Good going anti smokers

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Evil DaveOr possibly ban all cars in cities, since if I live there I have no choice but to breathe the exhaust.

This reminds me of a real decision made by a city I once lived in.
They decided not to paint any crosswalks on the intersections \"because pedestrians are more often hit in crosswalks than not in crosswalks.\"

Um, that\'s because that\'s usually where they cross the street! I think we should not pave streets because most automobile accidents happen on streets.

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Spacemunkie
They will have to prise my car keys out of my cold, dead fingers....

I have absolutely no objections to buying electric or hydrogen powered cars though. Shame that the major car manufacturers and governments seem so slow to develop these things.

Haha.. That\'s true. I need to use the car aswell (but I allways try to walk in our small city of course). And the Infra-structure is built for using cars even, for making it individually rational for us to switch to an environmental friendly alternative there must be a good, cheap alternative. As for the lack of technology.. well. Allways trace the money , who makes a fortune from us cardrivers?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by Avelorn

I\'d actually say quite the opposite (what a surprise!! ). So if a company decides to release a couple of tons of toxic wastes in your neighborhood, you would say:

-Hey that\'s fine, I can move!!

Banning some types of cars in cities to enhance the quality of the air is a good idea (if it is necessary). Again I\'m trying to be rather pragmatic in these kinds of issues.

The problem with this scenario, is that there are already laws that prevent this.
I seriously doubt the US government will touch it\'s citizens cars.
Who\'s cars do you ban?
What if there is not an efficient Mass Transit System in place?
The problem with the smoking argument is that while people are willing to argue that smokers are polluting \"their air\",violating their rights, they are unwilling to see that \"their exhaust\" is just as, if not more, dangerous to others. They are violating the very same \"rights\" that they claim smokers are.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by Evil DaveOr possibly ban all cars in cities, since if I live there I have no choice but to breathe the exhaust.

This reminds me of a real decision made by a city I once lived in.
They decided not to paint any crosswalks on the intersections \"because pedestrians are more often hit in crosswalks than not in crosswalks.\"

Um, that\'s because that\'s usually where they cross the street! I think we should not pave streets because most automobile accidents happen on streets.

But weren\'t you argueing that you should not have to go into a private business and smell others smoke?
It\'s the same thing.
Why should I have to put up with others exhaust?

 

[vincegamer]

Unfortunately this is all based on a cost/benefit analysis. The majority of voters agrees that the cost of polluting via automobiles is justified by the benefit of having reliable, convenient personal transportation etc.
They have also, in many locations, agreed that the cost of permitting the smouldering of dried tobacco in public places is not justified by the benefits of...of...um...of having tobacco addicts be less cranky?

 

[Avelorn]

Yes, cardrivers are violating the same rights as smokers in a liberal view.

You shouldn\'t put up with carexhausts, you can try to legislate against it if you want to if you feel that it is a problem. It might not go through at this time becasue as Vincegamer said.. it\'s all about cost/benefit analysis. But In the future petrol cars might get banned as well if there are other, better, options. Or if we finally realise that the costs are too great.

Laws aren\'t based solely on rights, that\'s the truth. Who decides what rights we have? It\'s not written in stone. Laws are based on such different things as democracy, oppression, market economy, communism, christianity, moral-panic, stupidity, common sense... (while the last might be a neglectable factor).

EDIT: I know you have your constitution, but the laws are still based on interpretations. I don\'t know the relation between american constitution and the laws. So here you might enlighten me.

 

[dauber22]

Originally posted by vincegamer
This reminds me of a real decision made by a city I once lived in.
They decided not to paint any crosswalks on the intersections \"because pedestrians are more often hit in crosswalks than not in crosswalks.\"

Um, that\'s because that\'s usually where they cross the street! I think we should not pave streets because most automobile accidents happen on streets.

lollollollollol

I once read that most accidents happened within 10 miles of home... so I moved

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by Avelorn
EDIT: I know you have your constitution, but the laws are still based on interpretations. I don\'t know the relation between american constitution and the laws. So here you might enlighten me.

As the groups most visible resident lawyer, I\'ll say very little.

Seriously though, the Constitution is basically a limit on what the government can do. However, it\'s been subject to broad interpretation and there really aren\'t that many limits. Still, they are there. The constitution stops things like government taking your property without paying for it (just ask Richard Nixson - well, if he were alive).