 |
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:22
|
|
Thanks Boris for the thread bump.
quote: Originally posted by loinburger
No, I'm saying that we should regulate everything in the same fashion unless there's a non-arbitrary justification for regulating something differently. It would be fine, f'rinstance, to draw a distinction such as "tobacco can cause harm to others through second-hand smoke while soda has no second-hand effects, therefore it behooves us to regulate tobacco in the interest of non-smokers while it would not behoove us to regulate soda in a similar fashion." That's an objective distinction between tobacco and soda that does not require an arbitrary "danger line" to be drawn. The fact that both are dangerous to their users is irrelevant, because tobacco is being regulated for a property it possesses that soda does not possess.
No, firearms and soda have the same difference as tobacco and soda--firearms users endanger others besides themselves, soda consumers do not. If use of a product will endanger others besides the user, then the product requires regulation. Somebody's right to use a product does not trump somebody else's right to not be endangered by a jackass.
However, I see no real distinction between soda and bicycle helmets, only that one falls below an arbitrary danger line while the other does not. |
Ok, so you vouch for regulations on products only in those that consumers can use to endanger other people.
If the cost for insurance and health care expenses is higher every year due to bike accidents without helmets more so than yearly soda consumption, then this could be a non-arbitrary line for distinction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kontiki
Holy threadjack, Batman.....
I guess I should have seen this coming, but I really didn't intend for this to get into a debate over the merits of helmet laws. MY main question was/is, is it ok for some cultural/religious groups to be exempt from certain laws and if so, where do you draw the line? |
Yes, freedom of religion is a fudamental right. Helmet laws should not receive greater weight than a fundamental human right. There is no such thing as a fundamental right to have everyone's head protected from injuries.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ron Jeremy
I imagine that 3 feet of thick, bunched hair and 20 feet of tightly-wrapped turban silk make helmets pretty unnecessary. |
3 feet of thick bunched hair? Are you sure you aren't thinking of rastafarians?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|