An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Quantum Windbag]

So crash test standards have never saved one life, then?

Let me hear you say it.

Can you prove that without federal standards cars would be more dangerous? Keep in mind that everything that the government has mandated for crash test survivability was developed by auto makers long before the government regulated it.

Q, my father had a wrecker service for years. Yes, the regulations have made the present cars much safer. From personal real time observations of wrecked cars and people from the 60's through 2000. You flap yappers are just about as fucking dumb as they come when you make statements like this.

Studies have actually proven that regulations make modern cars more dangerous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions and comments. Unfortunately, some of your responses have left me more confused than ever.

You are welcome.

1. How can you insist that people taking the opposite position are idiotic yet seriously contemplate the possibility that they are correct (4). Are you conceding that there is a serious position that your own position is idiotic?

I will not be taking you up on your challenge to prove that something does what it cannot. That which cannot be done is not done.

Because only an idiot would insist that words on a piece of paper actually accomplish anything. That is not an opposite position, it is a fact. What matters is people, not pieces of paper.That is my position, so far no one has even hinted to having a position that could be considered opposite to that. There are a few that are trying to insist that the regulations change things, but they have resorted to insults rather than trying to defend their position.

2. Given that you later dismissed peer-reviewed research with "Researchers conclude all sorts of things", I find it difficult to believe you intend to offer reasoned counterarguments to citations.

Was that research peer reviewed, or just published? I can actually provide government numbers that prove that making DUI laws more strict increases alcohol related traffic fatalities, the link I dismissed was a news report on a study, not the study.

3. I think you are being overly generous in your definition here. One of your arguments seems to be that in the absence of government regulation corporations will self-regulate. However, corporate regulations are of course a form of regulation. Presumably you mean to limit yourself at least to government regulations.

Again, what makes a difference is people. I prefer private sector response because it is usually faster, and is more likely to go beyond what is needed because, believe it or not, most people don't get their kicks from killing others.

4. You seem to be endorsing any standard of proof here, including statistical proof. However, later in your post you seem to dismiss statistical analysis on methodological grounds.

I don't discount cost/benefit analysis, I just prefer not to use them as proof. They make an assumption that x amount of pollution causes y deaths, and that a reduction of the pollution level will result in fewer deaths. This works in math, but in the real world it is not quite that simple.

5. How do you square this standard with your earlier counterargument that even if a particular regulation did save lives other regulations cost them? I will certainly not try to argue that all regulations save lives. I would take the opposite position, that not all regulations save lives.

Because English is not the most flexible language in the world.

The threat behind a government regulation is generally regarded as being beneficial because the result is good. CAFE standards have that same threat behind them, and they result in a number of deaths every year.

6. In this section and later in the thread, you seem open to the notion that regulations save lives. As such (and given the overwhelming support for my side's position, that some regulations save lives) I'm not particularly interested in introducing additional evidence, beyond the studies I already cited, that regulations save lives.

No, I am open to the notion that a well written regulation can serve as a guideline that encourages people to make better decisions.

I may indeed be missing your point. You are after all the ultimate authority on what your point is.

Thanks for the laugh, it is refreshing to debate with someone who doesn't take everything personally.

Murphy's law does not really have any predictive power. For example, it would predict that my computer would crash before I finished typing this sentence (as it could, after all) but... it didn't. Similarly, Murphy's law might predict that any regulation will fail 100% of the time but... they don't.

You don't seem to understand Murphy's Law.

Regarding your response to my examples:

1. Even if it were true that drugs become more available after they are outlawed, it does not follow that the law makes them more available (as you yourself noted, "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc" is a logical fallacy). In any event, this is not true in general. For instance, during Prohibition, when alcohol was an illegal drug, alcohol use decreased dramatically (though of course it did not drop to zero). I'm not endorsing drug criminalization, but I do think it tends to decrease drug use pretty consistently.

The law certainly didn't make people safer, which is, I believe, why you used it as an example.

By the way, just to show that I am not pulling that stat out of thin air, here is a chart showing the price of cocaine according to the UN.

Back to the Drug War: The Street Price of Cocaine

2. As far as I know long-term trends in cigarette use are pretty easy to examine statistically. See, eg, Bulletin on Narcotics - Volume LIII, Nos. 1 and 2, 2001 - Page 0

They are, but the trend itself tends to go up and down in the short term, and remain fairly steady in the long term, even though taxes are steadily going up. Unless some one has cut taxes on cigarettes that I do not know about.

3. I don't intend to suggest that this is easily demonstrated, or to claim that I can demonstrate it independently in a forum post (indeed, I said I couldn't). There are a number of academic and government studies that purport to do exactly that, and I would refer you to them.

There are also a few studies that challenge those findings. My personal belief is that lower speed limits are a good idea, but that is just my opinion.

4. Were studies merely to examine mortality following regulation, we would again find ourselves with the problem of establishing causation from correlation. Good studies go beyond this with statistical and other controls. For example, some studies use animal models to examine (animal) mortality associated with environmental factors in a controlled setting (http://regulation2point0.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/04/phpFy.pdf).

Unfortunately, I find it difficult to navigate threads that are as lengthy as this one has become, so I can't promise that I will see any reply you might offer. Thank you.

Like I said, you can make a good case that those regulations are beneficial. Most of the OSHA stuff is a joke on the job though, so they don't actually save lives or prevent injuries, other than when companies take the time to train employees on job safety. This blog says it at least as well as I could.

Safety First or Just in the Top Three? « mikeroweWORKS

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

Who would support deregulation of the mining industry?
The companies who own mines.

Did you know that Fox News isn't allowed in Canada? Do you know why they aren't allowed? Because in Canada, it is illegal to knowingly lie on the News. I listen to the Thom Hartmann show or the Randi Rhodes show on AM radio. They aren't called the Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes NEWS, and neither should Fox. Its misleading.

You need to realize why they want to deregulate. Not to pass on the savings to you, that's for sure.

Deregulation of coal industry behind fatal accidents in US mines

Why don't you ask some actual miners if they would their position instead of assuming you have all the answers?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this.

How does the government "support them in this" ? Do they hire lawyers for them? Please explain.

Look up limited liability sometime, you might learn something.

Gun Control And The New Federal Law Shielding Gun Manufacturers From Lawsuits (Gotham Gazette, Nov 2005)

 

[Lakhota]

Government regulations save lives on the job | Economic Policy Institute

 

[Flopper]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

And what are we to conclude from this thread? Unless a regulation can be proved to save lives it should not exist? We should not regulate nuclear power plants until one blows and wipes out a city? We should abolish health department regulations to see to if we have an increase in deaths and illness from improper preparation and storage of food?

It may come as a surprise to you but most businesses actively support government regulations. From the restaurant that displays a health dept. inspection with a AAA grade on it's wall to the nuclear power plant that has documented independent inspections verifying their safety procedures. In a lawsuit, one the best defenses a business has is often government inspections and certifications that safety and health standards have been met.

In China, they have extremely poor regulations, and some companies, ship us bad food. Then we buy less food from all Chinese companies. So the good ones all suffer because of the bad ones. So high-quality companies tend to want the industry regulated to punish the bad ones, and prevent them from harming the reputation of the industry. And that's good for consumers as well.

I'm not saying all regulation is good, but by and large it protects us and rewards the good companies. We need to make it better, not get rid of it.

Yep, that is what you can conclude, if you think attacking straw men makes you look smart. Regulations do have a purpose. What I object to is the assertion that they have some sort of mystical power. All they are are words on a piece of paper, they don't save lives, anymore than the Bible makes people better.

What matters are people, not words on a piece of paper.

What you don't seem to grasp is that regulations are much more than just words on a piece paper. Regulations carry the force of law with penalties for non-compliance. You are correct when you say what matters is people, that is people writing and enforcing the regs and businesses working with regulators to assure compliance.

There has been ample evidence in this thread that compliance to regulations have saved lies, but proof; judging from your rebuttal, I doubt you would accept any evidence offered as proof so there isn't much point in debating the issue any further.

 

[RDD_1210]

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths.

A rule requiring the cotton industry to reduce dust in textile factories lowered the
prevalence of brown lung among industry employees by 97 percent;

A rule requiring employers to place locks and warning labels on powered equipment
is credited with preventing 50,000 injuries and 120 fatalities per year;

A rule on excavations at construction sites has reduced the fatality rate from cave-ins
by 40 percent;

A grain-handling facilities standard has reduced the number of fatalities caused by
dust-related explosions by 95 percent;

And a 1969 mine safety law led to a rapid 50 percent decrease in the coal mine
fatality rate.

For more than two and a half centuries, they knew.

Before government action, an average of 90 fatalities related to
trench cave-ins occurred each year.24
In 1989, OSHA issued the excavation standard, requiring construction sites to use
protective methods in order to stop trenches from caving in. The simplest method of
protection involves digging trenches with sloped walls, which prevents falling earth from
enveloping the workers. Other methods involve creating temporary walls on the trench to
prevent a cave-in or placing steel plates inside the trench to create a protected space for
workers should a cave-in occur.
Since the excavation standard took effect, fatalities related to trench cave-ins have dropped
significantly. An analysis conducted a decade after the rule was enacted found that the
average annual number of deaths from cave-ins had fallen from 90 to 70. Adjusting for a 20
percent increase in construction activity during the time period, this represents a 40
percent decrease in the fatality rate.25 Trenching protection is now standard practice on
construction sites that involve excavation. In comments solicited more than a decade after
the regulation was enacted, industry groups expressed general support for the regulation.26

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, “Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.”28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHA’s
assessment of grain facility hazards as “substantially overstated.”29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, “there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.”31
OSHA’s analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.33
27

Link.

Why has this been ignored multiple times now?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Has there been anyone who has joined this thread in support of the windbag?

And.....if regulations on a piece of paper do not motivate people to do something or change behavior.........how is it
that they have the mystical power to, as nutters are fond of saying, kill jobs? Surely they are just words on a
piece of paper.

Dumbest fucking position this side of Daveman's meltdown.

 

[Greenbeard]

The problem here is one of semantics. I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives. China has pages upon pages of regulations regarding pollution and worker safety, people routinely ignore them. Even the EPA knows that regulations don't save lives, which is why they prefer to scare people into compliance by taking random companies and using them as examples, remember the crucify them video that was posted here?

Because only an idiot would insist that words on a piece of paper actually accomplish anything. That is not an opposite position, it is a fact. What matters is people, not pieces of paper.That is my position, so far no one has even hinted to having a position that could be considered opposite to that.

What is this, a freshman philosophy seminar? This level of sophistry is embarrassing, even for you.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Going back to the question posed by the original post about how regulations don't save lives, I sure am glad that there are strict regulations in the medical field regarding the storage, handling and use of medical devices, especially during invasive surgery. I sure am glad there are strict regulations regarding the storage and handling of food products in public restaurants. Can I prove that has not saved lives? Nope, nor am I going to burn the effort finding the statistics, because those facts would just be spun anyway. But pretending that such regulations have not saved lives is denial in the extreme.

More shallow absolutism.

Whether it's medical products or food products or financial products, proper and effective regulation are critically important. The question is the tipping point at which over-regulation or redundant regulation begins to cause significant damage to the overall flow of products through the system and to the consumer of those products. Bureaucrats clearly too often think that "more" regulation equates to "better" regulation, and that's just stunningly simplistic and naive. But these folks are usually those who just love more and more government, so trying to get through to them is difficult, indeed.

I'd think that would be the argument, but obviously shallow absolutism is easier.

.

 

[rightwinger]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

I'll have to go with one of my favorites........Smoking

When I grew up over 50% of the public smoked. Smokers were king and could smoke anytime, anywhere they wanted. Movie Theaters, restaurants, bars, stores, the workplace.......anytime a smoker felt like lighting up, they did. If you didn't like it, you were told to move

In the mid 80s, the mean old nanny state stepped in. Smoking was first banned in government buildings, then public spaces. Anti smoking advertisements increased. Non-smokers became more vocal and the government stood behind them. Now smoking is down to around 25% and the three pack a day smoker is a thing of the past.

If left to the free market, smoking would have been tolerated just like it had been for 200 years.

Big win for the nanny state

 

[Bfgrn]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

I'll have to go with one of my favorites........Smoking

When I grew up over 50% of the public smoked. Smokers were king and could smoke anytime, anywhere they wanted. Movie Theaters, restaurants, bars, stores, the workplace.......anytime a smoker felt like lighting up, they did. If you didn't like it, you were told to move

In the mid 80s, the mean old nanny state stepped in. Smoking was first banned in government buildings, then public spaces. Anti smoking advertisements increased. Non-smokers became more vocal and the government stood behind them. Now smoking is down to around 25% and the three pack a day smoker is a thing of the past.

If left to the free market, smoking would have been tolerated just like it had been for 200 years.

Big win for the nanny state

Hey, the three pack a day smoker is NOT a thing of the past. In countries without regulation, they are two-year-olds.

The tobacco industry

The last gasp

For Big Tobacco, South-East Asia is the final frontier

Mar 31st 2011

STRICT regulation and the success of anti-smoking campaigns continue to hit tobacco firms’ revenues in rich countries. In the biggest developing countries—China and India—governments are keen to protect local firms from Western cigarette-makers. That leaves Big Tobacco with few large markets that have growth potential and a relative lack of regulation. And of these, South-East Asia looks the most promising over the coming decade.

Within this region, Indonesia (population 238m) and the Philippines (about 96m) are the golden geese. Indonesia, one of the world’s least regulated markets, is one of few Asian countries not to have ratified the World Health Organisation’s treaty on tobacco control. Cigarette advertising is rampant. One in four children aged 13-15 smokes. Last year, a YouTube video of a chain-smoking Indonesian two-year-old prompted outrage among health-lobby groups in the West.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

Going back to the question posed by the original post about how regulations don't save lives, I sure am glad that there are strict regulations in the medical field regarding the storage, handling and use of medical devices, especially during invasive surgery.

The FREE MARKET could take care of that. If you die from contaminated medical equipment, your family tells all their buddies and everyone boycotts that doctor and he goes out of business. Why can't people just let the free market do the job? We don't need no gubment in our medicine!

I sure am glad there are strict regulations regarding the storage and handling of food products in public restaurants.

Again - the free market could do that job better. Even more so than most industrities - because if you eat food and die from it, you automatically stop eating! If a restaurant serves food that is dangerous eventually all of its customers will die off and it will go out of business!

Whether it's medical products or food products or financial products, proper and effective regulation are critically important.

We need to keep government out of federally insured banks!

 

[ladyliberal]

What matters is people, not pieces of paper.

As Flopper (and probably some others that I have missed) has pointed out, pieces of paper influence people. People influence other people, and part of the way they do that is by writing things on paper (and by enforcing said provisions).

Was that research peer reviewed, or just published? I can actually provide government numbers that prove that making DUI laws more strict increases alcohol related traffic fatalities, the link I dismissed was a news report on a study, not the study.

The study is available at (you would have to pay to read it, of course, if you don't have journal access)

Effects of Drivers' License Suspension Policies on Alcohol-Related Crash Involvement: Long-Term Follow-Up in Forty-Six States - Wagenaar - 2007 - Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research - Wiley Online Library

The journal is indeed peer-reviewed:

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research - Journal Information

Again, what makes a difference is people. I prefer private sector response because it is usually faster, and is more likely to go beyond what is needed because, believe it or not, most people don't get their kicks from killing others.

I agree that most people don't actively try to kill others, and that sometimes self-regulation is preferable to government regulation.

I don't discount cost/benefit analysis, I just prefer not to use them as proof. They make an assumption that x amount of pollution causes y deaths, and that a reduction of the pollution level will result in fewer deaths. This works in math, but in the real world it is not quite that simple.

The studies I've cited aren't that simple, and rely on substantial controls. They aren't perfect, of course, but if we aren't relying on statistical studies that brings me back to wondering what methodology you would accept.

The threat behind a government regulation is generally regarded as being beneficial because the result is good. CAFE standards have that same threat behind them, and they result in a number of deaths every year.

I agree that CAFE standards cause deaths.

You don't seem to understand Murphy's Law.

If your point is that Murphy's Law predicts that anything that can go wrong will go wrong but only with a finite frequency, then it doesn't seem to support your position. After all, regulations don't have to drop fatalities to zero to save lives, so affecting the frequency of fatalities would indeed be a mechanism for saving lives.

There are also a few studies that challenge those findings. My personal belief is that lower speed limits are a good idea, but that is just my opinion.

Absolutely, there are. And they might be right (or, due to differing methodologies, data sets, or what have you they might both be right). However, such studies represent a definite minority view within the field. I tend to rely on the majority view, discounting published theories that say AGW doesn't exist, smoking doesn't cause cancer, Darwinian evolution is impossible, etc. Sometimes science gets it wrong, but it usually gets it right.

 

[rightwinger]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

I'll have to go with one of my favorites........Smoking

When I grew up over 50% of the public smoked. Smokers were king and could smoke anytime, anywhere they wanted. Movie Theaters, restaurants, bars, stores, the workplace.......anytime a smoker felt like lighting up, they did. If you didn't like it, you were told to move

In the mid 80s, the mean old nanny state stepped in. Smoking was first banned in government buildings, then public spaces. Anti smoking advertisements increased. Non-smokers became more vocal and the government stood behind them. Now smoking is down to around 25% and the three pack a day smoker is a thing of the past.

If left to the free market, smoking would have been tolerated just like it had been for 200 years.

Big win for the nanny state

Hey, the three pack a day smoker is NOT a thing of the past. In countries without regulation, they are two-year-olds.

The tobacco industry

The last gasp

For Big Tobacco, South-East Asia is the final frontier

Mar 31st 2011

STRICT regulation and the success of anti-smoking campaigns continue to hit tobacco firms’ revenues in rich countries. In the biggest developing countries—China and India—governments are keen to protect local firms from Western cigarette-makers. That leaves Big Tobacco with few large markets that have growth potential and a relative lack of regulation. And of these, South-East Asia looks the most promising over the coming decade.

Within this region, Indonesia (population 238m) and the Philippines (about 96m) are the golden geese. Indonesia, one of the world’s least regulated markets, is one of few Asian countries not to have ratified the World Health Organisation’s treaty on tobacco control. Cigarette advertising is rampant. One in four children aged 13-15 smokes. Last year, a YouTube video of a chain-smoking Indonesian two-year-old prompted outrage among health-lobby groups in the West.

It's hard to find that three pack a day smoker in the US anymore

First, it is hard for smokers to find the opportunity to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. They can't smoke at work, in restaurants, in bars......some can't even smoke at home

Second, at $7 a pack, it is too expensive

Another victory for the nanny state

 

[Flopper]

The FREE MARKET could take care of that. If you die from contaminated medical equipment, your family tells all their buddies and everyone boycotts that doctor and he goes out of business. Why can't people just let the free market do the job? We don't need no gubment in our medicine!

Since I have surgery planned, I don't take much comfort in your suggestion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'll have to go with one of my favorites........Smoking

When I grew up over 50% of the public smoked. Smokers were king and could smoke anytime, anywhere they wanted. Movie Theaters, restaurants, bars, stores, the workplace.......anytime a smoker felt like lighting up, they did. If you didn't like it, you were told to move

In the mid 80s, the mean old nanny state stepped in. Smoking was first banned in government buildings, then public spaces. Anti smoking advertisements increased. Non-smokers became more vocal and the government stood behind them. Now smoking is down to around 25% and the three pack a day smoker is a thing of the past.

If left to the free market, smoking would have been tolerated just like it had been for 200 years.

Big win for the nanny state

Hey, the three pack a day smoker is NOT a thing of the past. In countries without regulation, they are two-year-olds.

The tobacco industry

The last gasp

For Big Tobacco, South-East Asia is the final frontier

Mar 31st 2011

STRICT regulation and the success of anti-smoking campaigns continue to hit tobacco firms’ revenues in rich countries. In the biggest developing countries—China and India—governments are keen to protect local firms from Western cigarette-makers. That leaves Big Tobacco with few large markets that have growth potential and a relative lack of regulation. And of these, South-East Asia looks the most promising over the coming decade.

Within this region, Indonesia (population 238m) and the Philippines (about 96m) are the golden geese. Indonesia, one of the world’s least regulated markets, is one of few Asian countries not to have ratified the World Health Organisation’s treaty on tobacco control. Cigarette advertising is rampant. One in four children aged 13-15 smokes. Last year, a YouTube video of a chain-smoking Indonesian two-year-old prompted outrage among health-lobby groups in the West.

It's hard to find that three pack a day smoker in the US anymore

First, it is hard for smokers to find the opportunity to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. They can't smoke at work, in restaurants, in bars......some can't even smoke at home

Second, at $7 a pack, it is too expensive

Another victory for the nanny state

The federal tax on cigs is only $1.01 of the total.

You can get a much better deal on smokes if you take some personal responsibility and roll your own.

 

[rightwinger]

Hey, the three pack a day smoker is NOT a thing of the past. In countries without regulation, they are two-year-olds.

The tobacco industry

The last gasp

For Big Tobacco, South-East Asia is the final frontier

Mar 31st 2011

STRICT regulation and the success of anti-smoking campaigns continue to hit tobacco firms’ revenues in rich countries. In the biggest developing countries—China and India—governments are keen to protect local firms from Western cigarette-makers. That leaves Big Tobacco with few large markets that have growth potential and a relative lack of regulation. And of these, South-East Asia looks the most promising over the coming decade.

Within this region, Indonesia (population 238m) and the Philippines (about 96m) are the golden geese. Indonesia, one of the world’s least regulated markets, is one of few Asian countries not to have ratified the World Health Organisation’s treaty on tobacco control. Cigarette advertising is rampant. One in four children aged 13-15 smokes. Last year, a YouTube video of a chain-smoking Indonesian two-year-old prompted outrage among health-lobby groups in the West.

It's hard to find that three pack a day smoker in the US anymore

First, it is hard for smokers to find the opportunity to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. They can't smoke at work, in restaurants, in bars......some can't even smoke at home

Second, at $7 a pack, it is too expensive

Another victory for the nanny state

The federal tax on cigs is only $1.01 of the total.

So?

Government is government regardless of the level

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It's hard to find that three pack a day smoker in the US anymore

First, it is hard for smokers to find the opportunity to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. They can't smoke at work, in restaurants, in bars......some can't even smoke at home

Second, at $7 a pack, it is too expensive

Another victory for the nanny state

The federal tax on cigs is only $1.01 of the total.

So?

Government is government regardless of the level

government=BAD!!! local, state, federal, all bad, must get rid of!

 

[g5000]

Fact is, our lakes and rivers would be toxic if it weren't for regulations. And we'd all have cancer or led poisoning or asbestos poisoning.

Cuyahoga River - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia