[quote] the entire economy of the Southern United States depended on tobacco [/quote] An economy that is based around harming people is not a good thing, and does not provide a net benefit to society. [quote] What about people who work at toll booths, traffic cops, etc? They are exposed to massive amounts of exhaust on a daily basis, open air or not I'm sure it has it's impact [/quote] If research shows that there is a significant detrimental impact then the gove
aeortar
[quote] How about racing events that you have to sign a waiver just to attend? [/quote] So you're attending a racing event and must consent to the danger of injury from the racing events taking place? Assuming no excessive risks are taken sounds fine to me (similar to a concert+loud music). [quote] Driving a car. The exhaust is far more toxic than any cgarette and anyone who drives is spewing out massive amounts of toxins into the air which contributes to smog and can potentia
[quote] many of those could own the business as an LLC for example in which case they are taxed at the corporate rate instead of the personal income tax rate. But if you are a sole proprietor, you get taxed at the personal rate, and so the tax increases coming up would effect them. [/quote] If you own a corporation and pay yourself via dividends, then you'll get taxed with the corporation tax rate on the profits from the company, and then taxed again on the income you take in th
[quote] Once again you are using illegal activities as an example [/quote] It is perfectly legal to throw a bottle at yourself, and the whole point is that those things are illegal when they harm others. Please provide examples of legal actions that individuals can commit which harm others.
[quote] I think you missed how that example applies. Concerts are held at privately owned establishments. A band then plays at the establishment and (typically) plays music loud enough to harm your hearing. People then pay to listen to the music that is harming their hearing. At that point, then are consenting to having their hearing damaged. Now, how is that different than going to a privately owned bar and consenting to being around smoke? [/quote]</p
[quote] Loud music is permitted in other areas, take a concert for example. [/quote] I don't know of any concerts where you're allowed to turn up as a member of the audience and start your excessively loud music that damages the hearing of everyone around you. [quote] if you crash into your house or if you have an accident where you are injured and are found at fault for the accident (ie drunk driving, excessive speed, etc) then you are charged with reckless end
[quote] Can someone please explain to me how does one approve a massive spending bill like the one Obama just approved and then a few weeks later claim to wanna cut the deficit in half? [/quote] Ok - the spending bill is a temporary measure to help the economy through the (rec/depr)ession. However longer term the deficit will need to be reduced (and ideally removed). So you could look at reducing the deficit in the absence of the temporary spending plan, so that you meet this long ter
I don't understand why the focus is solely on business here - yes the method of restricting smoking that harms others is via a ban on businesses allowing smoking, but the core issue is whether one person has the right to harm another. As a general rule (with occassional exceptions), the following currently apply: You can drive (and you can drive, crash into your house, and injure yourself), but you can't drive into someone else. You can drink and harm your health, but you can'
[quote] Good. Then my opinion is just as worthless as yours [/quote] Well a good argument shouldn't need credentials to make it worthwhile, just as a lack of credentials shouldn't make an argument(/opinion) worthless.
[quote] If scenarios B & C are realistic, why have there been any layoffs at all? [/quote] A good question - I can think of several possible reasons. Firstly you might have unions who oppose pay cuts and working hour cuts which forces the company to fire people (which would also probably be opposed by the union). Legal complications could also affect things - you might not be able to change a workers employment contact straight away, but you might be able to fire them straight awa
[quote] Yea, lets buy less toilet paper, cut back on coffee machines and make sure not to accidentally print the same page more than once so as to not throw away paper...When recovery starts they will be happy to hire people again. At this point so much money has been lost that paying to rehire and retrain people to make money again will be worth it. [/quote] Either you don't understand, or you didn't read what I posted. Here's it spelled out: 3 companies, all suffering due to the rec
[quote] my anecdotal experience is the opposite. Lots of examples of alternate-generation smokers. Don't know what studies have shown in terms of actual data, though [/quote] Having a quick glance around here's one study relating to that: http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009/02/05/children-more-likely-to-smoke-if-parents-light-up-cigarettes/ Here's the relevant extract: [quote] [the study] found that children who were 12 or young when their
[quote] Do you really think not being able to smoke in public will affect the demand for cigarettes? [/quote] Yes, it would be illogical to think it wouldn't. People do manage to quit smoking - this would provide one more reason for them to try. Meanwhile, people also choose whether to take up smoking - this would provide one more reason not to. Furthermore you're more likely to smoke if you've grown up in a 'smokey' environment - this reduces the number of such
[quote] And you would rather have a copmany not fire employee's during a recession and let the company bankruptso that everyone loses their jobs. Why do some people on JU only think their opinions half way thru? Always think about the temporary benefits, never about the long term effects [/quote] No, I would have the company cut costs other ways instead of firing employees, meaning they don't become bankrupt. Redundancies are a short term measure, not a long term one. When the r
[quote] "A smoking ban would likely decrease demand for cigarrettes" Any smokers want to chime in on what a ridiculous statement this is? [/quote] My mistake. Making it more inconvenient and less enjoyable to smoke will clearly increase demand for cigarrettes, not decrease it! Smoking in the freezing cold and rain will become the most fashionable thing to do, with even non-smokers tempted outside to join in the fun!
IIRC a recent study suggested that teens who committed to abstinance, or publicly vowed to not have sex until married, etc., were still as likely to have sex before marriage as those who didn't. The problem is that they're probably less likely to use adequate protection if they do. So yes, abstinence for all teens is unrealistic. Just because you have a couple of rare exceptions, it doesn't mean it should be used as the rule. Better to educate teens that if they do decide to have sex they sho
I've seen parts of your thread but didn't have the time to read every reply so may have missed it if all this was already discussed fully there; I also didn't want to side-track it too much by focusing solely on this side of things, although this thread does share similarities with yours (and your thread in part led me to creating this).
One thing that has always bothered me about christianity is the 'eternal damnation' idea. I've roughly been brought up on the ideas that if we sin, we go to hell (eternal damnation), and we're all sinners hence will all go to hell, unless we believe in Jesus in which case we go to heaven. I've also been told that God is loving, just, and 'a father' type figure. The problem is, I just can't reconcile these. First of all, let's look at the father side. If your child does
[quote] the government wants to be able to keep making money off from smokers but wants to take away the right of private business owners to do the same [/quote] A smoking ban would likely decrease demand for cigarrettes, meaning the government would make less money from taxes, so if a government does pursue such a policy, it suggests it's more likely to be for altruistic purposes rather than to make money.
[quote] what its bad to let go of the dead weight? its better to keep on a worker that is not preforming? Either do the job or GTFO[/quote] In a recession workers who are performing are got rid of, not just ones who aren't performing. What is it with people on this forum quoting me without seeming to bother to read what they've quoted?: [quote] not something you'd want to have around once things get better though (since a lot more (proportionately) of redundancies would be [b]
So presumably companies will think twice before firing employees? if so then it should prove useful. Companies are often too quick to fire their staff without exploring alternative means. It's probably not something you'd want to have around once things get better though (since then a lot more (proportionately) of redundancies would be due to the employees fault rather than the employer just deciding they need to cut costs.
More efficient to just tax fuel than miles driven, although road tolls are always another option which provide a pseudo-tax-per-miles-driven.
If such a free society means that you're allowed to go drink driving, assault someone while on drugs etc., then it's not a society I want to be a part of.
Not well enough, evidently: [quote] doesn't need any evidence to back it up other than people being told to buy a book [/quote] [quote] Maybe you had a "blond moment"...The book and the statistics it cites is evidence [/quote]
[quote] A person is held responsible for his actions (eg, drunk driving, assulting someone while on drugs, etc), but they are allowed to make those choices [/quote] Actually they are not allowed to make those choices - they're illegal, hence why if they do decide to do it, they'll be breaking the law+face arrest. The same would go for smoking - make it illegal in public places and yes you can still smoke in public places, but you'll be held responsible for it.