F
fred & michele
Guest
"abacus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "fred & michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I see both sides to the question of regulating substances like tobacco,
> > alcohol, cocaine, even heroin. While the consequences of illness &
> > addiction physically belong to the user, society as a whole *is*
burdened
> > by the financial cost of treatments for these consequences & lost
> > productivity. It is a balance of freedom & cost to the public that
probably
> > satisfies few.
>
> I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
Yes, working for years with people who made decisions that society pays for
dearly (substance abusers/addicts) is a real eye opener. Examining the
monies budgeted for just some of the consequences of bad choices like we've
mentioned is staggering. The amazing costs -- which are not only about
treatment, but the $$ used to pick up the pieces of the lives they effect
(like feeding, housing, clothing their children) & the non-monetary costs
like the family strife such behavior commonly includes as part of the
package -- are very real. Unless we as a society simply decide that people
who make stupid decisions (as well as the families they're supposed to be
responsible to) are also "free" to bear the burdens those decisions entail,
there is a real reason for reasonable limits.
> > I used to believe that seat belt laws should be abolished until
presented
> > with facts like drivers secured in a vehicle increased the probablity
that
> > they could maintain *some* control of the auto in the event of an
> > accident --an ejected or unconscious driver certainly can't do much to
> > mitigate the circumstances or outcome of an MVA. The lives of other
> > motorists or pedestrians could well depend on a driver being in their
car
> > making the effort to swerve, brake, or otherwise avoid a worse situation
> > than already presented with. Delaware was very slow in mandating seat
belt
> > laws. I was even slower in complying (<G>), until I fully understood a
> > decision I felt only effected me could actually cost someone else their
> > life.
>
> This is an argument I haven't heard before; I will ponder it.
> However, it would only apply to the driver, not any passengers.
Passengers flying about the vehicle during an MVA present a very real
hazard. Not to mention any person being thrown from a vehicle into the path
of another motorist, involving that vehicle & those in it in the accident as
well. Any paramedic/EMT can tell you the incredible impact a body being
hurled at high speed can cause.
>> Do the people footing the bills have a
> > say, or only those who run them up?
> The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.
We can refuse to provide foster care to the kids of those who make crummy
decisions. We can allow people to die in the streets of the illnesses
caused by bad choices & injuries sustained as a result of stupidity coupled
with unfettered freedom. We can create lists of people who insist upon
doing whatever they want & refuse to be of any assistance to them when their
choices bite them & their loved ones in the ass. But few of us could turn
our backs on a hungry kid abandoned by their parents or tell somebody's
husband "Sorry, your wife was stupid & didn't buckle up -- so now that she's
paralyzed, you'll need to figure out how to take care of her & pay the bills
for it. Don't ask for any help from the insurance co.or the gov't, 'cause
it's YOUR problem."
> > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
for
> > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
Or
> > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
>
> The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> what behaviors it is not?
It's quite obvious that smoking regulations are an attempt to control the
behavior & its outcome. It certainly doesn't cost $31.00 + for a carton of
Marlboros. Taxes, money mandated to be used for anti-smoking education by
recent court cases against the tobacco companies are just two compromises
between an outright ban on tobacco use & promoting it as an acceptable
behavior. In the case of obesity, regulating eating is much trickier. Any
food, even healthy stuff, can be misused & lead to being overweight -- & one
cannot decide to not eat at all, so we need to encourage moderation & common
sense as the only realistic way to go. It seems you assume regulation must
be in the form of restriction or punishment, but WRT eating & exercise, the
idea of *reward* makes far more sense. Tax credits for maintaining a
healthy weight/body fat percentage (verified just as many other deductions
require verification) -- deductions for the costs of health club
memberships (accompanied by documentation of attendance) -- proof of regular
check ups to spot any problems early on. There would be no "punishment" for
being fat, just as there is no "punishment" for throwing away one's receipts
that could be utilized as deductions. Those who go the extra mile to stay
healthy would be rewarded just as those willing to go to the trouble of
itemizing, saving receipts, & looking for ways to save on their taxes are.
Nobody's "punished" for renting their home, but there sure are rewards for
home ownership -- the pursuit of good health could be rewarded in the same
ways.
Here in DE, one can't smoke in any public buildings (including in what many
wouldn't believe possible to make smoke-free = BARS & NIGHTCLUBS!). Lots of
people *****ed & moaned about their rights, many businesses claimed they'd
go under, & it was predicted the end of the world was near! Hardly. The
bars in our area have full parking lots like before. People still want to
go out dancing & socializing. One nearby country western tavern came up
with a clever solution to satisfy customers who simply "couldn't" go without
lighting up -- they actually purchased an old DelDOT bus, parked it outside
the bar, stocked it with plenty of ashtrays & put a banner on it that read
"smokin' bus". Anybody can go on that bus (weather's no problem) & smoke
up -- then go back into the smoke free bar. It's a compromise that
satisfies everyone, as well as the law.
> If you look at the Netherlands as an example of a society where use is
> not necessarily considered abuse and abuse is treated as a health
> problem, not criminal behavior, legalization seems a better approach
> with fewer ancillary problems than ours.
Use ISN'T abuse. Many people smoke pot regularly all their lives while
holding responsible jobs, paying their bills, & raising children without any
problems. They obviously are able to regulate themselves as to where & when
to use. Ditto for many moderate alcohol users. Heroin & cocaine are
different in the scheme of abuse & addiction -- with very high rates of
addiction & other health problems & little benefit to their use, it makes
sense to discourage their use. And while the Netherlands handles the
*criminalization* of substance use differently than the U.S., I would be
very surprised if the abuse/addiction surrounding heroin & cocaine didn't
impact the taxpayers there WRT paying for treatment, money for the
associated health issues, & taking care of the responsibilities neglected by
abusers/addicts.
> I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> think I spelled that right).
>
> The idea is that people choose the society they live in. That is,
> people who decide they want to be free to take certain risks can do
> so, but then their society is not obliged to pay for the consequences.
Our society frequently pays for the consequences of the freedom without a
care so many people practice. Most people would be hard pressed to stick
with the idea expressed above. And it doesn't address what should be done
WRT those who were directly effected by the stupid decisions of others. The
kids left parentless -- the mother faced with caring for a young adult son
or daughter left paralyzed because seatbelts were left unbuckled -- the
babies born to addicted mothers who aren't fit to have a dog let alone a
child in their care. These are consequences dumped on people who didn't
make dumb choices -- who pays for them? Let's face it, we have to.
Otherwise we are punishing people whose innocence doesn't merit it.
> Those who agree to live with more constraints get more security in
> terms of a safety net when adverse events occur.
> The only example I can think of in our society would be the laws for
> Covenant marriage that were proposed about 10(?) years ago. Covenant
> marriage was an optional type of marriage that was more binding than
> our current laws - i.e. the justifications to get a legal divorce were
> severely limited. I haven't heard anything about that in some time, so
> I don't know how that issue turned out.
>
> Anyway, interesting post ma'am. Thanks for the food for thought.
It's definitely a sticky web, isn't it? While repression of freedom is
something most reasonable people don't favor, giving folks unlimited freedom
WRT unwise decisions that society is often left paying the tab for isn't
exactly a great option either. It'll no doubt always require compromise, a
careful balancing of independent choice & the responsibility of the
individual -- & the burden on others for those choices.
Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky *****.
news:[email protected]...
> "fred & michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I see both sides to the question of regulating substances like tobacco,
> > alcohol, cocaine, even heroin. While the consequences of illness &
> > addiction physically belong to the user, society as a whole *is*
burdened
> > by the financial cost of treatments for these consequences & lost
> > productivity. It is a balance of freedom & cost to the public that
probably
> > satisfies few.
>
> I find the economic arguments for allowing individuals freedom of
> choice to be very convincing. While it's not obvious at first glance,
> the mathematics indicate that optimum good for society can only be
> achieved by allowing individuals the ability to make those decisions
> for themselves. Have you studied that aspect of it at all?
Yes, working for years with people who made decisions that society pays for
dearly (substance abusers/addicts) is a real eye opener. Examining the
monies budgeted for just some of the consequences of bad choices like we've
mentioned is staggering. The amazing costs -- which are not only about
treatment, but the $$ used to pick up the pieces of the lives they effect
(like feeding, housing, clothing their children) & the non-monetary costs
like the family strife such behavior commonly includes as part of the
package -- are very real. Unless we as a society simply decide that people
who make stupid decisions (as well as the families they're supposed to be
responsible to) are also "free" to bear the burdens those decisions entail,
there is a real reason for reasonable limits.
> > I used to believe that seat belt laws should be abolished until
presented
> > with facts like drivers secured in a vehicle increased the probablity
that
> > they could maintain *some* control of the auto in the event of an
> > accident --an ejected or unconscious driver certainly can't do much to
> > mitigate the circumstances or outcome of an MVA. The lives of other
> > motorists or pedestrians could well depend on a driver being in their
car
> > making the effort to swerve, brake, or otherwise avoid a worse situation
> > than already presented with. Delaware was very slow in mandating seat
belt
> > laws. I was even slower in complying (<G>), until I fully understood a
> > decision I felt only effected me could actually cost someone else their
> > life.
>
> This is an argument I haven't heard before; I will ponder it.
> However, it would only apply to the driver, not any passengers.
Passengers flying about the vehicle during an MVA present a very real
hazard. Not to mention any person being thrown from a vehicle into the path
of another motorist, involving that vehicle & those in it in the accident as
well. Any paramedic/EMT can tell you the incredible impact a body being
hurled at high speed can cause.
>> Do the people footing the bills have a
> > say, or only those who run them up?
> The problem here is that individuals who choose to accept risks
> voluntarily are not given the option of doing so with the penalty of
> having to pay the price on their own. I'm not sure how to deal with
> this particular problem, but I'd like to hear others' ideas.
We can refuse to provide foster care to the kids of those who make crummy
decisions. We can allow people to die in the streets of the illnesses
caused by bad choices & injuries sustained as a result of stupidity coupled
with unfettered freedom. We can create lists of people who insist upon
doing whatever they want & refuse to be of any assistance to them when their
choices bite them & their loved ones in the ass. But few of us could turn
our backs on a hungry kid abandoned by their parents or tell somebody's
husband "Sorry, your wife was stupid & didn't buckle up -- so now that she's
paralyzed, you'll need to figure out how to take care of her & pay the bills
for it. Don't ask for any help from the insurance co.or the gov't, 'cause
it's YOUR problem."
> > Once again the question arises over whether the people whose money pays
for
> > the consequences of the individual's choice is entitled to any input.
Or
> > are they expected to simply pull out their wallets & pony up the $$$$?
>
> The main concern that I have with this particular argument is that it
> applies quite well to lots of other behaviors - like smoking tobacco,
> eating too much, not exercising, etc. Do you really want to open the
> door to having society exert legal control over those behaviors
> because they are *footing the bills* for health problems caused by
> obesity and smoking? Can you think of a logical way to differentiate
> between what behaviors it's reasonable to control by such laws and
> what behaviors it is not?
It's quite obvious that smoking regulations are an attempt to control the
behavior & its outcome. It certainly doesn't cost $31.00 + for a carton of
Marlboros. Taxes, money mandated to be used for anti-smoking education by
recent court cases against the tobacco companies are just two compromises
between an outright ban on tobacco use & promoting it as an acceptable
behavior. In the case of obesity, regulating eating is much trickier. Any
food, even healthy stuff, can be misused & lead to being overweight -- & one
cannot decide to not eat at all, so we need to encourage moderation & common
sense as the only realistic way to go. It seems you assume regulation must
be in the form of restriction or punishment, but WRT eating & exercise, the
idea of *reward* makes far more sense. Tax credits for maintaining a
healthy weight/body fat percentage (verified just as many other deductions
require verification) -- deductions for the costs of health club
memberships (accompanied by documentation of attendance) -- proof of regular
check ups to spot any problems early on. There would be no "punishment" for
being fat, just as there is no "punishment" for throwing away one's receipts
that could be utilized as deductions. Those who go the extra mile to stay
healthy would be rewarded just as those willing to go to the trouble of
itemizing, saving receipts, & looking for ways to save on their taxes are.
Nobody's "punished" for renting their home, but there sure are rewards for
home ownership -- the pursuit of good health could be rewarded in the same
ways.
Here in DE, one can't smoke in any public buildings (including in what many
wouldn't believe possible to make smoke-free = BARS & NIGHTCLUBS!). Lots of
people *****ed & moaned about their rights, many businesses claimed they'd
go under, & it was predicted the end of the world was near! Hardly. The
bars in our area have full parking lots like before. People still want to
go out dancing & socializing. One nearby country western tavern came up
with a clever solution to satisfy customers who simply "couldn't" go without
lighting up -- they actually purchased an old DelDOT bus, parked it outside
the bar, stocked it with plenty of ashtrays & put a banner on it that read
"smokin' bus". Anybody can go on that bus (weather's no problem) & smoke
up -- then go back into the smoke free bar. It's a compromise that
satisfies everyone, as well as the law.
> If you look at the Netherlands as an example of a society where use is
> not necessarily considered abuse and abuse is treated as a health
> problem, not criminal behavior, legalization seems a better approach
> with fewer ancillary problems than ours.
Use ISN'T abuse. Many people smoke pot regularly all their lives while
holding responsible jobs, paying their bills, & raising children without any
problems. They obviously are able to regulate themselves as to where & when
to use. Ditto for many moderate alcohol users. Heroin & cocaine are
different in the scheme of abuse & addiction -- with very high rates of
addiction & other health problems & little benefit to their use, it makes
sense to discourage their use. And while the Netherlands handles the
*criminalization* of substance use differently than the U.S., I would be
very surprised if the abuse/addiction surrounding heroin & cocaine didn't
impact the taxpayers there WRT paying for treatment, money for the
associated health issues, & taking care of the responsibilities neglected by
abusers/addicts.
> I'm not sure that a compromise regarding rules that affect everyone is
> going to be possible between folks like JG and Jeff. I'm currently
> pondering the feasibility for people to choose what laws they wish to
> live under such as depicted in "Snow Crash" by Neil Stephenson (I
> think I spelled that right).
>
> The idea is that people choose the society they live in. That is,
> people who decide they want to be free to take certain risks can do
> so, but then their society is not obliged to pay for the consequences.
Our society frequently pays for the consequences of the freedom without a
care so many people practice. Most people would be hard pressed to stick
with the idea expressed above. And it doesn't address what should be done
WRT those who were directly effected by the stupid decisions of others. The
kids left parentless -- the mother faced with caring for a young adult son
or daughter left paralyzed because seatbelts were left unbuckled -- the
babies born to addicted mothers who aren't fit to have a dog let alone a
child in their care. These are consequences dumped on people who didn't
make dumb choices -- who pays for them? Let's face it, we have to.
Otherwise we are punishing people whose innocence doesn't merit it.
> Those who agree to live with more constraints get more security in
> terms of a safety net when adverse events occur.
> The only example I can think of in our society would be the laws for
> Covenant marriage that were proposed about 10(?) years ago. Covenant
> marriage was an optional type of marriage that was more binding than
> our current laws - i.e. the justifications to get a legal divorce were
> severely limited. I haven't heard anything about that in some time, so
> I don't know how that issue turned out.
>
> Anyway, interesting post ma'am. Thanks for the food for thought.
It's definitely a sticky web, isn't it? While repression of freedom is
something most reasonable people don't favor, giving folks unlimited freedom
WRT unwise decisions that society is often left paying the tab for isn't
exactly a great option either. It'll no doubt always require compromise, a
careful balancing of independent choice & the responsibility of the
individual -- & the burden on others for those choices.
Michele
I ENJOY being a cranky *****.
