Pajiba

I'm sure to be blasted for this. It'll will come as no suprise, but I see this as a gross overstepping by the federal govt.

But it tastes delicious!

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure Canada has these policies in place. We have the nutritional facts on everything.

Sometimes it's a little much, I really didn't need to know my small fries has 300 calories and 25 grams of fat* in it. It's McDs it's not gonna be healthy.

Also our happy meals now come with the choice of apples and milk.

But it tastes delicious!

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure Canada has these policies in place. We have the nutritional facts on everything.

Sometimes it's a little much, I really didn't need to know my small fries has 300 calories and 25 grams of fat* in it. It's McDs it's not gonna be healthy.

Also our happy meals now come with the choice of apples and milk.

Let's make all food be required to be all the same paste that the government doles out to us at various community centers throughout the US. While we eat our gruel, we can have big screens shouting propaganda to us to keep the populace motivated for the endless war. We should also mandate that each morning we get in front of our TV so it can lead us in a morning work out. ALL HAIL THE DEAR LEADER!

PaddyDog, I've read reports that state second hand smoke is not as dangerous as origanlly reported.(I'll find those if requested)I too was raised in smoking house and don't smoke,I'm fine.

Also I do not beleave in required vaccinations in kids. My kids are not vaccinated and are very healthy.

Your rights are not more important than mine.

I guess it really depends on if you think we need to protect people from their own stupidity/ignorance.
I don't think people are getting any smarter, and I don't think corporations watching their bottom line are going to stop exploiting that any time soon.
I believe the goverment's main job is to protect us from the wilder aspects of human nature, so yeah, I'm in favor of public health.

The difference lies in between "banning" something, and not allowing its consumption and creating the economic incentives in terms of regulation and taxes to promote public welfare. For example, I can ban high fructose corn syrup or I can just regulate and tax it to the point where items that contain HFC are more expensive than the baby carrots in the produce section.

We know that banning marijuana hasn't exactly worked, as we still have access to it (I prefer Jameson's whiskey - to each his own). Same goes for guns, same goes for trans - fats. BANNING as a policy is one of last resort, and the hobgoblin of uncreative minds.

It's a good rule of thumb to keep in mind whenever a public official talks about banning something (including abortion - it won't disappear, just go underground as it was before Roe).

I'm sort of in the hazy middle on this issue. On the one hand, I don't think the government should get to tell people what to eat/drink/smoke unless, like with secondhand smoke, it actively harms other people. On the other hand, I don't think it's even remotely okay for the food industry to screw people over like they currently are.

So I guess I'm in favor of not subsidizing goddamn corn anymore, and making food companies accountable for their bullshit, and trying to get people to be educated about their food as much as possible. And I'm pessimistic about any of that ever happening. Maybe in 2012?

It's hard for me to know where to start with this issue, because it's not just a matter of health and it's not just a matter of government involvement; it's a matter of values.

The goverment mandates morality. The federal goverment has decided how old you have to be before you can drink (actually this is up to the state, but the federal goverment has warned that they will withold money from states that do not comply), what drugs you can put in to your body, and whether or not you should be able to gamble or sell your own body for money. The goverment has looked at laws that are immoral and made changes to them -- not because it is better for the nation or economy, but because it is right. Look at civil rights laws. I doubt there is any military or economic advantage to granting everyone equality. The goverment has made laws both prohibiting and protecting gay marriage. There are laws keeping you from spitting on the sidewalk. Laws that keep your food and water clean.

I understand it is the goverment's duty to keep it's citizen's safe, but sometimes I see that the lines are crossed.

In Ohio a few years ago there was a law that prohibited smokers from smoking indoors in public. Smoking sections were abolished and across the state bar owners and restauranteurs turned fractions of their parking lots into porches and patios. And I think it's disgusting. The argument for this law is that we need to maintain the health of those who do not smoke. That smoking is not just something that affects the individual; it affects everyone in close proximity. And it is disgusinting bullshit.

If you don't like being exposed to cigarette smoke, it is well within your rights not to go where you know there will be smokers. That is your right. You have the right to stay home. And what about the rights of the restaurant/bar owners? Shouldn't they have the right to run their business however they choose? Shouldn't they be able to host cigar parties in the wine cellar if they see fit? It doesn't matter if it's right or not; the will of the many has used the oppresive tool of democracy to impose it's values on the will of the few.

There is no shortage of information out there that tells you what foods are good for you and what foods are not. There are no more adds out there that tell you, "Smoking will keep your baby healthy!" Smokers are smokers regardless of the risks, and no matter what the packages of cigarettes look like they are going to continue smoking because they've made that choice. Those people who want to eat at McDonalds are going to do so despite the library of information that tells them how bad it is for them. I strongly doubt there are many people left in the country that honestly believe smoking isn't bad for you, or that McDonalds is actually food. Creating laws that are designed to strike these things down are laws expressly designed to impose one groups values over another. It completely disregards the idea of personal freedom, and it is disgusting.

I feel like I have a lot more to say, and I'm certain you'll be hearing from me again.

The problem with this debate is that the system as it is currently constituted makes it a difficult decision. yes, from a pure liberterian perspective you should be able to eat whatever you want, smoke whatever you want in private etc. However, the current system we have heavily taxes people to pay for health care that is over-used by people who consistently abuse their health.

So, from a practical perspective, as a Lib stuck in a non-lib world, I'm all for extensive public health regulation because i should not have to pay for your decision to wreck your body.

The Happy Meal ban in SF is silly. For the most part, people who eat fast food are people who do not have the money, time or both to feed their kids a proper nutritious meal. For $10, you can feed a family of 4 at McDonald’s or KFC (well, I’m assuming that this is still the case; the last time I had fast food was May of 2001 and I’m not 100% sure of their prices). Try and go to the grocery store and buy $10 worth of groceries to make a meal. You could buy processed shit that won’t be much healthier than fast food, but if you try to buy quality protein or vegetables, you’ll quickly go above your $10 budget. Factor in a busy, working parent and a kid who has been sitting in school all day, it's not surprising that parents chose something quick, easy and cheap.

More importantly, take a look at agricultural subsidies. No wonder we have an obesity epidemic. High fructose corn syrup is used in almost everything. School lunches are packed with saturated fat and calories. And it’s nearly impossible to change lunch programs due to contracts between school districts and suppliers. And god forbid you suggest to someone that they cut back on meat and dairy.

And yes, I’m in favor of the government stepping in to ban some of this crap but we have to make it economical.

After all, as taxpayers, we all pay the price for unhealthy choices. By all means, treat yourself to fries and a burger. But it should be a *treat*, not a life style.

My issue with the government's recent explosion into health based reform lies somewhere between, it's my body and I can poke it with a stick if I want to, and How much do we really know about what we're mandating?

You want to outlaw smoking in restaurants? Fine. There are children there, and you're eating a meal and that all makes perfect sense to me. But Stadiums? Outdoor recreation areas? BARS?? Don't act like you care about your health as you destroy your liver. I think it's gotten slightly ridiculous especially when the actual studies on the dangers of secondhand smoke range from doesn't do much to 'Summons the Devil'. Sorry but I think the last thing we need to do in this country is take away more freedoms.
Now the trans fat I'm kind of the other side on. Should the government stop companies from putting terrible shit in our food. Yes. Has all the science on nutrition completely changed in the last 10 years. Yes. Do we have any idea what we're talking about when it comes to nutrition. Fuck No. That's why there are 15 diets out that all say the exact opposite things are gonna kill you. Carbs are bad, fats are bad, Sodium will kill you. Hey guess what? Food will kill you. Too much or too little. I mean If I want to go to Wendy's and order a Baconator, Well go me and my future heart disease. But A huge amount of America's kids are born and raised on McDonald's before they have the slightest idea what the repurcussions are... Those are the only people I feel we need to legislate for.

To those of you who think public health "over-stepping" is a recent thing, this argument has been around since governments first formed. Shipping owners were furious in 1377 when Venice first implemented quarantine to stop the spread of plague, and denounced government intervention. In New York in the 1800s, upper-class Protestants called on the government to over-step and ban Irish immigrants who they blamed for cholera. In 1918, people refused to stay home when they first heard the warnings about Spanish flu, blaming the government for trying to control their lives: that one killed over 20 million people.

Mrs. Julien, I prefer the teeth.

Oh and superasente,
Ohio's smoking ban can suck my balls. You're realy right honestly. The problem with regulating people's personal freedoms against their personal welfare is that it's impossible to define where it should end. Should we outlaw driving considering it's the most dangerous thing you do on a daily basis? Everyone's talking about fuck the smokers and their bad health issues. How about fuck people with genetic health conditions? Should we just put them down young to save you some money on your premiums? I'm sorry But we should all have the right to destroy ourselves however we see fit. I have no right to tell you not to kayak, mountain climb, go cart race, ride dirtbikes, hanglide, drink Alcohol, eat fatty foods, Auto erotic esphyxiate, or whatever the fuck you want to do. So stay the fuck away from my ciggarettes. I'm so tired of this I'm more socially aware than you are because I don't smoke attitude. Everyone puts someone's life at risk everyday, every time you get behind the wheel of a vehicle. You want me to stop smoking? I want you to ride a fucking horse. Let's amke a deal.

Good call on the weed non-issue. It's a fun debate in other venues, but here... not so much. This one, though, is probably going to be a little contentious.

I lean libertarian, so my opinion on the SF Happy Meal dumbassery is going to be obvious- it's not the government's place to tell McDonald's what it can or can't include in it's product. That's not a comment on the intelligence of the ordinance, nor a endorsement of the nutrition of a Happy Meal. Plain and simple, it should not be a function of the government to tell me what I can or can't sell, nor what I can or can't buy. Once you start down that path (which we in the US are very far along), where does it stop?

Apart from the libertarian stance, I think this ordinance by the SF City Council demonstrates that they believe that people are inherently stupid. It also demonstrates their own stupidity if they think that banning toys in Happy Meals will do even a little bit towards reducing obesity in children.

It's indicative of the society we have created for ourselves. Blame McDonald's for the obesity epidemic, and rely on Big Brother to fix it, when the responsibility for both should be on the individual. Kids aren't fat because they eat too much fast food- they are fat because parents let them eat too much fast food.

No KBalls. I just made an observation that complaints about governments over-stepping in the interests of public health have been around for centuries. If you want to read something else into that in the interests of whatever argument you want to make, go ahead. It's a free country, blessed with a pretty fantastic public health system.

It's nice to think the government will just protect us from bad shit, but it turns out that power corrupts and the government enjoys using that power over our food to protect their large food industry buddies from the little guys.

Where does raw milk fit in to this debate? If you aren't familiar with the issue, google "raw milk raids." Tons of fun.

I just read a great blog post about how food "safety" laws make it harder for small, organic farmers to sell their food. (Summary/excerpts here.)

The argument against allowing the government to tell us what food to eat isn't just about protecting us from coronary disease. It's about fucking up the good stuff too.

PaddyDog, nothing goes into or out of my kids unless I know exactly what it is. so you and the other 87% of the herd go be content. I'll be over here with the other nuts.

And Zombie I don't disagree that second smoke is gross and has some health risks. I'm saying it is not the awful danger they claim.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=2

and

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

Eat whatever the fuck you want. You want to eat McD's greaseburgers every meal, every day, for the rest of your short, constipated life? Go for it. BUT....I should NOT be expected to pay for it. You buy your own special "Lard-Ass" policy. Now, that is not to say that I don't indulge in burgers, fries, pizzas, etc. Hell, I'm American. I eat damn near whatever crap I can get my hands on. BUT I KNOW WHEN TO STOP! I am not depending on the government to spoon-feed me nutritional information or food choices. I educate myself, and my family, and take responsiblity for that. It is not up to everyone else out there to watch out for me and mine, just as it would not be fair for them to pay for my gastric bypass/heart stent/funeral from Whoppering myself into an early grave.

As for smoking, I'm an off-an-on smoker. mr. dammit is a smoker. I'm not proud of either fact. Nicotine is a bitch. I know people who can just put it down and never pick it up again....but its a struggle for me, and mr. dammit has been smoking since he was in his early teens. He knows he needs to quit....he lost his dad last year to lung cancer.....but it is harder than a non-smoker can imagine. I haven't had a cigarette in weeks. That being said, we don't smoke in restaurants or around other people. What we do in our bedroom or the garage (the only places mr. dammit smokes at home) is our own business. And, think about this....when everyone stops smoking.....who is gonna be making up all that lost tax revenue? Not to mention employing the thousands of people in the industry, from the farmer to store clerk? If you are only polluting your own lungs, and KNOW that you are killing yourself.....so be it.

Of course, that ties right back to why does EVERYONE have to pay for that.....which leads back to the economic question....and so on and so on and so on......

Vaccinations are obviously key to herd immunity. When you lose herd immunity you'll see an increase in these diseases that starting crippling/killing unvaccinated "healthy" children.

While true BigTodd's kids are healthy it's not because they are unvaccinated. There is no connection between not being vaccinated and current "good" health. I can't remember the term but it's basically a false assumption. I wear underwear and have never been attacked by a tiger therefore wearing underwear prevents tiger attacks.

As to the government regulation I don't see a problem with it. Smoking is bad and second hand smoke hurts those around you. Well, what happens if a fatty falls on you in the woods. Your up shit creek without a paddle.

Zombiescientist, I totally understand the mountain climbing claim, I was using that only as an example to counter the, raising my health benefits claim. cause you falling off a mountain, and me smoking are both raising the rates of health insurance for everyone under the same company.

But everytime you drive your car your still putting more deadly chemicals in the air than I could ever hope to with my ciggarette smoke.

Jesus, PaddyDog, take it easy.

And apparently I'm not the only one who reads into things. Note my use of the words "IF SO," which was a tip-off that I was simply looking at your comment in a certain way to make a highly-coveted "bazooka" reference.

But thanks for the way you corrected it. That was great.

*slowly backs away*

Blah. Blargitty blabbity blargh pfffth.

Who gives a shittery shit? There. That's there's my debatable inputtery.

They could've put liquor in a bottle shaped like a diseased fucking liver, and I still would've guzzled it with all the fervor of a heatwaved lunatic. I know what it did, and I still wanted it. The throat-holes, the diseased lungs, the toe-tags, the six dollars a pack? Not. Going. To. Work. I smoke. I love to smoke. I'll probably die from it. Done. The greasy food? Fat kids, sodium, hearts exploding? Same deal. You wanna do that? Better step up and cancel Man vs. Food then. Might as well put the kibosh on Mad Men too, what with the smoking and drinking and such. Absolutely retardable. You can hide it, slap it in stickers, raise the price, misdemeanor the piss out of it - the bottom line? If people want it, they're still going to get it and do it. Done.

Durf. Double durf...
Skittimus Maximus Esquire, III
Purveyor of Shitty Habits and all-around Gloomy Gus

ZombieScientist:

While there are many measures where the US falls far short of expectations and ability (education, individual health care, TV drama without expositionary dialogue, etc.), it actually has one of the finest public health systems in the world. There's a reason why every country in the world has the CDC on speed dial as soon as a nasty unknown disease crops up. Is it perfect? No. Would I rather live in Russia where they still believe an appropriate approach is to give a week's course of anti-TB drugs to a prisoner and then send him back to gen pop to infect everyone else? Hell no.

Once again, the argument that smokers and fatties are burdening all the good-livin' Americans with their expensive health care problems rears it's poorly thought-out head.

Look guys, smokers and fatties pay an inordinate amount of luxury taxes on the goods that they consume, then they have the goldanged good grace to die before they burn up too much Social Security, Medicare and pensions. They are freakin' patriots ffs. Plan on living well into your nineties? Fine, thank a smoker for making it financially plausible.

Have any of you ever gone out for a drink to a smokey bar? I'll be you have. I'll bet almost eveyrone reading this has exposed themselves to second-hand cigarette smoke at one time or another. I'll bet you've walked into a smokey tavern of your own free will, taken a seat of your own free will, and gleefully inhaled cigarette smoke for hours without once feeling a cold steel barrel of a gun pressed against your back. It's all well and good to talk about how smokers effect those around them, but that argument falls apart immediately once you remember that each individual has free will. You knew that second-hand cigarette smoke was bad for you when you walked in and ordered a drink. And you did it anyway. You're responsible for your health, not the smoker. You're responsible for what goes in and out of your lungs. You. You're the one to blame for the adverse effects of the second hand smoke on your own body.

Now, I understand why you did it. The adverse effects weren't immediate enough to deter you from the fun night out (everyone is immortal until they're dying, hence the thousands of stupidity-related deaths we suffere every year). If you honestly believed you would develop cancer from inhaling second-hand smoke, you wouldn't subject yourself to it. You'd stay home. Or you'd go to another bar or restaurant where there is no smoking. But you don't believe it. Not REALLY. Or you believe it just enough to show up to the polls and vote for a law that subverts the rights of others for your own comfortability.

When faced with these kinds of laws, the kind that are designed to impose the values of the majority over the minority, it is important that we take a step back and review the matter objectively. If all you're thinking about is how uncomfortable something makes you, what is to prevent you from voting to ban it? The majority doesn't always know what they're doing. The majority enacted slavery. The majority banned gay marriage. Take a step back, out of your own shoes and consider whether or not your values are more important than my values.

And before you consider bringing health concerns into an issue of liberty, please consider the burden we all shoulder of maintining our own health and well being.

On a more serious anecdotal note:

I worked in the restaurant business for many years. I saw the smoking section of the fine dining restaurants I worked in go from almost half of the restaurant, to a small portion of the restaurant, to only being available in the bar area. I also saw non-smoking restaurants open up to great success. All of these things happened prior to any draconian smoking laws being enacted.

My two cents, most of these new smoking laws are unnecessary and, maybe worse, a blatant attempt on the part of Public Health nuts to take credit for a phenomenon that was happening anyway.

You can hide it, slap it in stickers, raise the price, misdemeanor the piss out of it - the bottom line? If people want it, they're still going to get it and do it. Done.

Amen. No doubt. But when it comes to an addictive life-shortening activity like smoking, I think the government has a legitimate duty to do everything it can to keep ciggies out of the hands of minors. I can't think of one smoker friend who hasn't tried to quit. Basically they are admitting to a mistake that they can't correct. And in my experience very few smokers start after age 18. Almost every smoker I know started years earlier than that.

Regarding the increasing insurance premiums folks attribute to us fatties I would argue that your premiums are more severely affected by the major procedures that the elderly require, made worse by the great increase in lifespan we have seen since the start of the century.

If you want to save money that way try legislating the insurance companies to not screw over every customer they have, or to force everyone into a crooked system.

By rocketing my fat ass to an early grave on a diet of whiskey and whoppers I am actually saving you a boat load of green, and all I get is a big F*@k You? Nice.

I'm off to get some cookies.

Guess what? Smoking ban in New York has been in effect for (correct me if I'm wrong) at least 5 years now, I think more. Trans fat ban in New York has been in effect for at least 3 years now. You know what's changed since then?

Not much. Fast food still tastes delicious, bars and clubs are still popping, people are still smoking and there haven't been any rallies or huge protests to reverse the bans.

So...on a idealistic level should the government not be allowed to place (limited) restrictions on what people can consume and where they can consume it? Maybe not. But are these bans do WAY more good than harm. You bet.

But are these bans do WAY more good than harm. You bet
~Posted by: Littlejon2001 at November 15, 2010 4:23 PM

Do you oppose the patriot act? The same can be said of that. Profiling works as well. They are all Govt intrusions into our personal lives.

If I want to chain smoke Mcdonalds french fries while driving in my car without a seatbelt, then that's my stupid fault.

I'm willing to make sacrifices for the things I enjoy, but I know I should keep my indulgences to a moderate level. People bitch when you threaten to impose the tiniest tax on soda and other things you eat and drink "for fun". I say tax the hell out of 'em. I'm cool with you taxing the hell out of my pork rinds so that the next guy can see a doctor, whether he chose to eat pork rinds or not. I will absolutely pay an additional $5 for a bottle of Scotch (the other $40 didn't deter me), so if that $5 keeps the plaster from falling off a school ceiling onto a child's head, perfecto! That's the sort of social contract I can embrace. While we're at it, legalize pot brownies and tax the hell out of those, too, so I can ride the bus for $1 again.

Despite my more liberal leanings, I'm a little uncomfortable with the government stepping in where people should be taking care of themselves anyway.

Then again, if big corporations are allowed to have so much say in what we eat, drink and smoke, then I'd rather see some action taken to regulate or balance it out.

I believe if smokers are allowed to smoke in bars, non-smokers should be allowed to fart near them. It's a personal freedom thing.

I've previously come down on the liberal side when it comes to the smoking issue, but after reading all of the comments and thinking past my own personal prejudices, I've changed my mind.

Do I find smoking to be utterly repulsive? Hell yes.

If I am in a restaurant or bar, and the patron next to me decides to smoke, will I probably leave or move to the other side of the room? Absolutely--the inconsiderate fuck is ruining my ability to enjoy my meal/drink without their nasty exhaust invading my personal space.

If enough people like me choose not to frequent bars/restaurants where the smokers tend to be inconsiderate fucks, will the bar and restaurant owners notice, and take measures to make the non-smokers want to return to their establishment? If they want to stay in business, you'd bet your ass they will.

Bottom line: No government intervention is needed--the demand for smoke-free environments by the growing population of non-smokers in our society is enough to encourage the change all on its own.

me: more liberal than you are comfortable with, more conservative than you would think.

re: public health, smoking, etc.

I think people need to read Dostoyevski's "Notes from the Underground". You'll never get 100% of the populace to agree to promote their best interests. There will always be freaks who will shatter the Crystal Palace simply because they have the opportunity and are able.

None of this matters in the slightest so long as it exists under a capitalist context. Health crazes are the next logical step for companies to draw consumers and they will inevitably do the right thing for the wrong reason and the government will support it since it cannot exist without the support the capital gleamed from these companies.

Damn, forgot to add this. I'm sure it means something, or several things, as it were.

"Liberty, in case you've forgotten, is a soul's right to breathe. When it cannot take a long breath, laws are girded too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope."

Or one of my favorites,
The man who sacrifices liberty for security, deserves neither. -Ben Franklin

I still agree that Smokers should be willing to make our concessions about when and where we smoke, I just think that losing the ability to do it anywhere but my own home is excessive.

If your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins, doesn't it make sense that your right to exude carcinogens into their air should also stop where I'm forced to inhale them?

That depends, was I already swinging my arms when you walked into my space? If so, you've only got yourself to blame for the fat lip.

You're probably right. If the smoking bans were repealed tomorrow, there are thousands of restaurants and bars which would dust off their ash-trays. And luckily (because Jessie is right about the cultural shift that is taking place in our society against smoking) there are probably many restaurants that would not switch back (not only the chains, but almost certainly those). And in that case, I'd have no complaint because these establishments would have what they should've had the whole time; a choice.

What we have now is a goverment mandate imposing the values of the majority onto businesses and a minority voice. It is democracy at it's worst.

Why is the overweight child the target in this? Even the healthiest Happy Meal--McNuggets, Apple Dippers, and Milk--is far from healthy of satisfying for a normal child. A quarter of an apple with sugar sauce, a small bottle of milk containing less than a school lunch carton, and four half-dollar sized discs of mechanically separated chicken adding up to roughly 400 calories does not a healthy meal make. That is a very small portion food for such a high calorie count. Congratulations, fatty, you made a slightly less lethal choice. Here's your Weeble.

McDonalds markets their sugar-salt-slurry-patties of "beef" and "chicken" at children with the promise of toys. Would kids want a McNugget if they weren't originally promised that cool new race car or Bratz doll by a laughing clown and the children playing with him? I doubt it. Children are, as a rule, stubborn and reluctant to try anything new and weird, like vegetables or a different pasta sauce. If McDonalds and all these fast food slop shops eliminated the toys altogether and geared their advertising away from children, the effect would be greater than punishing the children. Would they ever do it? No. Why? They earn too much money.

When these chains take the heat for impacting "x" health concern, they introduce "healthy" alternatives, like salads with more fat, salt, and calories than their large signature burger or a quarter-fold booklet of walking tips with every meal. When the world finishes applauding them, they go right back to the evil until the next health concern. For goodness sake, KFC claims the Double Down with grilled chicken is a healthier option, even if you get it on bread. Evil corporations run by greedy people will never correct their atrocious behavior unless they are forced to; even then, they'll scour the legal documents until they find a loop hole to shovel more sugar down the throats of Americans under the guise of compliance. We can't win with the chains and really should avoid them at all costs.

And regarding the question at hand, I lean libertarian on most issues but be careful about going full-tilt Jeff Miron about it. Government should have the ability to intervene in matters of public health but it is imperative that they do so responsibly. Government intervention needs to be measured and restrained, and very careful about the unintended consequences. The San Francisco regulation is an example of liberal do-gooding run amok, some power mad happy meal hating councilmember who would do better to channel their excess of spare time into making healthy meals available to the poor than cracking down on Hollywood cross-promotional activities.

Some of you might want to check out a book called Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, which is all about how you can influence behavior without interfering with choice. Here is an Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/0300122233

I can't duke this one out till the wee hours today so I yield the remainder of my bandwidth to ZombieScientist. In a debate about policy issues and public health, science > ignorance every time. (Really BigTodd, you're anit-immunizations? I am starting to think that you are not real and this is just an elaborate practical joke by Pookie to fuck with us. Those fights between you to would be like Jack & Tyler Durden)

LOL that would be a funny joke, but sadly for you I am in fact real. I beleave in alternative medicne as well as and the healing power of prayer.

i'm always amazed at the energy and vitriol antismokers have for the minor contributions of carcinogens from cigarettes, yet never have a peep to say about living in a culture that could virtually be defined as carcinogenic. where is the anti-car lobby? the anti-industrial chemical lobby?

i pay an obscene amount of tax for my dirty little cigarette habit, and if it one day makes me ill, i will likely use the healthcare i have paid for in both regular tax and sin tax, for 6 months to a year, versus a "healthy" person who will die very slowly and expensively for 20 years.

healthcare is very expensive and a lot of it is due to medical practices that have extended life expectancy but not necessarily health.

I tend to think of any cause of death over the age of sixty as natural causes, and the rising tide of cancers is partially a biproduct of humans living long enough to develop them.

We embrace and consume endless poisons every day, and yet its always the smokers who are convenient to jump on. personally, I'd be all over a lobby to free my air from automobile exhaust, but I guess that's just crazy talk.

You know what? I'm going to stay out of this.
Because I spent a year in a cardiac ward doing clinical research, listening to all the bullshit reasons why someone can't give up, even after their fourth heart operation.
Because I'm also coming up on five years researching COPD (basically, your lungs fill with holes and pus and have all the infection-fighting ability of a patient with end-stage AIDS). The basis of our model is to expose mice to store-bought cigarettes (and trust me, the USA has NOTHING on Australia when it comes to scary images on the packets).
Yep, that means I get exposed too. But I wear a long-sleeved lab coat, gloves, a full breathing apparatus AND I smoke the cigarettes in a chemical fume hood. I've seen what they do to the mice. I've seen what they do to the equipment. And I know that this disease does not care if you smoke filtered or low tar or whatever other bullshit the manufacturers invent. This disease is caused entirely by repeated inhalation of smoke into the lungs, and the subsequent immune response - the only other people who get COPD are the ones who burn camel turds in their huts to cook and stay warm.

But I am going to say this: The vaccination for Whooping cough lasts about 10 years. As such, the herd immunity is significantly less than that of other vaccinated conditions. But in terms of an indicator of herd immunity for those diseases, it's a canary down the mine shaft.
This year, the number of people infected with whooping cough in Australia has tripled. In Septemeber, a baby in SA died, the first in nearly a decade. That's still better than California, where 10 babies have died this year.
I know more about this bastard than I want to. The ITGeek has it. He's 29, and fit (he was training for a 35km bike ride for charity when he got sick). Two weeks ago, I watched helplessly, scared out of my fucking mind, while he coughed until he could not breathe. Until then, the symptoms had been so mild we'd had no idea what was happening to him. We'd spent the day before at a friend's birthday party, with the 3 month old baby of another friend. That's the bitch of it - you don't know you have this thing until you've already exposed everybody.
The canary's got its legs in the air.

PS. If you're an adult, get the whooping cough vaccination. The woman the ITGeek caught it off has had it for a month and she's unemployed, but she's been ordered not even to look for another month.

Again, I don't mean to sound heartless, but the health effects have no bearing on this discussion. None of these issues are issues of health. These are issue of personal freedom.

And for those of you who might make assumptions about me and my frame of reference, please note that I am a non-smoker who worked in restaurants for the better part of 10 years and have suffered the loss of three close relatives to lung/throat cancer caused by smoking.

Hey ScienceGeek, does COPD et. al. apply to smoking anything, or just ciggies? I have a brother who needs to know.

Superasente, you do not live in the land of the free, eloquent expression aside.

You are regulated, your so-called free markets are regulated, your behaviour is regulated.

Be it civil law, criminal law, regulatory conduct (SEC, etc.), or societal norms, your country regulates its day-to-day behaviour. As an individual, you have some rights, you are extended some privileges and you have some obligations.

Smoking is not a right, nor is it a matter of personal freedom.

Tobacco use has been the subject of regulation for a long time, largely as a result of the developing understanding of the ill-health effects of smoking (or chewing) tobacco. Whether it is specific taxation requirements, advertising restrictions, health warnings, or additive restrictions: tobacco use is heavily regulated.

So, yes, I'm pretty sure health concerns have a pretty big fucking say as to where - and/or whether - you are allowed to smoke.

Side note: sometimes I think the rights afforded to individuals in the US is one of the country's biggest failings. It seems to result in a me-first, "somebody else is to blame for my misfortune" attitude. Not helpful here, I know, but your populace appears to litigate so much, and resultant damages are ridiculously out of any reasonable proportion.

Will we ever get over the idea of the founding fathers' infallibility? These are fellas who owned slaves, for christ's sake-- how can these people be truly trusted as to 'what is right' when they did not have the foresight to start a country in which all of its citizens could be free? It makes little sense to me that 'freedom' could be defined and promoted by individuals who owned other individuals.

And if the response to this is "Well, it was a different time", then perhaps their ideas were best suited to this different time and we can stop quoting them as experts on freedom. I don't care what time it was, anyone who would stand idly by and allow slavery to exist can go fuck themselves.

So if I have ever driven a car or eaten a Big Mac I forfeit any and all rights to regulate what I am exposed to in an enclosed area?

Self regulate. Don't expose yourself to it. Or don't complain. You willfully worked in restaurants; no one forced you. You had plenty of choices, I'm sure. There are literally thousands of menial jobs out there, if you're willing to do them. Take responsibility for your own actions. It is no-ones fault but your own that you've inhaled cigarette smoke (you're doubly cursed for knowing it's harmful effects and exposing yourself to it anyway).

If you are being an obnoxious ass at a football game spilling your beer on me and yelling profanity an usher can kick your ass out.
Because stadiums are privately owned and operated venues which can define what behavior is appropriate. Shouldn't bars and restaurants have the same privilege?

The majority of people don't want to have to be impinged upon by second had smoke from the minority.
Again, this is the chief flaw of the Democratic system of government; that the majority dictates to the minority what is right. What is to prevent the majority from making cigarettes completely illegal? Or liquor? Or soda-pop? We don't give the majority carte'blanche to mandate laws however they like; we need to step back and view each situation objectively to best serve the ideals of our country.

...it is a vestige of the days when we didn't know any better and it is slow to change because people resist change.
Though this might be true for many, this has nothing to do with my perspective.

It is perfectly legitimate to restrict those freedoms when they interfere with the rights of others to freely enjoy themselves.

Show me where it's a right for you to enjoy yourself. They'd better start handing out tickets to Cedar Point Amusement Park with our tax returns if they want to assure that right is protected.

Show me where it's a right for you to enjoy yourself.

You know that's not what I meant. Nobody needs to provide for my enjoyment. People have a right to enjoy themselves and purse their own happiness without the unnecessary intrusion of others. And as I said above, if the smoking issue comes down to asserting your right to fill the room with smoke or my right to have a room full of clean air, then I'll take the clean air. And maybe once we have a generation of that as the standard and we want to open the issue back up and see if anyone wants to go back to smoke-filled dining rooms I think you will see a very different opinion from business owners & patrons. In the meantime, let the majority assert it's will. It's for a good cause.

"That which governs least governs best."
Thomas Paine

Good thing the founding fathers believed in fairy tales, huh? What we have is a far cry from what they envisioned, I'm sure. The system we currently have has a shelf life, I'm afraid. Better a libertarian system than the totalitarian we are headed for. How much intrusion can we endure before we are no longer "free"?

Posted by: logar at November 15, 2010 8:36 PM

Yeah. And those same "libertarian" Founding Fathers immediately went on a crusade against what they saw as vices, including cohabitation, alcohol, homosexuality, and dozens of other things that are LESS regulated now then they were under the Founding Fathers.

Actions speak louder than words. As such, their "libertarianism" was skin deep, at best.

Incidentally, people who cherry pick Founding Fathers quotes without bothering to learn about what they actually did piss me off. By modern standards, the Founding Fathers were often incredibly intrusive into daily lives. I'm sorry of that fact interferes with our cultural bedtime stories, but learn some actual goddamn history before you try to use it to win arguments on the internet.

Blank, I can't find the link right now, but the example I remember was NYC. The year after the smoking ban in bars and restaurants, hospital admissions in the city for heart attacks went down something like 6%. And it dropped about 6% a year for 3 more years before stabilizing. If I have some time on the network tomorrow I'll see what I can dig up in the way of corroboration.

That said, I'm going to run on memory here for a sec, because I do study this kind of crap every day.... IIRC, every city that has passed a similar ban has seen drops of between 3% and 7% per year for 3-4 years immediately following the ban. The alleged culprits have less to do with smoke damage to the lungs and more to do with the chemically induced dilation of vasculature and the immune responses, which can be quite vigorous in non-smokers who have casual interaction with cigarette smoke once or twice a week.

For a lot of people, having cigarette smoke near them is like people allergic to peanuts having Skippy aerosolized in their face... just a little slower.

Another fun fact: children exposed not even to secondhand smoke itself, but the clothing of people exposed to cigarette smoke have substantially increased rates of asthma. I'll try to dig up the numbers on that one, too. While I can't remember them at all right now, I do remember that they were insanely depressing.

ZombieScientist, you continue to post information about the adverse effects of smoking cigarettes even though no-one is debating it. We get it. Smoking is bad for you. We all agree whole-heartedly. For those of us (and, I'm probably alone at this point) who disagree with the smoking bans, the health effects are irrelevant.

Yossarian, I don't define myself as a "free-market libertarian" and I'm not falling back on any specific argument to reinforce my point. If this particular idea falls within the boundaries of some brand of established politics, I assure you it's unintentional (I'm not easily bottled friend -- I am ninja).

You write, "I'll take the Nanny State. Why not?", but I'm not buying it. I normally wouldn't drop this sort of thing on you, but it feels like you're just trying to make a point for the sake of being right. Having listened to your reasonable, cogent commentary on recent health care reforms, I don't believe you're actually all that cool with a "nanny state." However, if I'm wrong -- if a "nanny state" is something you would be fine falling in line with -- I must strongly protest to the sentiment that we'd all be better if the government started telling us what was best for our health.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't think my point is getting through. Each individual is responsible for their own health. If you don't want your child exposed to cigarette smoke, don't subject them to it. If there is a restaurant where they serve blueberry pancakes and people are allowed to smoke in that restaurant, then don't go there. You have a choice. Why would you willfully strip away the choice of someone else who wants to enjoy his own order of blueberry pancakes? Because that person wants to have a cigarette? Their wants and desires are less important than yours? The ultimate choice should be in the hands of the restaurant as to whether they will allow him to light up or not. Not yours. Not the smoker's. Certainly not the government's.

You say there's nothing "redeeming" about the right to smoke. There is nothing "noble or respectable" about it. And I agree wholeheartedly. It's a repulsive, horrible, disgusting habit. But none of that matters. A perspective doesn't have to have "redeeming" qualities to find it's defense. Without trying I can think of a dozen or more issues that conservatives would be loathe to describe as "noble or respectable." But I would fight for them anyway. Because it shouldn't matter what an individuals gut reaction to something is. We should be able to step away from ourselves and look at each issue objectively. Look and ask, "how does this effect the personal freedoms of everyone involved?"

Finally, you write, "People have a right to enjoy themselves and purse their own happiness without the unnecessary intrusion of others." And you know what, I agree. All people. You. Your family. The guy down the street who wants to smoke weed. The homosexual couple who wants to get married. The guy who wants to light up a cigarette in his local bar (provided it's okay with the owner). All of us. No one should be able to stand in the way of those goals and desires, no matter how ignoble they might seem to others.

Oh, and Peter G...I'm not lost. I'm somewhere out there...
Sooooome wheeeeeere ouuuuuut theeeeeere, beneath the pale moon liiiiight....
(seriously dude, I'm not a smoker)
(of cigarettes)

We don't give the majority carte'blanche to mandate laws however they like; we need to step back and view each situation objectively to best serve the ideals of our country.

Actually we do. The majority elect the representatives that create laws by a majority (or supermajority) vote. This even includes changes to our most sacred document of freedom and government, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nothing is written in stone. Anything can be changed by the majority.

@superasente

Let me try to be a little more clear about where I am coming from. First of all, I do get your point. I wasn't trying to be flippant or dismissive above, I really do think you have a good and logically sound position. And I'm not calling you a free-market libertarian or implying that there is anything bad about that, I was just pointing out that your position on this issue (People should be free to make their own choices and responsible for the consequences and the government should stay out of private business) can be summed up as the free market libertarian position. If anything it was meant as a compliment to your argument. I think it is a very rational position to take and anyone arguing against you is forced into a compromised position of trying to justify government intrusion into some private affairs while keeping them out of others. That's why I said the argument was a stalemate at best. I really don't think you can "lose" a pure debate arguing from that position.

Having said that, I am going to try to undermine your argument any way I can by pointing out all the reasons why I would still support an indoor smoking ban in restaurants and places of business. You are right, usually I am for market-based solutions and against legislation limiting personal freedoms. The Nanny State typically does more harm than good and causes lots of unintended consequences by failing to understand basic economics and human nature. But I am also willing to acknowledge that sometimes government intervention is needed to serve the greater good. You can't just subscribe to an ideology and dig in expecting that it will always work in every situation. You have to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and make the best decision under the circumstances. (Not lecturing you here, I know you agree with that statement and I don't mean to suggest you are close-minded or unreasonable). So I'll step away from core principles and ideals to venture into the messy world of pragmatism and compromise.

It's a public health issue. You can't just say "you continue to post information about the adverse effects of smoking cigarettes even though no-one is debating it" and remove that critical point from consideration. On the contrary, I think one of the only things that can justify state intrusion in private business is when it is a matter of public health. If the furnace was leaking carbon monoxide or the cutting boards were growing salmonella colonies the health department would shut the restaurant down. They wouldn't just post a notice on the door and let people evaluate the risks and make their own decisions. Here, too, it is reasonable to allow the state to set certain standards about the amount of carcinogens and toxins in the air. You can say it's arbitrary enforcement when we have cars and other sources of pollution everywhere. I say just because we can't do perfect doesn't mean we can't do good. This is good.

State action is needed because people cannot always be counted on to make decisions in their own best interest. This is my "inertia of the status quo" argument but I'll make it again. Even if a majority of customers want it and it is in the restaurants best interest to do it there will be a significant resistance to change. A large majority of nonsmokers care, but not enough to change their behavior when 80% of restaurants allow smoking. Also, a large number of smokers care but they, too, will continue to eat out even after the ban is in place. "Voting with your dollars" is a nice concept but it is far from perfect. It takes an overwhelming display of preference to overcome resistance to change.

Not to mention that this is coming after decades of unchecked manipulation and disinformation from the tobacco industry. The playing field was not level. Imagine if we actually do manage to make marijuana legal in the US. Do you think that most restaurants would even consider having pot smoking sections? Of course not. Because there is no precedent, no firmly entrenched expectation, it would seem ridiculous to permit marijuana smoking in a Denny's.

And finally, pragmatically, what do we risk by forcing the smokers outside? This is where the unpopularity of smoking comes in. Call it unfair- it probably is- I just don't see anything about it that I want to defend. It's stupid, harmful, disgusting, pointless, destructive, and without any redeeming qualities. If smokers are inconvenienced, fine by me. The world will be a better place, and that's what I hang my hat on.

Yes, it's a weak argument. You could try to make a similar argument to ban a bunch of other stuff like violent video games or explicit music that is socially unpopular and appears to have no redeeming qualities. I would be dead-set against censorship in any form. Honestly, I don't feel 100% comfortable with the smoking bans. But at the end of the day I think it is the right decision and I am glad we've made that change.

KevinAmold:
Good thing I never claimed the founders were infallable, sport. They just had a good idea, and they pursued that idea. And demonizing them for the beliefs of their age is a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, isn't it? Progress is a good thing, but you need to start somewhere.

ZombieScientist:
Such vitriol! And it didn't even have anything to do with smoking. I'm shocked.

First off, the founders were not libertarians, nor did I claim they were. Take a closer look at my post before you go off next time, would you?

Looking at the actions of the founders through a modern revisionist filter, and discrediting them for not espousing 21st century ideas of equality is kind of the new, hip cultural bedtime story, isn't it? They were a product of their age, and they should be judged by how they changed their world, not by how much the world has changed since they passed.

If you think the society the founders of America created was "incredibly" intrusive, it's you who needs to study a little history. Take a little tour through, I don't know, all of recorded history prior to the founding of the United States, and show me a less intrusive society than the one they founded. I'll wait.

They had many warts, to be sure, but they laid the foundation for all of the freedoms we now enjoy. But hey. Fuck them, right?

You prove my overall point for me, anyway. You state:

"And those same "libertarian" Founding Fathers immediately went on a crusade against what they saw as vices, including cohabitation, alcohol, homosexuality, and dozens of other things that are LESS regulated now then they were under the Founding Fathers."

Interesting, considering your stance on government regulation. I bet you'd like to think you can have it both ways, but the reality is you can't. Banning smoking anywhere but a hermetically sealed room a mile underground probably seems like a good idea to you, but banning gay marriage doesn't? I've a great idea. Don't let the government have a say in either.

superasente, I'm not sure what conversation you're reading, but I read two separate requests for additional information and about a dozen denials that secondhand smoke is particularly bad. That warrants dropping some education up ins.

Speaking of which, Blank, I found a meta-analysis that pulls together data from the first several studies on heart attack rates, going as far back as 2004:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2927851/

There's a lot amount of variance from study to study, probably reflecting other risk factors that vary with location. If you're inhaling several metric tons of car exhaust a year already in NYC, you might see a different effect than someone who farms in Montana and mostly inhales clean-ish air outside the bar. But the combined analysis shows a robust drop in heart attack admissions correlated tightly with the introduction of restaurant/bar smoking bans in 8 locales (average 1 year reduction of 19%).

And this is just the immediate drop in heart attacks. There isn't any long term data yet on overall cardiovascular health, asthma rates, etc. My guess is that the data there will be less obvious. Smaller year-to-year effect that will add up over time. Less smoke means fewer methylated genes, means fewer epigenetic effects of smoking on the grandkids of exposed people, means the next generation is healthier overall.

Yossarian, I appreciate your attempt to reach across the aisle, but there is a fundamental difference between banning the proliferation of ideas broadly and banning the proliferation of airborne toxins specifically in crowded public environments.

logar, look into the societies of the Pacific Islands prior to European colonialism, Celtic societies in general pre-Rome, the Islamic Empire that flourished in the Dark Ages and left their colonies intact both politically and religiously, and.... Christ, maybe half a dozen others. Hell, pre-Christian Rome was actually pretty socially relaxed. Shit, you could even make the case that post-Christian Rome was substantially less uptight than modern America on some issues.

The early American crackdowns on cohabitation and alcohol alone would make them more intrusive than much of the world.

Just because our grammar school history books say nice things about us and bad things about everyone else, it doesn't make them true.

ZombieScientist:

I can't speak to pre-colonial Pacific Islander society, but:
1. We know very little about Celtic society and culture, so making any comparisons between our governments would be foolish.

2. Dark-age Islam did in many cases leave their conquered nations intact religiously and politically, but to say that on an individual basis they were less intrusive than early America is silly. I guess if you weren't a woman, homosexual, slave, infidel...

3. Romans, both pre and post Christianity, are an interesting topic in terms intrusiveness. Their society was fairly permissive. However, when your life essentially belongs to your government, and whatever rights you (slave or citizen) have are those given to you by your consul/senate/emperor, this is where I must depart with you.

I'm aware I'm swinging at a straw-man here, though. The government the founders created was not perfect, and it was not permissive of many of the ideals we hold dear today. I've never argued otherwise.

I'm simply stating that the framework of governance they gave us that recognizes and protects the fundamental and natural rights we possess as human beings is unique to history to that point, slavery or no slavery. It's from this philosophy that the concept of civil rights was able to gain a toehold, despite the intent of some of the founders.

I don't think anyone can truly state that "fat" people are increasing their health care premiums - as someone else pointed out the biggest "culprits" of using more health care and therefore increasing premiums are the elderly and those with genetic/chronic diseases. I don't see anyone telling people to not get chemo or accuse them of being selfish for having cancer.
Furthermore, although a strong correlation can be shown between weight and health problems, causality can never be proven. For example, if an obese person has knee problems it could be because they are overweight or it could simply be a genetic predisposition in their family. there is no real way to determine that heart disease, high cholesterol or diabetes was ABSOLUTELY caused by them being overweight.
Besides that, this "no toy" thing makes a dangerous precedent of creating a moral situation out of eating. By labeling certain food choices "good" or "bad" and then rewarding the "good" behavior, we can put kids in a very negative mindset. How many times have you heard someone eating a piece of "cake" say they are being bad? But your choice of what to eat does not give you value as a person - A child doesn't need to see that they deserve to be punished because they wanted fries with their happy meal instead of apples. Food and general health should be a person's choice, not enforced on them by outside forces.
i'm a non smoker and I thought it was a bunch of bs when they forced bar and restaurant owners to get rid of smoking sections. That should be the owners choice, and you can, as other people pointed out, not frequent that establisment if you see fit.

You fail to recognize the distinction between legal rights and natural rights. The Magna Carta defined the rights of citizens through charter--law, and gave provisions for amending and defining those rights through legislation, for the purchase of protecting the citizens from an absolute monarchy. The Declaration of Independence asserted that no law could amend, revoke, or define the rights man, which are God-given--natural. This is what I was referring to, and you have yet to show me a nation whose very foundation is based on this principle.

Clearly the structure of our government is copied from England, but there was certainly a difference in the theories by which they were founded. That's the point of the Declaration of Independence in the first place.

As for your views on the impetus behind the founding of the US... There's the elementary schoolbook version, and then there's your version. I'm somewhere in between. I concede that idealism and a noble cause was not necessarily their first and only priority. However, I've never encountered a person who would risk execution to save money on their taxes.

And none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand, which is libertarianism vs. liberalism in the context of public health.

As far as smoking goes, it is difficult to define where the US Government stands.

Sure, the FDA wants to make it scary, but over a year ago when RJReynolds wanted to release a tobaccoless breath mint last year (that couldn't be taxed as tobacco)the House of Congress, and the Senate voted no, with legislation that block all attempts to give smokers a smokeless alternative.

Some parents groups said it would attract kids, even though the logical question is, if they're not smoking, what's the difference?

So, the Gov doesn't really want smokers to stop smoking. Each company posts on their websites the yearly taxable revenue the Government receives in the triple digit millions.

"Also I do not beleave in required vaccinations in kids. My kids are not vaccinated and are very healthy."

" I beleave in alternative medicne as well as and the healing power of prayer."

I have to say, BigJed, out of all the idiotic things I've seen you write, these are certainly the most recent.

Yossarian, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.

BigTodd, you do realize profiling doesn't actually work right? That it doesn't do more good than harm right?

Also, I'm not sure I was entirely against the Patriot Act. I'm against the inevitable corruption that can come from laws like The Patriot Act. However, bans on smoking in restaurants and bars does not go into further, undefined territory. It just means you have to smoke outside or in a private place. The End.

And guess what, you can still chain smoke McDonald's cigarettes while not wearing a seatbelt and the most it will cost you is a $100 ticket. For the seatbelt. You really should wear those things.

You fail to recognize the distinction between legal rights and natural rights.

Not at all, logar. I simply acknowledge that it is the nature of power systems to reliably provide you only that which is legally mandated.

"Natural rights" is a buzzword. It's meaningless, and that's why it appeared in the (very moving) propaganda document (Declaration of Independence), not the legal one, the Constitution, which has a spelled out set of legal rights.

Natural or inalienable rights are a pretty idea that has never, ever survived contact with the ground. At the end of the day, your rights will always be exactly what the governmental and economic power structures allow you. And it is human nature that the people running those power structures will repeatedly do what they can to limit what rights they allow you.

I'm a pragmatist. Building sky castles about my "rights" without any attendant legal structure to support them is pointless navel gazing at best, and populist tripe more generally.

I think Thomas Jefferson actually believed it, idealist that he was, but he was enough of a realist to insist on spelling out legal rights, as well, and to insist multiple times on the public record that the list was not exhaustive, to hedge his bets.

Ah yes... And here we come to the crux of the whole debate.

You are absolutely correct in that the concept of natural rights is a pretty idea that has not truly survived reality. I'll even go so far as to say that it's not possible for this concept to survive. This is because it's an ideal. It's something that should be worked towards because of it's merits, but can't be attained due to it's very nature. You're a pragmatist. I'm an idealist. In some cases, anyway.

You have one thing backward, though- "your rights will always be exactly what the governmental and economic power structures allow you." I understand that this springs from your innate pragmatism (although one could argue, based on your comments, that you are more of a pessimist,) but if the American Revolution is any indication, the governed are the ones that dictate how many restrictions they will shoulder, before revolution ferments. Social Contract, blahblahblah.

You said it yourself- it's in the nature of those in power to increasingly do all they can to limit the freedom of the citizenry. Give an inch, and they take a mile. As members of a society that supposedly values personal freedom, how many inches should we give? **note- insert penis joke here**

The best way to protect personal freedom is to strive to give 0 inches, and know in our pragmatic little hearts that that's not going to happen.

It's a moot point anyway, ZombieScientist. The world we live in and the world I want to live in are two completely different things. I'm sure that's universal. But I'm going to keep fighting.

Bad rules are distinct from bad ideas. Good ideas frequently get screwed into the ground on implementation. Human nature again.

I agree with you that the world we live in and the one I want to live in are very different. I suspect that you and I want similar worlds. I find that to be the case very often with people who are, according to the cultural narrative, completely the opposite of me. We just have different ideas of what is necessary to get us there. I love idealists. I used to be one. That's probably why I sound like a pessimist. I study biology, psychology, cognition, history, and all the other crap that my brain craves to understand the disconnect between the world as I want it and the world as I see it.

What I've learned is that the petty, dark, and stupid parts of human nature aren't going anywhere, and that we have to understand them and learn to channel them productively. Pretending they don't exist is toxic. Getting rid of them would be worse.

Another thing I've learned is that power of even the smallest kind has the immediate effect of amplifying all those petty, dark, stupid, and toxic impulses. Frankly, the existing American system doesn't do a good enough job of controlling it. It worked better when travel time was a factor, corporate power was less, and there wasn't a media machine plugged into it 24-7. Our government is not set up to cope with the power hungry aspects of human nature working at that speed.