Yet another lawsuit rant.

[Baconsticks]

As Bad as this all is, I think not being able to sue people might be worse.

[Comrade K]

Actually, I'm inclined to be on their side this time. If MEHTUL bats are more dangerous than other bats, I say, why keep 'em?

That case could be made for just about anything. Stairs could be considered more dangerous than ramps.

I have no idea why you think letting people smoke where they like, ride a bike without a helmet and jaywalk is going to make the world safer.

Biking without a helmet and, to a lesser degree, smoking, are things that I don't really see as anyone's business but the citizen engaging in these activities. It's only themselves they can harm. Smoking in public places should be restricted to an extent, but at a certain point, it gets ridiculous. The little privately owned bars for example. If you don't want second-hand smoke, don't go to them, they aren't the mall, you don't need to be there.

[TyVulpine]

Smoking in public places should be restricted to an extent, but at a certain point, it gets ridiculous. The little privately owned bars for example. If you don't want second-hand smoke, don't go to them, they aren't the mall, you don't need to be there.

Yet, non-smokers have just a big a right to be there as the smokers. Why should the smokers' rights outweigh the non-smokers, or vice-versa? (I don't smoke, but second-hand smoke has been shown to cause cancer) That's why there should be a smoking section and a non-smoking section, divided by a wall or something, with fans pointed at the door into the smoking section.

[Astro]

Don't let him know she liked them best,
For this must ever be
A secret, kept from all the rest,
Between yourself and me.

[Extreme-Speed]

GeorgiaCoyote's first post reads like a huge run-on sentance. But I get where you're coming from. Poor kid.

[nickspoon]

]Yet, non-smokers have just a big a right to be there as the smokers. Why should the smokers' rights outweigh the non-smokers, or vice-versa? (I don't smoke, but second-hand smoke has been shown to cause cancer) That's why there should be a smoking section and a non-smoking section, divided by a wall or something, with fans pointed at the door into the smoking section.

Bizarrely enough, even if you're a non-smoker, you're not allowed to smoke in places where smoking is prohibited.

The question is not about equal rights, but whether you have the right to smoke wherever you desire. I find smoking repulsive and I can't stand breathing smoke - even outside. Obviously people standing there proudly doing something I find offensive - and can potentially cause me harm - is something I don't like.

[rabid_fox]

I hate non-smokers. Even more so since I've become one. Seriously, get over it, you pansies.

That previous sentence also applies to law-suit happy sorts.

[Mista_B]

Well, it all comes down to:

Do you want your own and other peoples lives to be more and more controlled by unelected government beurocrats? Then yay more laws!

If not, then, boo more laws. D:

[Ibun]

GeorgiaCoyote's first post reads like a huge run-on sentance.

You misspelled sentence.

[Mista_B]

GeorgiaCoyote's first post reads like a huge run-on sentance.

You misspelled sentence.

You mispelled sentance.

Andrew Sentance was educated at Eltham College and Clare College, Cambridge. At Eltham College, he studied Economics, Mathematics and History at A Level, and at Clare College gained a BA (Hons, 2.1) and an MA in Economics. He gained a PhD in Economics from the London School of Economics (thesis title: "The Government as employer: a macroeconomic analysis") and an MSc, also in Economics, from the L.S.E.

He holds visiting professorships at Cranfield University and Royal Holloway, University of London; he is also a Fellow and former Chairman of the Society of Business Economists. He is a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport which advises the UK Government on transport policy issues, and is a part-time Professorial Fellow at the University of Warwick, based at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Sentance

[Comrade K]

I don't think it's as simple as that. Consider the mental anguish suffered by the survivor involved in a fatal crash where death could have been avoided if a helmet had been worn by the deceased. Physical harm isn't the only kind of harm there is.

Smokers, too, may cause a burden to society that may not be immediately apparent, particularly in countries with socialized medicine. Ignoring all issues with secondhand smoke (which there are plenty), smokers in countries with universal healthcare cost the government far more in healtcare costs than do their non-smoking citizens. This translates to a financial burden to those that don't smoke, as even the high taxes on cigarettes aren't sufficient to offset the higher cost to all taxpayers to keep smokers alive.

I concede that there are arguments in both directions, and simply claim that the issues are more complex than is being presented here. MTMTE!

Well, first off, I don't think it is-or should be-the government's job to prevent mental anguish of other people. There are plenty of dangerous things out there, and you can't blame the government whenever someone does something stupid because they weren't lawfully forced to abstain from doing so. If a guy doesn't wear a helmet and gets killed, that's his own fault, and nobody but he is accountable to his family.

Regarding smoking and healthcare costs, I've actually heard the opposite. The smokers die earlier, and end up costing less in the long run.
I don't base my opinions on that however. I'm primarily concerned that this will turn out to be a sort of slippery slope. A similar case could be made against many other activities too. They aren't necessary and they tax the medical system--so restrict them.

It's already happening in schools. They have ridiculous restrictions on virtually everything, and I'm not keen on nanny-states.

[nickspoon]

Seriously, get over it, you pansies.

...and some people can have serious and life-threatening asthma attacks in smoky surroundings.

Comrade K: The fact is that the government is out to protect as many of its people as possible. It takes very little effort to wear a bicycle helmet - this can also be applied to seatbelts - and it saves thousands of lives*. This, obviously, reduces the stress on the health services, and more importantly reduces the number of people - productive (or potentially so) members of the workforce - dying.

Plus, nobody wants cyclist brains all over their windscreen. It's pretty traumatising and a bugger to wipe off.

*Not a real statistic.

[Ibun]

You are all missing the point. Wearing a helmet/seatbelt has been PROVEN to be safer than not doing so. Whereas the debate between MEHTUL/wooden bats has not been.

[GeorgiaCoyote]

Actually, I'm inclined to be on their side this time. If MEHTUL bats are more dangerous than other bats, I say, why keep 'em?

If that were true, I'd say the same thing. But overall wooden bats are just as, if not more dangerous than the aluminum bats. There's no danger of an aluminum bat shattering and sending nasty splinters everywhere. I now see this point has been brought up by Ibun as well. Ah it's just like me to start something and let it get good and hot and not respond back till the next day. I'm not completly agaisnt lawsuits. There are times when they are justified. This is not one of those cases.

[Ibun]

If the parents legitimately couldn't afford the hospital bills or something, I'm sure the community would have been happy to pitch in; but this just seems like yet another case of greed.