Quarantines may be justified

[Harmon Seaver]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:17:37PM -0400, stuart wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, Jim came up with this...
> 
> JC> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, stuart wrote:
> >> Smoking in public, that's an easy one to pick on. But the argument
> >> holds no water, unfortunately. Find me RELIABLE, UNBIASED evidence that
> >> second-hand smoke is actually dangerous, and I'll agree to ban smoking.
> 
> JC> Bullshit line of reasoning (actually your whole line is pretty much tits
> JC> up but why waste precious time). It's not a matter of 'proof'. It -is- a
> JC> matter of interfering with others. Note they are not saying you can't
> JC> smoke, they -are- saying that you can't make them smoke along with you.
> JC> There is this concept called 'consent'. You seem to be missing it.
> 
> JC> You can do what you want until it interferes with what another wants. If
> JC> they want to breath unpolluted air and drink clean water then there is
> JC> nothing that gives you the right to pollute either outside of -your-
> JC> immediate vicinity.
> 
> There is a line, that line is harm, not discomfort. My argument is that
> there are many things that cause discomfort, that's life, tough shit.
> If smoking actually caused harm to people near a smoker, I wouldn't
> protest any of these bans. But nobody has been able to prove it does.
> I know exactly what consent is. I don't consent to the kid next to me in
> my OS class who doesn't know what deodorant is stinking the room up, but
> it doesn't cause me any harm so the law has no right to impose speed
> stick on him.
> 
> People aren't permitted to blast music in the middle of the night

   Or in the middle of the day, for that matter. Anyone who's car stereo can be
heard outside the car should be arrested. I like the way they do that in New
Zealand, the fine is progressive, third offense they confiscate the car. They
should do the same with houses. 


> because it prevents other people from sleeping, which causes harm.
> When smoking is banned in places, it removes the RIGHT of the owner of
> that place to permit or prohibit a legal activity within their domain.
> Without those laws the owner could permit smoking, and patrons could
> then CONSENT to go to that place, or go somewhere else, where the owner
> has prohibited smoking. So yeah, I know what consent is, do you know
> what private property is?

   I wasn't talking at all about private property, I was talking about public
space. If only giving discomfort is okay, how about if I dump a bucket of cold
water on every smoker I meet on the street? 



-- 
Harmon Seaver	
CyberShamanix
http://www.cybershamanix.com