X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00  	autolearn=unavailable version=3.2.0-r431796
Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) 	by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l0MHFRTK022507 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:15:27 -0500
Received: from workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu (mx.umich.edu [141.211.176.132]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l0MHFOCe004404; 	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:15:24 -0500
Received: FROM wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.226]) 	BY workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45B4F10A.D7FB2.1437 ;  	22 Jan 2007 12:14:51 -0500
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 55so704787wri         for <improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu>; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;         d=gmail.com; s=beta;         h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;         b=fq1NULKs8KSyp1dVi2KDvvzPSUGceGL5Crc1beTn6Zv2tAHHhhtAtIQ4c8zNtTKlexvubNh2FraCqXEnc5Xnip52PxBmhXwR0qgk6OqufgwJ4GDP7406ZHW2sa+FeXMqOPc3UOBtzwAhfaV8KHSwn6AARdXc2K/ipklAbLAUAQs=
Received: by 10.90.98.10 with SMTP id v10mr6539066agb.1169486090188;         Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.113.9 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 09:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5ed707a10701220914r3795ca3es126e60e06b8cf3fc &AElig mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8d3580670701220800o1422fcaalf6e3793d09ec3482 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701220237380.30196 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> 	 <8d3580670701220800o1422fcaalf6e3793d09ec3482 &AElig mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on  	newman.eecs.umich.edu
X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:14:50 -0500
To: "Lisa Hsu" <hsul &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Cc: "Daniel Reeves" <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>, improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu,         reeves-kalkman &AElig umich.edu
From: "bethany soule" <bsoule &AElig gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mea culpa: everything I've ever said about smoke-free workplace laws

"helmet laws are bad for the gene pool."

On 1/22/07, Lisa Hsu <hsul &AElig eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
> does this dislike of bans/laws extend to things like motorcycle/bicycle
> helmets, seatbelts, and the like?
>
> just curious.
>
> lisa
>
>
> On 1/22/07, Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu> wrote:
> >    It took a while but Cam Wicklow's and Matt Rudary's (and possibly other
> > of my opponents in this debate who I'm forgetting) points have finally
> > fully sunk in.  (The greatest thing about improvetheworld in my opinion is
> > how often we prove Carl Sagan's otherwise apt obversation about political
> > debate wrong (see appended email signature).)
> >
> >    I no longer support smoke-free workplace laws!
> >
> >    The right strategy is a coherent policy that upholds everyone's
> freedom:
> > freedom to smoke and freedom to not breathe smoke.  For example, mandated
> > risk-pay (i.e., the very real risk of cancer for the waitstaff of smoky
> > bars) could make it expensive enough to allow smoking that a minority of
> > establishments would choose to.  Voila, everyone's happy!  I'm really sick
> > of governments banning things.  It's a dangerous precedent.
> >    Basically, I think policy-makers should be more like mathematicians.
> > Smoking in bars and restaurants is/was a real social problem.  But there
> > are ways to fix it without adding laws.  In fact, we can fix it by
> > generalizing, clarifying, and consistently enforcing existing laws.
> > Risk-pay is one way.  Another way is to generalize liquor-license laws to
> > include smoking, i.e., directly make it more expensive for bar and
> > restaurant owners to allow smoking.
> >    It really boils down to the Golden Rule.  Banning something is A-OK
> > when you don't happen to want to do that thing anyway.  But worry about
> > the precedent you're setting for when the government decides that *your*
> > favorite risky activity is a danger to yourself and others.
> >    I should confess though that part of the reason I finally saw the light
> > on this is that, living in supposedly smoke-free New York City you can't
> > walk a block without getting three facefuls of smoke.
> >   I keep thinking how nice it would be to get the smokers into some kind
> of
> > special smoking establishments -- "bars" if you will -- and off the damn
> > sidewalks!  Oh the irony.
> >
> >    And don't get me started on New York's transfats ban.
> >
> > Danny
> >
> > --
> > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves   - -
> search://"Daniel Reeves"
> >
> > "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's
> > a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they
> > would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view
> > from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as
> > it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes
> > painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time
> > something like that happened in politics or religion."
> >    -- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
> >
>
>