[Monkeyleg]

After going 'round with Pax, Nualle, and others over on a TFL thread about smoking, I'd wanted to do a thread expanding upon the direction we were taking. Unfortunately, the timing of TFL's closing didn't allow for it. Now, here on THR, there's been a couple of threads about smoking laws that have generated some intense debate.

If the moderators will permit, I'd like to get opinions on how far as a society we should go to accomodate the physical problems of others, especially when those problems are found in just a tiny minority of the population. Ideally, we shouldn't even mention tobacco, since doing so would merely turn this into another smoking thread. (yawn).

Pax has a severe asthmatic condition that makes her vulnerable to things she breathes. Similarly, my niece has almost fatal reactions to peanut oil (which is present in more prepared foods than most realize).

Should we legislate the use of products sold or available to the majority based upon the reactions to said products by a distinct minority? For example, should restaurants be required to disclose in large lettering on their menus that such-and-such a dish contains peanut oil? Or, for that matter, MSG?

My father (age 86) has a hearing problem that makes him more sensitive to certain ranges of the audible spectrum than others. People talking in certain pitches makes him more even more irritable than he usually is. Should we somehow try to accomodate his condition, or should he accomodate himself to the rest of society by leaving the area when someone's voice upsets him?

Opinions, please.

[Jeeper]

The smoking bans have NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING TO DO with being allergic to smoke. They have NOTHING TO DO with conforming society to the needs of a few people. It is about the public deciding what goes on in its community. It is the same as any other zoning or health requirement. It is the same as saying that a strip club cant be next to a school. It is the same as a health code requiring that food be cooked to a certain temperature. Anyone arguing against a policy like the smoking ban MUST also argue that all zoning is wrong or you are being hypocritical.


As to your actual question
You bring up two seperate points. One is product liability and the other is relates to social interaction. Product liability has always been strict. A company should do what it can to alleviate the risks faced by the consumer. They are the responsible party in the end if the risk was foreseeable. You can never protect everyone.

The other situation you described is just a cheap shot at an analogy to the smoking ban and pax. The difference between this and the smoking situation is the magnitude of people that are affected. I have asthma but wouldnt try to have all the olive trees cut down because that is ridiculous. Society does have a right to decide what happens to itself.

[Chris Rhines]

My inital though -

WE shouldn't do anything. YOU can take whatever measures you prefer on your property, I'll do the same on mine.

- Chris

[G-Raptor]

At the risk of being calous, some people just have to deal with the fact that they have limitations that most people don't have. The world wasn't made to suit their special needs, and it shouldn't be. What is convenient for them is inconvenient for the rest of us.
My mother has been in a wheelchair for nearly a decade now. She lives in a "handicap" access apartment. It's great for her, it would be uncomfortable for me over a period of time.

It is the responsibility of people with limitations to understand what those limitations are and try to avoid situations that may be detrimental to them.

I think that public facilities, particularly government building should have reasonable accommodations for the most common disabilities; i.e. wheelchair ramps and braille (or audio) directories for the blind. I have no objections to "handicap" parking spots, but reserving the entire front row at the store is overkill.

I believe there is a town up around Chicago that passed an ordinance saying that EVERY new home had to be wheelchair accessible. The argument being that you never know when someone with a wheelchair might move in. The effect is that you raise the cost of new homes for everyone to accommodate a small percentage; not to mention the inconvenience you cause to others unnecessarily.

[Blackhawk]

Certainly not endorsing him or his other whacko theories, but Charles Darwin made an astute observation in saying what is now known as the "survival of the fittest" axiom concerning members of species.

The Nazis embraced that with open arms, and I'm certainly not endorsing their policies or whacko theories. In fact, many societies have deemed it expedient that those who could not "carry their load" shouldn't burden the rest of the society. There's a tribe I read about (Africa, I think) where the elderly and infirm are left (abandoned) by a tree with a few days provisions while the tribe moves on, and the members of the tribe fully expect and accept that happening to them should they live long enough to become infirm.

IOW, your questions is "What should OUR society accept in terms of accommodating those who cannot keep up with the healthier members?"

We now "warehouse" our elderly in pathetic nursing homes reeking of urine and wailing from the demented and dying instead of providing a warm, loving existence for them in our homes as their days wane. Being a caregiver is, however, extremely taxing on those family members who take on the duty, and the ultimate outcome is the usually nursing home anyway.

It's a cost/benefit/conscience analysis. We do it all the time, and by "we," I mean our society.

Know what "orphan drugs" are? They're "cures" and "medicines" that have been invented and proven to cure or alleviate the symptoms of rare diseases. They're not produced or marketed because not enough people are afflicted to justify the cost of producing them. Is that immoral, unreasonable, and unconscionable? Peanut allergies and severe asthmatic reactions might well be in that category, or worse, they may be in a category of rare diseases that no pharmaceutical company is willing to even look at because the numbers of those afflicted is so small. Those are business decisions, and drug companies are, after all, in it to make profits.

Ancient societies dealt with leprosy by quarantining those afflicted. Not nice or compassionate to abandon people to fend for themselves as they predictably dissolved in a gruesome manner, but since they were out of sight, it was an acceptable solution for the society.

Smoking has only recently become a hot button issue leading to regulating places where it is proscribed. If enough outrage emerges over peanuts, etc., the same thing will happen.

Short answer is "I don't know."

[Ed Brunner]

I think it is reasonable to believe that handicapped people need some sort of access to certain facilities. The main question would be,what type of access and which facilities. Obviously there remain the questions of who decides and who is responsible to provide it.

The smoking thing is a whole 'nuther ballgame and it is a game. It has evolved into a game of restricting other peoples activities for the simple reason that a few do not approve. Does that sound familiar to gun owners.
Some people who smoke get lung cancer, but the vast majority do not.
Some people who do not smoke get lung cancer. Here is where it gets interesting. This could prove that smoking does not cause lung cancer. It certainly looks that way. But NO it proves that second-hand smoke is the cause, which makes it necessary to ban smoking altogether.
Does second hand smoke really cause lung cancer? Well, maybe some times it doesn't, but is still possible that sometimes it does.
You figure it out.

[Ed Brunner]

Did you ever wonder why the people who want to control guns do not want to control automobiles which cause many times more injury and deaths?
The answer is they have cars.

Do you know why the anti-smoking folks don't want to ban alcohol which causes many many injuries and deaths?

Come on, grasshopper, you can do it!

[Standing Wolf]

Speaking strictly as a guy who doesn't see well, has lost a substantial portion of his hearing, and is contending with arthritis: my infirmities are mine to deal with, not yours, not anyone else's.

If I go to a restaurant with a menu printed in micro-type, I won't go back. When I deal with sales people who won't speak up and/or don't speak intelligible English, I go elsewhere. Being a smoker, I patronize restaurants with smoking areas.

The market can decide these matters infinitely better than government.

[JohnBT]

I'll agree to let 'society' ban smoking in public if 'society' also bans the wearing of all perfumes, colognes and scented lotions, as well as the burning of scented candles or incense in public.

John

[TexasVet]

Similarly, my niece has almost fatal reactions to peanut oil (which is present in more prepared foods than most realize).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ASK SOMEONE! That's all it takes.
A lot of you know I'm a gov't certified 60% cripple. If I have trouble getting into a place, I don't go. (I don't do a lot of stairs very well.) I most certainly don't go begging the government to help me , pretty please, make them spend their money to make my life easier. I have NEVER found a store or resturant that not going into it would destroy my life OR it's enjoyment.
If a store owner is smart, he'll accomodate the crips like me as much as is financially possible. But if he doesn't, that's his business, not mine and not the governments.

[4v50 Gary]

In Kali, "crips" be ah gang that fights with the bloods.

I think a warning symbol along with the individual with the disability having the responsibility of "asking" should suffice. Glad I don't have that reaction to peanut oil. No more peanut butter sandwiches (cheap & lazy man's lunch).

[Art Eatman]

IMO, the limit of governmental involvement in smoking should be that some provisions should be made to accomodate those who strongly object to it. That is, a no-smoking area in a restaurant, for instance.

I don't mind if a company sez its office building is non-smoking in its offices, if there's some provision for a smokers' lounge.

Peanut oil allergy? Isn't that sorta up to the sufferer to know what foods are likely to contain it, and not order those in a restuarant? Probably, few restaurant folks know, one way or the other.

Overall, however, it oughta be up to a business owner how he runs his business and not local government's.

I dunno. As people have become ever more powerless in the face of increasing government power, they are moe and more turning on one another in efforts to have some semblance of control over somebody else besides their kids--I guess they've given up on them. Sorta like the old psych experiments with overcrowding of lab rats.

Seems like a universal sport is hunting a victim group to join.

Art

[Monkeyleg]

Well, we're running about 50/50 in terms of people who can't seem to get off the smoking topic. :(

Less than 1/2 of 1% of the population has my niece's reaction to peanut oil. Should the government mandate that food manufacturers and restaurants provide warnings about peanut oil?

And now I'm going to drag Nualle and Pax into this argument without their permission (they're strong advocates; I hope they don't mind). Both stated--if I understand their positions correctly--that the presence of irritants willfully discharged should constitute "assault."

Is the restaurant owner who knows that some of his dishes contain peanut oil, and that perhaps one or two or three of his customers might have a reaction, guilty of "assault?"

There are numerous medical conditions which most of us can't predict. How many people have severe reactions to the fertilizer that we put on our lawns? I know some who do, but they haven't sued me yet. (Yet...)

What makes these questions intriguing (at least for my mushy mind) is that most of us on THR talk about how our Republic was designed to protect the minority against the majority.

So how do we reconcile that minority protection against the majority interest, and fit it into our belief system?

[Blackhawk]

What makes these questions intriguing (at least for my mushy mind) is that most of us on THR talk about how our Republic was designed to protect the minority against the majority. Maybe many on THR talk that way, but the truth is quite the opposite.

Those in government are always the minority. Our republic is designed to protect the majority from the oppression and tyranny of the minority in control of government.

(I'd also be extremely surprised if those hypersenstive to peanut products number 1,400,000 in the U.S.)

To your question:So how do we reconcile that minority protection against the majority interest, and fit it into our belief system? We don't. Our NATIONAL belief system is that everyone is created with equal opportunities for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in our national creed is there an obligation for the strong, wealthy, and healthy to care for the weak, poor, and sick. We do it due to moral convictions, and charitable actions are entirely voluntary under our national creed.

If we're going to proceed further down the slippery slope of trying to legislate morality, we're in for a lot more trouble than we're already in.

[nualle]

Is the restaurant owner who knows that some of his dishes contain peanut oil, and that perhaps one or two or three of his customers might have a reaction, guilty of "assault?"
No. As TexasVet and 4v50 Gary said, just asking about the peanut oil should suffice. The percentage of people with nut allergies, though small, is significant enough that a prudent business owner would provide some warning (like the symbol Gary mentioned). Many do.

Should a government require that? No.

If, however, a restaurant provides inaccurate information (e.g., when asked about ingredients, the waiter goes to the kitchen then comes back and says "there is no peanut oil in this," when there really is peanut oil in it) and that leads to an allergic reaction that requires emergency medical treatment... then the restaurant should accept liability for the harm done.

If a customer who has an allergy neglects to ask, then has an allergic reaction, that's a whole 'nother issue. They've taken their own voluntary risk. (An analogous situation might be a diabetic who eats too many sweets at a restaurant.)

My argument for "assault" only applies when the person harmed did not volunteer to participate in the action that harmed him.

[Strings]

Saying "they voluntarily took the risk" now brings up a double edge: if you have asthma, then aren't you "voluntarily taking a risk" by walking into a bar that allows smoking?

I really can't think of any other topic that seems to cause so much trouble (although abortion comes close). Seems to me that "voting with you wallet" would make much more sense...

[nualle]

if you have asthma, then aren't you "voluntarily taking a risk" by walking into a bar that allows smoking?
Certainly. But you're not voluntarily taking a risk by walking on the public sidewalk that the bar's door opens onto... or waiting at any city bus stop... or through the front doors of just about any office building in the U.S.

I have never once said I was for smoking bans. What I'm for is smokers taking responsibility for the effects of their smoke on nonsmokers who never volunteered to be affected.

[Ed Brunner]

One of my sons had allergies as a child and they were treatable. If they are not treatable it is rather selfish to expect everyone else to change their lives to accomodate you.

One of the rules of the game of life is that you have to play in the uniform you were issued. Some things you can change, some you can't.

If a stranger asked you to sell your guns and give him the money so he try to find a cure for his allergies, how would you answer and why?

[nualle]

I can't speak for the peanut allergy but I do know a little about milk allergy (& lactose intolerance) -- my wife has it. IIRC, she both lacks the enzyme to digest lactose (milk sugar) and she is allergic to casein (milk protein). For the first condition, they have over-the-counter pills to provide the enzymes temporarily. As far as I know, the second condition isn't treatable except by entirely avoiding milk -- usually easily enough done, but we do sometimes run into unpleasant surprises.

Monkeyleg, I think you and I are still disagreeing on what's basically at issue. If I read you correctly, you think it's an issue of making accomodation for minority (even minscule minority) conditions. I think it's taking responsibility for real harm done.

[Strings]

The only thing I've seen proven so far about second-hand smoke is that it irritates people (please don't tell me about lab tests: those rats get cancer if you look at them cross-eyed).

Most of the office buildings *I've* been in don't allow smoking. And the sidewalk is (theoretically) open air, so the smoke SHOULD be more diffuse (not to mention lost by other parts per million in modern Urbania)...

Don't get me wrong: even as a smoker, I dispise the smell of lingering smoke. And I fully understand people with asthma having issues with cigarette smoke...

Unfortunately, I can't think of any other topic (well, BESIDES guns) that has people so upset...

[nualle]

The only thing I've seen proven so far about second-hand smoke is that it irritates people (please don't tell me about lab tests: those rats get cancer if you look at them cross-eyed).
Personally, I don't feel qualified to challenge the professional opinion of the CDC on this one. This opinion is medical, their valid area of expertise.

I also know my experience. My immune system reacts to others' smoke by increasing my mucus production. It is reacting to something real that it perceives as a threat. When I get home and blow my nose, the mucus is black. That's the stuff my system caught and filtered out, but some of that muck also reached my lungs. I know because of my incapacity to take a full breath soon after breathing someone else's smoke. (I'm trained as an opera singer -- I know what a full breath feels like.) These symptoms are not mere irritation. They are medical, though mild compared to more severe conditions like pax described on a TFL thread. And, for the record, I have never had asthma. My pulmonary health is normal.

And the sidewalk is (theoretically) open air, so the smoke SHOULD be more diffuse
One would think so, but it's often not so. The diffusion of the smoke into the air is probably a function of the wind speed through the area. And, because standing in calm air is more pleasant than standing in a stiff breeze (especially if conversation is also happening), smokers seem to gather behind windbreaks. That means they emit their smoke precisely where the wind will take longest to diffuse it. As a result, the smoke often lingers long after they've gone.

[Chipper]

How about some more pro-active free-market solutions? The symbols on menus is an excellent idea. There is plenty known about certain food or foodstuff allergies and other medical conditions that do not allow for the digestion of certain types of fats and other compounds. Why not open a restaurant that caters to these conditions? It could be a restaurant that focuses on the special needs people or it could offer foods and meals aimed at special needs along with standard fare for everyone else. Of course, the extra costs would need to be passed along to the patrons but it would be a small price to pay for those who seek to be included in the usual affairs of people without those special needs.

I am intimately acquainted with digestive problems as I have lost a nephew to MCADD. MCADD stands for medium chain acyl-coenzymeA dehydrogenase deficiency. MCADD is an inherited error of fatty acid metabolism. The MCAD enzyme is a homotetramer, most common in the liver. The MCAD enzyme catalyzes the first step of the medium-chain fatty acid cycle. Without it your body is basicly unable to process the most common of fats, even those found in breast milk. Your liver becomes clogged and you die. It is rather rare.

I now have another nephew with MCADD. Fortunately the condition was detected early and he survives and thrives. Great adjustments were needed in the immediate family's menus and due consideration is given to menus when we all get together, which is quite often. Care must be exercised when we go out to eat together. My nephew and his family have done well in integrating these special needs into their lives and make no demands on others to accomodate their needs. Obviously certain categories of choices have been limited but they remain fully capable of enjoying life.

On the smoking thing, in the area that I live in some did open a smoke-free nigtclub. It was an average place with DJ, lights, dancing and an outdoor patio. Nice, low-crime area with easy access and ample parking. Before opening the place was thoroughly cleaned to rid it of the dreaded "tobacco smell" and redecorated some with mirrors, new paint and new furnishings. The guy started with a good advertising campaign and emphasized his unique selling point of being a smoke-free establishment. Pricing was equivalent with other smoking establishments. It was all by the book to make a successful run. The business closed in less than two years simply due to lack of support from the market. There simply were not enough people patronizing this nightclub and those that did patronize it did not imbibe as much as smokers.

Now, I do not know if there is some scientific study somewhere that correlates smoking and drinking. I do know from observation that both non-smokers and ex-smokers will willingly partake of tobacco products after a couple of drinks. I also observe that bars and nightclubs that accomodate smokers do stay in business longer because the are able to do what businesses do, and that is, to make a profit. I do know that restaurants which are smoke-free do tend to hold their own in competition with smoking restaurants. I also note that the more successful non-smoking restaurants have put some effort and planning into the HVAC system and/or their selection of space to accomodate smokers so smoke wouldn't drift so much or at all into non-smoking areas.

So, there are solutions and compromises that are affordable and practical to accomodate a diversity of patrons. If we are to keep the current scheme of government then it would be better if that government offered tax-breaks and other incentives for the market to do what it does best which is provide what people actually want.

Chipper

[Ed Brunner]

I am not a medical person by any stretch of the imagination. If you are producing black mucus I doubt it is from tobacco alone. The only time I had black mucus was when I worked in a carbon company.

Not directed at you specifically, but a lot of people can't distinguish between what annoys them and what poses a threat. Our benevolent government has used our contributions to create, enable and attempt to rescue more classes of victims than you could imagine. This has created another type of class warfare for them to have to direct instead of solve.

Ain't it wonderful?

[Blackhawk]

nualle:I'm trained as an opera singer ... Kewl...! :neener:

What's in your repertoire?

[nualle]

Blackhawk: Thanks for the interest. :blush: Your answer's in your PM.

[Art Eatman]

Envision a room about 20'x24'. No A/C system. Put a bunch of guys in it, playing poker. All are smokers but one. At the end of a four-hour session, they'll all walk out, some feeling pretty grungy from the miserable atmosphere. The non-smoker may well be sick.

Now envision the same deal, except that during the four hours, a small car is in the room with them, engine running. Will any walk out at all?

So why is smoking on a public sidewalk, out on the street, such a big deal? There's one heckuva lot more auto/bus grunge in the air than there is second-hand smoke.

Back some 25 years ago at a medical convention in Barcelona, Spain, some doctors chided a fellow attendee for smoking. His rejoinder was that since he lived in NYC it wouldn't hurt him. Just living there was the equivalent of two packs a day.

I attended a business conference in Mexico City in 1978. I automatically cut my smoking to under a half-pack a day. Didn't feel any need, given how much "freebie" the air gave me. Example of problem: At a rooftop garden at the Maria Isabella hotel, a waiter would bring a fresh table cloth every fifteen to twenty minutes. The "old" one would have a speck of soot at one-inch spacing, all over it. You quickly learned to sit with your hand over your coffee or your drink.

I've owned a couple of night clubs, back before the anti-smoking fetish. From nothing but courtesy, I instituted non-smoking areas; it was easy. They were to the upwind side of the air movement. An exhaust fan provided "fresh" air, if city air can be called fresh.

Yes, there are many problems as we try more and more to make life nice for everybody. At some point, however, we begin to ignore the personal responsibility of those who are so unfortunate to have these various handicaps.

You think it doesn't jangle my nervous system to meet some beauteous sweet young thing, and her sweet-smellum gives me a case of the choke-up? Or to know a bunch of folks who gripe about my cigarettes, but are happy to roll a joint? And talking about odors which give you a case of the gripes, try being stuck with somebody who bathes at least once a month...

:), Art

[Blackhawk]

nualle:Thanks for the interest. :blush: Your answer's in your PM. Thanks for the PM. "Opera is the supreme musical art form," and it's too bad that it's not better appreciated. With DVD players and headphones, a great deal of it can be enjoyed at home, and it sure puts the other so called "entertainment" to shame by comparison.

Best to you! :D

[Monkeyleg]

Nualle, you're talking about harm done. Knowingly, I assume. How can the restaurant owner, for example, know what ingredients may cause harm to someone? Should restaurant owners go through medical school?

There's a fair number of people allergic to fragrances. Are perfume wearers guilty of doing harm? After all, they should know that if they're going into a public place, there's a fair chance of encountering someone who's allergic.

What about plants? Should the plant rental places that service shopping malls research which ones may cause a reaction sometime in somebody? If they don't do the research, are they then guilty of assault?

(BTW, the black mucus response is strange. As heavy as I smoke, mine is only light brown. Eewww! What a disgusting topic).

Interesting about your involvement with opera. The only opera I know is "The Bunny of Seville." :)

[nualle]

Nualle, you're talking about harm done. Knowingly, I assume. How can the restaurant owner, for example, know what ingredients may cause harm to someone? Should restaurant owners go through medical school?
Med school for chefs and restaurateurs? No need. But they must know exactly what they put in each dish. When someone with an allergy asks about a given ingredient, they are bound by honesty, good sense, good faith, and good business to answer accurately. That's all that's needed. Only if the restaurateur answers an inquiry inaccurately and the customer sustains harm is the restaurateur liable. One can only be responsible for what one knows. (You might be amazed how easy it is for food-service workers to learn about food-related ailments and how to help customers who are trying to avoid harm. -- And we tip those ones really well.)

Perfume: if G in a public place sustains harm from H's perfume (and G can demonstrate that it was H's perfume and not an unpredictable aggregate of several perfumes mixing), then I say: G should go ahead and seek redress from H. H is free to recoup the loss by suing her perfume manufacturer, which thereby gains incentive to brew hypo-allergenic perfumes in future.

Plants: I think I covered that in the TFL thread. The properties of many plants, especially the decoratives that might be rented out, are well known (having been the basis of intense study for centuries). If some exotic causes an unforeseen reaction, then yes... the provider of that plant should bear some liability. One has a reasonable responsibility to research before the fact the effects of one's anticipated actions. Does that rise to "assault?" Of course not, so long as the effect was indeed unexpected. As I understand assault, it assumes either malice or willful negligence. It leaves out plain ignorance. Again: one can only be responsible for what one knows.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

"The Bunny of Seville."
My favorite! Far better than "What's Opera, Doc!" But no mezzo role. :Pout:

[Zander]

Perfume: if G in a public place sustains harm from H's perfume (and G can demonstrate that it was H's perfume and not an unpredictable aggregate of several perfumes mixing), then I say: G should go ahead and seek redress from H. H is free to recoup the loss by suing her perfume manufacturer, which thereby gains incentive to brew hypo-allergenic perfumes in future.I find this profoundly disturbing, not only for the Utopian-inspired notion that the "public air" be secured against any an all "offense" but for the incentive it offers to the totalitarians of the legal profession who masquerade as class-action attorneys.

Such a viewpoint, IMO, is inimical to our freedom as American citizens. It is not incumbent on me to ensure that my usage of a product such as aftershave will not "harm" those who might be exposed to it.

When I go to the local supermarket, I take great pains to avoid the aisle where detergents, fabric softeners and household cleaners are stocked...that 'space' irritates my olfactory senses, but I do not insist that they stop selling such products. And I don't insist that my neighbors "scrub" the emissions from their dryer vents so that I can smoke the occasional Macanudo on my back deck.

Assess any label you choose to your ideology...I'm in firm disagreement.

[nualle]

...notion that the "public air" be secured against any an all "offense" ...
If you don't believe the air is public, I gotta wonder who sells you the air you breathe. If you don't pay anyone, you better find out who owns it because you're deep in debt. That which ain't public is private.

We covered "offense" on the other thread. I'll type it slowly this time. The issue is:

h - a - r - m also known as i - n - j - u - r - y.

Being harmed is different from being offended.
Being injured is different from being irritated.

I think you're right about one point. If a product causes harm when it's being used correctly, the one who should bear liability is the provider, not the user (who used it in good faith). I therefore adjust my position: G should seek redress from the perfume maker, not H.

[Zander]

If you don't believe the air is public, I gotta wonder who sells you the air you breathe. I gotta wonder how a self-professed anarchist could even pose such a question.

h - a - r - m also known as i - n - j - u - r - y.Next time you could post it in boldface, with dashes, in caps, italicized...but it still won't make your argument.

I think you're right about one point. If a product causes harm when it's being used correctly, the one who should bear liability is the provider,...I don't recall saying any such thing in the context of this discussion.

Perhaps you'd best "adjust" your position again...

[Monkeyleg]

"If a product causes harm when it's being used correctly, the one who should bear liability is the provider, not the user (who used it in good faith)."

A few months ago we had a serious pile-up on the interstate in an extremely dense fog, with several people killed. The lawsuits have only just begun.

Assuming that everyone was driving at a prudent speed, and that SUV's squashed Geo Metro's, should the SUV manufacturers be the ultimate defendants?

[Blackhawk]

Regarding plants tobacco, and peanut products:

Should such nanny-state laws be enacted, restaurants need only post signs at every entrance of the building and property stating:

"WARNING: Live plants are inside that may cause harm to people sensitive to them."

"WARNING: Peanut products may be contained in some of the items served here, and they may cause harm to people sensitive to them."

"WARNING: Tobacco smoke has been detected from time to time on and within these premises. Enter at your own risk."

Actual and constructive notice trumps lawsuits from mere inadvertence.

[nualle]

Monkeyleg:
A few months ago we had a serious pile-up on the interstate in an extremely dense fog, with several people killed. The lawsuits have only just begun.

Assuming that everyone was driving at a prudent speed, and that SUV's squashed Geo Metro's, should the SUV manufacturers be the ultimate defendants?
In a dense fog, a prudent speed is very much slower than I've observed 90% of drivers willing to drive. Therefore, I couldn't assume that everyone was driving at a prudent speed. That leaves the manufacturers out of it.

Blackhawk:
Actual and constructive notice trumps lawsuits from mere inadvertence.
Works for me. This provision obviates the "nanny state laws."

edited to add:
I'll reiterate again: I'm against bans. I think people should be perfectly free to do exactly what they want to themselves. I just think they have no right to do what they want to me, when I haven't volunteered for it. This is just the NAP.

[Art Eatman]

Nualle, regardless of how correct your attitude might be, you're still wanting a frictionless world--and that ain't gonna happen. One way or another, people are gonna unintentionally harm other people, and certainly are gonna bother them.

One problem in today's litigious society is that too many folks can't tell the difference between bother and harm, and regularly take to the courts with lawsuits over what I'd call "bother".

So on stuff like "second-hand smoke" or equivalent, I just look at the relative harm to me; whether or not it's really worth getting all excited about. Generally, most folks' excitements stem from having too much time on their hands--which leads to a lot of picking fly-poop out of pepper. None of this stuff is nearly as hazardous as driving to where one could be offended or endangered.

Stuff like wheel-chair accessible street-corners and warning signs for stores that have narrow aisles/hallways makes sense. A lot of this worrying doesn't.

Art

[nualle]

Not frictionless, Art, just reasonably polite and, more to the point: accountable.
One problem in today's litigious society is that too many folks can't tell the difference between bother and harm, and regularly take to the courts with lawsuits over what I'd call "bother".
I agree. As many times as I've hacked up black muck after catching an unasked-for lungful of someone else's smoke, I've never sued anyone over it. Not enough harm. But people with less robust health than mine have as much right to breathe in public as I or anyone else. Avenues of redress have to stay open for their use, even despite other people's abuse of them (frivolous lawsuits over "bother").

[Monkeyleg]

Nualle, by refusing to assume that everyone in my example was driving at a prudent speed, you avoid the question.

Nevertheless, you've moderated your position considerably since our debate over on TFL. There you advocated legal action against the person doing the "perfuming" or whatever. Now you're advocating going after the manufacturer.

If this is indeed your position, aren't you holding the manufacturer of a legal product liable for the product's effect on situations beyond the manufacturer's control? (Time, place, persons, etc). It's much like the gun lawsuits: the gun manufacturers certainly know that a tiny percentage of their products will wind up in criminal hands, but they have no way of controlling where their product goes or what is done with the product.

[bbrins]

O.K. I've deleted what I've typed several times because I don't want to offend or cause mental harm. I feel bad for anybody with the problems that have been discussed in this thread, but I don't think that warnings for these additives, etc should be mandatory. I have an uncle with a serious milk allergy problem, he almost died once, and he seems to be getting along just fine by reading what the ingredients are on things that he buys or by asking at restaurants. Since manufacturers are already required to tell you what the ingredients are, maybe some of the burden should be on the consumer, educate yourself about your disability as much as possible.

[Ed Brunner]

I'm old and slow and I sure don't want to offend you, but I can't help wondering how tobacco smoke causes your black mucus. Have you seen a doctor about this?

[Zander]

That leaves the manufacturers out of it.-- NualleIf you want to deny basic physics.

The simple fact is that a Yugo is going to come out second-best in a collision with a Chevrolet Suburban.

What's your argument for punishing the mfr. of a 2.5 ton vehicle if it's involved in a collision with a 1.5 ton hybrid-fuel skateboard such as those mandated by law in the PRK?

I hear, over and over, that the cost of acquiring and driving an SUV is more than justified by its superior collision protection. Wacked-out arguments by advocates like Robert Kennedy, Jr. to the contrary [and, of necessity, betraying the basic tenets of an anarchist such as yourself], what's your point?

[nualle]

Monkeyleg, you said:
aren't you holding the [perfume] manufacturer of a legal product liable for the product's effect on situations beyond the manufacturer's control?
If the perfume manufacturer has produced an allergen, they need to quit manufacturing it or reformulate it to remove the allergen. The lawsuit is the method I know of to effect that change (and get the harmed party recompensed for the harm). I am assuming that the wearer of the perfume wore it in good faith, ignorant that it contained an allergen.

The analogy to gun manufacturers is inapt because a gun requires a user's independent act (intentional or negligent discharge) to cause harm. Same, generally speaking, with cars. With both tools, the vast majority of the harm that comes to third parties from them comes from the use the second party made of the tool -- either intentional harm with this as the weapon, or negligent use of the tool, resulting in harm. Both these scenarios leave the first party (the manufacturer) out of the liability picture. The tool they provided worked as designed... the user simply misused it. This part of the argument should be unproblematic. It's "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," which we've been trying to convince the antis of, for years.

Car pile-ups in fogs happen fairly regularly (at least one newsworthy one every couple of years). They happen because some, at least, of the people in them were driving too fast for conditions. Carmakers are not responsible for that.

Please understand that I'm not trying to find a "guilty party" for every conceivable harm. The people who burn themselves with the coffee they just drove away from McD's with should not win their cases against McD's. They knew the coffee was hot and voluntarily took that risk.

If the perfume manufacturer did business according to the NAP, they wouldn't sell allergens. It's their responsibility by being in that business to see that they don't and to make due recompense when they screw up.

[nualle]

Zander, you said:
The simple fact is that a Yugo is going to come out second-best in a collision with a Chevrolet Suburban.
The Yugo owner knew that, yet chose the Yugo anyway, assuming the risk.

[labgrade]

"A few months ago we had a serious pile-up on the interstate in an extremely dense fog, with several people killed. The lawsuits have only just begun.

Assuming that everyone was driving at a prudent speed, and that SUV's squashed Geo Metro's, should the SUV manufacturers be the ultimate defendants?"

The assumption that everyone was at a prudent speed can't be supported. Otherwise, they wouldn't have piled into each other.

Henley's "Driving with your eyes closed" comes to mind somehow.

In Colorado, there is often a pile up "caused by the weather." Pure bunk. It was caused by people driving too fast for the road conditions. Physics dictates speed limits.

& not be seen as uncaring, but if I had such a disorder, I'd likely buy a mask to filter out the junk so often found in "my" air.

Only seems prudent to save yourself from those less thoughtful souls.

[stockpile]

smokers do drink more than non smokers because the nicotine in tobacco smoke slows the absorbtion of alcohol. aside from other habbit reasons this is a direct connect between tobacco and alcohol.


stockpile.

[Khornet]

'science' from the CDC has been shown to be corrupt, and deserves the same respect as the breast-implant business, in which the implants were never shown to cause any disease, yet the mfgrs were crushed.

Sorry, Nualle, exposure to tobacco smoke doesn't produce black sputum. Seek medical attention.

You can demand all day long that the world accomodate itself to you. You could even be right, though in the cases at hand you aren't. But no matter, 'cause the world don't care, and if you persist your life becomes the smilie::banghead:

[Khornet]

is, paraphrasing/adapting what my Dad used to say to me:

'Michael, you just worry about keeping yourself from offending/assaulting other people today. That's a full-time job by itself. If you have any time left over, THEN you can worry about what other people are doing wrong.'

[nualle]

You can demand all day long that the world accomodate itself to you. You could even be right, though in the cases at hand you aren't. But no matter, 'cause the world don't care, and if you persist your life becomes the smilie: :banghead:

and

'Michael, you just worry about keeping yourself from offending/assaulting other people today. That's a full-time job by itself. If you have any time left over, THEN you can worry about what other people are doing wrong.'
So what you're saying is that the NAP is just a utopian ideal... not a real basis for how human interaction ought to look. If that's so, what differentiates some rights (like the 2nd Amendment) as being real enough to demand apply in the world?

I believe all human rights are real. All I can do about it is more or less what your dad said: arrange my own actions to apply them. But what I hear some of you saying is that the NAP grants some exceptions—that some preventable harm is ethically permissible—and I don't see where you're getting that from.

[Khornet]

To be armed is a basic human right; to require the rest of the world to adapt to one's own peculiar problems is not.

It is as if one person's peculiar physiology created a zone around her in which everyone had a duty to adapt. But of course, that means there can be endless competing zones. And a lawyer's paradise, since the solution you prefer is the lawsuit.

As the man says, we need to leave each other the hell alone, and we need to put up with each other a lot better than we do.

[nualle]

Monkeyleg: your initial inquiry was:
[quote]...how far as a society we should go to accomodate the physical problems of others, especially when those problems are found in just a tiny minority of the population.[quote]
When I see that, I see: Is there a minority so small that the NAP doesn't apply to them?

For me, the answer is, unproblematically, "No." Others apparently disagree with me on that.

Also: I don't believe in societal application of the NAP. I believe in individual application. For each choice made, the buck stops somewhere.

Have fun with the rest of the thread, folks. I'm tired.

[Blackhawk]

nualle said:If the perfume manufacturer has produced an allergen, they need to quit manufacturing it or reformulate it to remove the allergen. Problem with that is that every aromatic or aerosolized substance is an allergen to somebody. Being allergic to something merely means that your body misperceives that it is a threat when it is not. It's easy to become sensitized to things, but not so easy to become desensitized to them.

Your "solution" would effectively shut down a whole bunch of industries. To extend it further, spring would have to be outlawed along with trees, flowering plants, bacteria, and just about anything else that contributes small molecules perceptible to humans to the atmosphere.

If this is the thread that will not die, maybe somebody should take it out back and shoot it.... :D

[Shalako]

You know, this is starting to make sense. If someone's chosen action causes me physical harm, I have grounds for compensation. But what if in my case, somone's chosen action caused me mental/emotional harm? Do I get anything for that?

And how bad do I have to be offended, emotionally scarred, or otherwise upset to get some money?

Keep in mind I am really sensitive.

Thanks,
Shalako
(also seriously allergic to milk)

[TexasVet]

Someday, I'm going to open a resturant JUST to post the following sign at the door...
---------------------------------------------------------

If you want to eat here, be apprised of the following:
1: If you want to smoke, there is a smoking section. Pick any
table, that's the smoking section.
2: If smoke bothers you, read the above and go away.
3: If you are allergic to anything, either ask, and we will
tell you, or go away.
4: If you won't take control of your life, we CERTAINLY won't!!
5: If you drove one of those tiny little electric thingys, get it
out of our parking lot. It's for CARS!

[macmuffy]

NO IRISH NEED APPLY

Does this ring a bell with anyone?


Way to go TexasVet. I would be honored to sup with you.
Operation Market Time '68-'69 CA-148 (radio call THUNDER)