is debating whether to allow people to possess pit bulls within the city limits. Sums fer it, sums agin it.

 

[stols001]

Around these parts, you'll see a lot of kids in the back of pickup trucks. On the highway.

I don't deem it a safe situation but I don't call 9-11 either.

I don't know if you've ever killed a person in a legitimate accident (I have not) but I did see a dude die because he was going nuts in a Jeep, during a sudden snow. Watching the dude die really sucked, and he hit a mom (and me) and her two kids, both of whom were bleeding, and she was tearful and screaming (understandably). The guy wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and even with the accident his fault, the whole thing was deeply traumatic. I actually had to call my dad to come get me I was so shook up, although the car was not drivable in any case.

It's easy to say "don't protect" yourself if you don't want, but I often see that kind of behavior coupled to a risk taking sort of person, in any case. If you think watching someone bleed out in front of you while the paramedics arrive is anything OTHER than awful, think again. I believe in seatbelt laws, and I'm not the best driver of all time, either. Hence my caution, quite often.

I just don't see the analogy to vaping, however, I'd place it more in the goods/entertainment section, not the safety section. It's been proven vaping is safer than smoking and most vapers (even idiot teens) will have a "safer" life than if they were smoking cigarettes. However, it's tied to addiction, not merely entertainment, and that places it into a different category, IMO.

Which one? Well I plan to pick my sis's brain on that, although it will probably require a swift education on the ins and outs of vaping, on my part.

My understanding is that since nic is "addictive" in this country, the issue lies with new vapers choosing the practice, vs. harm reduction, vs. some sort of comparison with other types of harm reduction laws and ordinences in place regarding it's closest friend, actual tobacco. Would need to take a good look at how that has been handled, and where one person's rights impinge on another's versus taking away the "gain" that happens for FORMER smokers.

There may be some compelling arguments to be made, which is why I plan to ask my sis, she is essentially a constitutional lawyer now, and I'm sure she'll have ideas but may have to look into some stuff.

Anna

 

[Ionori]

No I totally got your meaning. You are OK with regulations that prevent an individuals choices if those choices could lead to the death of the individual thereby causing that individuals dependents to become societal burdens.My point is that slope is a very steep one, coated with Teflon(r) and silicone lubricant.

Please read the "EDIT" section of my previous post.

Yes, you have definitely misunderstood my logic by assuming that the one consideration I've listed as being preference-dependent is the only consideration. The utility of stairs and ladders far outweighs the danger of using them, while the utility of driving without a seatbelt compared to driving with a seatbelt does not outweigh the added danger. A more apt analogy would be ladders made exclusively of toothpicks held together with spit, which I would be more than happy to ban.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Yes, you have definitely misunderstood my logic by assuming that the one consideration I've listed as being preference-dependent is the only consideration. The utility of stairs and ladders far outweighs the danger of using them, while the utility of driving without a seatbelt compared to driving with a seatbelt does not outweigh the added danger. A more apt analogy would be ladders made exclusively of toothpicks held together with spit, which I would be more than happy to ban.

Maybe what you're proposing is a normalization of the standards (between the states, in commerce). Aye, we can all agree toothpick ladders are a hazard. And if that were all that gov was doing they'd be accomplishing a heck of a lot more towards our societal success than they are picking us apart as they are.

Good luck.

 

[ScottP]

I believe in seatbelt laws, and I'm not the best driver of all time, either. Hence my caution, quite often.

while the utility of driving without a seatbelt compared to driving with a seatbelt does not outweigh the added danger.

Back in the 90's, my best friend came across an accident on a rural road. A guy in a Nissan 300Z with T tops had taken an inverse banked curve at probably an excess of 100 MPH. The car left the road with the passenger door pointing at the ground and the driver's door pointing to the sky. It was in this position that it impacted a tree. The T tops were removed so only about a 2" piece of metal made up the remaining roof. The tree caved that in, all the way to the seat and the car folded around the tree about 3ft off the ground so that the front and rear bumpers were almost touching on the back side of the tree, with the undercarriage facing outward. Yet the guy survived with some injuries because thankfully he was NOT wearing his seat belt and was thrown clear through the open T tops.

 

[Ionori]

Back in the 90's, my best friend came across an accident on a rural road. A guy in a Nissan 300Z with T tops had taken an inverse banked curve at probably an excess of 100 MPH. The car left the road with the passenger door pointing at the ground and the driver's door pointing to the sky. It was in this position that it impacted a tree. The T tops were removed so only about a 2" piece of metal made up the remaining roof. The tree caved that in, all the way to the seat and the car folded around the tree about 3ft off the ground so that the front and rear bumpers were almost touching on the back side of the tree, with the undercarriage facing outward. Yet the guy survived with only minor injuries because thankfully he was NOT wearing his seat belt and was thrown clear through the open T tops.

Do you understand the concept of statistics? Just because you can provide one anecdote where not wearing a seatbelt supposedly saved a guy's life does not mean not wearing a seatbelt is safer.

 

[ScottP]

Do you understand the concept of statistics? Just because you can provide one anecdote where not wearing a seatbelt supposedly saved a guy's life does not mean not wearing a seatbelt is safer.

My point is that just like with vaping, safety is relative. Vaping is safer than smoking, but doing neither is safer than vaping. Wearing a seat belt CAN be safer than not, but not always. Seat belts can save lives, but not if an 18 wheeler jackknifes off an over pass and lands on top of your car. It should be my choice to wear it or not, since me wearing it or not, does not harm others in the slightest.

OH, my dependents though. What if I don't have any? Can it be my choice then? What if I have a BILLION dollar life insurance policy? Can it be my choice then?

For the record, I do wear one most of the time, but I should not be forced to do it, or be ticketed for not doing it.

 

[Ionori]

Maybe what you're proposing is a normalization of the standards (between the states, in commerce). Aye, we can all agree toothpick ladders are a hazard. And if that were all that gov was doing they'd be accomplishing a heck of a lot more towards our societal success than they are picking us apart as they are.

Good luck.

I don't have a strong opinion on the unification of commercial standards, provided the standard-making body is accountable to the people. If there is a large number of people with stupid policy ideas living in a neighboring area, I don't want them to force their bad policies on me, and I don't particularly want to force my good policies on them, as long as the results of their bad policies are contained to their area.

 

[stols001]

I don't really feel that strongly about seatbelts, other than the fact that those not wearing them typically engage in other high risk behaviors.

Look, my husband has survived accidents drunk (one with a semi) due to not wearing a seatbelt. I understand that all things can happen, but frankly, if you aren't wearing a seatbelt you are more likely to HAVE that kind of nuts accident that saves your life BECAUSE you weren't wearing one. Also, if my husband had not routinely driven drunk and seatbeltless, he would have had FAR LESS of the kind of catastrophic injuries than he wound up with DUE TO THE REST of the high risk behavior. And "living through" that type of accident is not as fun as it sounds. I don't believe he enjoyed climbing out of the truck that crushed around him (his ability to curl into a ball saved him, hence the "seatbeltless" GOOD, only it's not really that great to HAVE such an accident at all. He did not enjoy his year plus stay in the hospital while learning how to walk, poop, eat, and also get weaned off opiates.

My point was more, the type of person who thinks "I don't need a seatbelt" is OFTEN the cause of their own salvation, BECAUSE they get into those types of situations that result in the kind of freak accident where someone winds up in a tree.

Watching him age is really an exercise in gratitude that I don't have any major PHYSICAL stuff going on. Also, he wears his seatbelt now. He got into another car accident, sober, and broke his neck again (not by his own cause, it was the other driver's fault). And YET, his lack of concern for himself and others came back to bite him. You break your neck once, you are FAR more likely to break it again, as it's more fragile. It was a "walk away" type accident for most people.. Not him.

So, there are consequences to risky behavior, and it often goes hand in hand with risk takers.

The fact remains, seatbelts are used because overall (whether living or dying) they reduce injury and death. Those kind of "oh my, so GOOD that person was not wearing a seatbelt" accidents are not the norm, and when they occur, it's luck, providence, fate, whatever you want.

I merely point out that seatbelt use does not occur in a vacuum, it is an overall societal good.

I feel the same way about vaping, but I don't think the seatbelt analogy really matters so very much indeed. It's really not a good analogy (at all, for either side) to use for vaping.

Anna

 

[Ionori]

My point is that just like with vaping, safety is relative. Vaping is safer than smoking, but doing neither is safer than vaping. Wearing a seat belt CAN be safer than not, but not always. Seat belts can save lives, but not if an 18 wheeler jackknifes off an over pass and lands on top of your car. It should be my choice to wear it or not, since me wearing it or not, does not harm others in the slightest.

OH, my dependents though. What if I don't have any? Can it be my choice then? What if I have a BILLION dollar life insurance policy? Can it be my choice then?

For the record, I do wear one most of the time, but I should not be forced to do it, or be ticketed for not doing it.

If you don't want to incur the cost of living in a civilized society, move to an uncivilized society, see how you like it.

I am not currently prepared to do the research necessary to figure out how much psychological damage one's mangled, dependentless corpse would cause to other people, but generally speaking I am not in favor of laws that would discriminate between people based on their family or financial situation.

By the way, I also support phasing out ape-driven cars in favor of AI-driven cars for purposes of transportation, when this measure becomes cost-efficient.

 

[ScottP]

By the way, I also support phasing out ape-driven cars in favor of AI-driven cars for purposes of transportation, when this measure becomes cost-efficient.

THIS I 100% AGREE with. Primarily because far too many idiots still haven't figured out that you cannot safely drive with your face planted in your cell phone screen. That DOES impact the safety of everyone on the road. I have almost been side swiped by a COP who was trying to text and drive. Luckily >I< was paying attention and swerved to avoid the accident. The cop never looked up and remained oblivious to the fact I was even there so never even realized what he almost did.

Self driving cars will save lives for sure. The idiots can then snapchat to their heart's content, while the sensors remain on constant vigil.