Asymmetrical Information

I am so glad I left the damn state 20 years ago. I have not had cause to regret it.

I have been doing some business in NJ (I am from Texas), and it is a miracle that the whole state does not disapear in a poof of logic.

YOU CAN"T PUMP YOUR OWN GAS!

That symptom alone is enough to send me screaming back home.

If you live in a state like that, you get what you deserve.

You can't pump your own gas in a number of states, like Oregon. The State has to protect you from blowing yourself up, I suppose.

Here in California, there was recently proposed a law that would require that drivers to have their lights on whenever they're using their windshield wipers. I'm not sure where this bill passed or not but isn't it comforting knowing that idiot, nanny-state legislators are passing thousands of trivial laws so that I won't hurt myself.

I don't see why I should have to go to another restaurant because someone wants to stink up the place. If smokers want to smoke they should think about not smoking so much and wait a little.
As far as the no pumping your own gas, that makes sense because the other states gouge the handicapped who can't pump their own because they can't walk or don't have hands.
You should always have your lights on when its raining because it is dark and people need to see you; too bad the legislature has to force people to do what common sense should dictate.
The rich definately should pay more taxes, after all they benefit from them (taxes) more than the rest of us.

Irv,

I'm in an admittedly bad mood and thus really shouldn't be posting right now. Not to mention, I normally try not to feed the trolls. But I just can't help myself.

What an ignorant, pathetic little fascist you appear to be! And I'll bet you need regular orthopedic treatments for shoulder sprain due to constantly patting yourself on the back for being against the looming "oppression" of the evil conservatives.

I'll bet you consider yourself quite intelligent and look down your nose at all the lumbering, troglodytic jerks who stand in the way of the "progressive" programs you favor.

Finally, I'll bet you are a panty-waisted little whiner that is afraid of his own shadow and tries to make up for that by getting the government to force others to do his bidding.

I wish you and all your fellow travelers would find a way to swap a few "IQ" points for a pair of balls. Then, maybe you'd feel less threatened by people (either male of female) who do have a pair, and you wouldn't be always trying to sic the police on others to punish them for your sense of inferiority.

I realize this post is totally unproductive and even unfair. But, I've found that trying to use logical arguments against true-believing statists is a waste of time. I have no hope that this little screed will change any leftist minds, such as they are. As I wrote above, I just couldn't help myself tonight. My apologies to the other posters and readers.

Mycin

P.S.,

I should also post a special apology to Ms. Galt and Mr. Dreck, as I'm in their "house".

Sorry for my short fuse tonight.

Mycin

As far as the no pumping your own gas, that makes sense because the other states gouge the handicapped who can't pump their own because they can't walk or don't have hands.

Do the drivers in this hypothetical victim group crawl to their cars and steer with their mouths?

The rich definately should pay more taxes, after all they benefit from them (taxes) more than the rest of us.

I've seen this assertion many times in discussions like these, but it's always vague and qualitative. I'd like to see some math for once. Can you show me exactly how the value of government services differs for someone who makes $1 mil a year vs. someone who makes $100k? If it's exactly 10 times higher, then I guess you'd favor a flat tax? If it's less than 10x, would you favor a regressive tax?

mycin:

I have no hope that this little screed will change any leftist minds,

You're right not to hope. Your little screed just makes you look like a moron.

Don, why do you say that? Irv sounds like a fool, and Mycin pointed him out as such.

Oh, and you can't pump your own gas? WTF? How does that work - every station is full-serve? Thanks but no thanks, I'll save my three cents a litre. And what in god's name is the justification for it? I have never in my life heard of anyone spilling any appreciable amount of gas, and I wouldn't be surprised if there has never in the last 50 years been an accident caused by it. Stupid governments...

NJ stations are purely full-serve. Second, it's still cheaper to buy gas in NJ at full-serve than in most states self-serve (anecdotal observation). Third, it's basically a unemployment reduction trick; the state govt has more or less admitted this.

It's not that much of a pain in the butt (unless you're paranoid about the attendant capturing your credit card data).

Mycin:

Golly, what an outburst! Such language! Keyboards, like automobiles, should not be operated when angry...

I confess that I was not aware of laws which prohibit self-serve gas pumps. Does sound a bit silly to me. On the other hand I am old enoough (barely) to recall when there were NO self-serve pumps, and all stations would compete for business by offering better *service* (hence the name "service station")...

Most new cars have daytime running lights anyway, and laws which require lights-on during rain clearly fall within the realm of protecting the rest of us, not just the dork who zooms off in foul weather without his lights on.

Cheers,

DD

Just a bit of extra fuel - I'm not aware of all state laws, but every station I visit has a sign saying that if 2 or more employees are on duty, those who cannot pump their own are entitled to full-serve gas free of charge. I don't think this is a result of my own state's attempt to provide for the handicapped; I just figured it was an outgrowth of the ADA.

Is the situation different elsewhere?

I can just see the scene along side the road.

"Sir, I pulled you over because it's a state law that you have your headlights on when your wipers are on."

"Oh, OK. I'll turn my wipers off."

Alsadius:

Don, why do you say that?

I'll assume that's a rhetorical question. If it's still not clear to you, read Mycin's post again.

As far as smoking is concerned, the issue is not about the customers (who presumably have a choice about establishments, although this rarely worked out in practice), but about the employees (who should not have to work in life-threatening conditions in *any* employment environment (at least where controllable)).

Do people have objections if customers or businesses are slightly inconvenienced in order to improve workplace safety?

...who should not have to work in life-threatening conditions in *any* employment environment (at least where controllable)

The government, more or less, has the power to control anything - so anything is defacto controllable. You're going to have to build a far better ideological construct to limit this principle solely to smoking in workplaces.

After all, the pilot of SpaceShip One didn't really need to risk his life flying into space - he could have easily just got a job flying from NY to LA.

For the record, I think the only reasonable application of workplace safety law would be a requirement that employers fully inform their employees as to the risks involved in the job - and allow people to decide for themselves. Most jobseekers will avoid risky employment, and no doubt there won't be much of it - given that we've come so far that merely being in a smoking bar is considered risky. I'm sure there's a child in a sweatshop somewhere who might have a different definition.

I find the workplace safety argument for smaking bans for restarants to be pretty weak given that in all my time working in restaurants I found that restaurant employees are overwhelmingly smokers. Also, most restaurants, even down here in tobacco-friendly Virginia, only allow smoking in the bar. Usually only a couple of servers and the bartender(s) are exposed to smoke all shift long. And I think any manager would tell you that they could easily assign servers to work exclusively in non-smokinig sections. The thing is, servers like smokers. They tend to drink more (pushing up the tab) and tip better.

In the end, a restaurant always has the ability to ban smoking if it wants to, and I think that non-smokers should vote with their feet on this matter, rather than assume that they have the right to never encounter tobacco smoke.

Not buckshot, rock salt is better for vandals.You've heard of rubbing salt into the wound?

Ian's right about the price, although that's a function of lower gas taxes, not full or self serve.

I find it a complete pain, as gas station attendants tend not to be...attentive. I'd be much quicker in and out without them.

The "millionaires tax" is a half-millionaires tax. Given the high property-taxes in NJ (we pay more than 2% of our home's value each year) one might think taxes were progressive enough.

I find it a complete pain, as gas station attendants tend not to be...attentive. I'd be much quicker in and out without them.

Whenever I'm stuck waiting at a pump in NJ, I just get out and start pumping it myself. That gets them running over quickly to help me. I suspect legal liability lies with the station, not the driver.

Rob

The "anti-smoking in any work place" argument does hold water in the legal system. That's how it was passed in California. Someone who worked as a bartender for 20 odd years but didn't smoke came down with lung cancer from second-hand exposure and sued. You can say what you like about most waiters and waitresses and their smoking habits, but it doesn't work. And no, there aren't really any meaningful choices you can make about which type of job you want to take based on whether or not people are smoking inside when you really need a job and don't have that many skills.

Please before you start hitting me with the "California is so weird" angle: Ireland just passed a similar country wide law to protect people from second hand smoke while they are working and I just heard from some native Dubliners that they think 90% of the folks in Ireland will say they love going into smoke free bars and just feel bad the smokers have to stand outside to get their fix..

For the record, I think the only reasonable application of workplace safety law would be a requirement that employers fully inform their employees as to the risks involved in the job - and allow people to decide for themselves. Most jobseekers will avoid risky employment, and no doubt there won't be much of it

Certainly such a law would save a *lot* of money. After all, the mining companies could eliminate expensive practices that have saved large numbers of lives. After all, the workers always have the right to starve...

Realistically, there is a tradeoff between safety and cost (there's *always* a tradeoff unless you want to get absurd (or Randist :-))). However, I'm sorry, but in this case, I don't see a smoking ban as an unreasonable workplace safety precaution.

Remember, Mr. Cord, that employment is not a free market. After all, most of us *don't* have the option of not working, unlike making a purchase, where the consumer has (theoretically) complete freedom, including the freedom not to buy at all.

You can't pump your own gas in a number of states, like Oregon. The State has to protect you from blowing yourself up, I suppose.

Nah, see Ian Argent's comment, which was the bald-faced rationalization Oregon used when they got that law passed (or so claimed one of my friends who lives there). Needless to say that sort of job has a very high turnover rate and creates a huge disincentive for 24-hour pumps. Also, the service station owner has approximately zero incentive to hire more pump operators than the bare minimum necessary, hence unusually long lines in many cases.

As an unrelated side comment, I see Don P is lecturing other posters on proper debate form, so I think that answers the question of where the flock of winged monkeys came from.

I hate Jersey's gas pumping law. I am one of those people who loves the smell of gas so getting out and sucking in a few whiffs while I am pumping becomes a high point of my day.

As for nanny government workplace crap, I want to raise cattle and am waiting for the government to finally pass a law that makes those filthy cows shower and stop the horrible smells that come from them. Talk about bad behavior, these cows have no respect. My civil rights guarantee me the right to raise cattle with no smells, how much more obvious can it be!

Nobody has ever been able to logically explain to me why a restaurant owner who:

1.) Built her establishment using her own substantial work and money;
2.) Bears all the financial risks associated with running a business; and
3.) Works incessantly to grow the clientel and reputation of the business...

....must be legally or morally obligated to serve and employ persons on THEIR terms.

Nobody should have the RIGHT to eat in her restaurant. Because that would mean she has the obligation to run her restaurant according to your preferences. So much for freedom, huh?

Nobody should have a RIGHT to work in her restaurant. Because you don't have any "meaningful choices", she's therefore obligated to employ you on your terms?? So much for the restaurant owner's meaningful choice.

Buckshot? On kids? For graffiti?

Boggle.

SO we should all have to be waited on and pay more for gas because some crippled people cannot pump their own gas!? Is there any logic there at all? If there is a real market for assisted gas-pumping, the service will be offered. And it is. And those who need or want the service will pay for it. Why should anyone else? The mind that came up with the "since they can't do it you shouldn't be able to either" idea needs to go to another universe immediately.
In Egypt every gas station I went into was inhabited by swarms of attendants offering to do anything to your car for almost no money. They all wanted tips, of course. Pumping your own gas under such circumstances would have been ridiculous. But that was only because the level of wages was so low. How long before automatic devices pump gas, depriving the invalidophiles of their last argument?

As to smoke, there is no real evidence that second-hand smoke ever hurt anyone, pace the John Edwards types. And Ireland had rebellion all over the place about the no-smoking fascism. It was crushed by threats of massive fines and imprisonment. That's EU democracy for ya.

Rob Leder wrote:

I've seen this assertion many times in discussions like these, but it's always vague and qualitative. I'd like to see some math for once. Can you show me exactly how the value of government services differs for someone who makes $1 mil a year vs. someone who makes $100k? If it's exactly 10 times higher, then I guess you'd favor a flat tax? If it's less than 10x, would you favor a regressive tax?

Most of my experience with NJ gas stations comes from the non-pine-barrens part of it, but I've never had a real problem finding a gas station open at all hours, nor have I had to waitin line for anything. The attendant doesn't stand next to the car for the entire pumping period - rather, he puts the pump in, sets the autolatch, and goes to serve someone else. In a station that does not have pay-at-the-pump machines, its faster than doing it yourself. Nobody who lives in NJ cares about it. Many people prefer the NJ system. I didn't grow up in NJ, so I find this a little weird, but there you are

Jonas Cord:

The government, more or less, has the power to control anything - so anything is defacto controllable.

No kidding. That's the nature of democracy.

You're going to have to build a far better ideological construct to limit this principle solely to smoking in workplaces.

It's not limited solely to smoking in workplaces. It's not intended to be limited in that way.

For the record, I think the only reasonable application of workplace safety law would be a requirement that employers fully inform their employees as to the risks involved in the job - and allow people to decide for themselves.

Then you're a member of a tiny minority. By the way, do you also think X-ray machines and security checks on commercial passenger flights should be optional--just "fully inform" prospective passengers of the risk and let them decide for themselves?

In those states with self serve and the punp handle doesn't have the automatic tab stop in it (so you can leave the gas running into your tank while you clean the windshields, etc.), the reason the tab stops are removed is because of the compromise those states reached when first allowing self serve pumps into the state. It's another form of protectionism, so that the full service operators would only be competing with people who had to hold the pump handle in order to pump their gas.

This might have made sense back when self-serves were new, but nowadays, finding a full serve station is next to impossible--it's simply cheaper for a self-serve to automate their credit card pumps to allow 24-hour service even when no one is at the station.

anony-mouse:

As an unrelated side comment, I see Don P is lecturing other posters on proper debate form, so I think that answers the question of where the flock of winged monkeys came from.

As an unrelated side comment, I see that anony-mouse is illustrating the limitations of America's education system once again.

Robert Speirs:

As to smoke, there is no real evidence that second-hand smoke ever hurt anyone,

There is a mountain of evidence that second-hand smoke is extremely harmful. The most recent major study found that chronic exposure to second-hand smoke is effectively equivalent to being a light smoker yourself.

Robert Speirs:

And Ireland had rebellion all over the place about the no-smoking fascism.

Polling data shows overwhelming public support for the ban.

There is a mountain of evidence that second-hand smoke is extremely harmful. The most recent major study found that chronic exposure to second-hand smoke is effectively equivalent to being a light smoker yourself.

This is 100% false, as is the assertion that anyone has ever died of second-hand smoke. In fact, there is not one single documented case of death caused by second-hand smoke. The only comprehensive study ever done on the subject was by the WHO, which study was buried because it did not provide the results thate were expected (and hoped for). That study revealed no correlation between second-hand smoke and higher risk of cancer, etc., with one exception -- children of smokers were less likely to develop cancer, etc.

I suspect that the data to which Don P refers was the since discredited (i.e. thrown out of court as non-science) 1993 EPA report.

Buckshot? On kids? For graffiti? Boggle.

A good old-fashioned Singaporean caning would do probably do the trick, with less of that scarring/maiming problem. Although, for anyone who has ever discovered graffiti (or a broken window, or a 'keyed' car) because some kid thought it was fun to wreck other people's property for kickcs, buckshot is probably one of the lesser punishments that came to mind.

As an unrelated side comment, I see that anony-mouse is illustrating the limitations of America's education system once again.

Ah, really? Where? Let's have some evidence of that assertion, if you're up for providing it.

MichaelW:

This is 100% false,

No it isn't. It's 100% true.

... as is the assertion that anyone has ever died of second-hand smoke.

Oh, really? And you know this, how? Show me how you know that no one has ever died of second-hand smoke.

I suspect that the data to which Don P refers was the since discredited (i.e. thrown out of court as non-science) 1993 EPA report

No, I was referring to this study

Ah, really? Where? Let's have some evidence of that assertion,

Pretty much every anony-mouse post provides abundant evidence of it.

MW: ... as is the assertion that anyone has ever died of second-hand smoke.

DP: Oh, really? And you know this, how? Show me how you know that no one has ever died of second-hand smoke.

The assertion was made by you. It is therefore your job to produce evidence of a single documented case where a medical doctor has certified that a patient died from exposure to second-hand smoke. While I frequently come across anecdotal evidence ("The doctor assured me that ..."; "The treating physician said it was most likely ..."), I have yet to see one actual documented case of a person known to have died from exposure to second-hand smoke. If you have such evidence, please present it and I will gladly retract my statement.

As for the study to which you actually alluded, it seems to be rather preliminary and, according to some of the posted comments, places far too much emphasis on serum cotinine levels. In short, this recent study doesn't seem to "prove" anything.

MichaelW:

The assertion was made by you.

No, the assertion I am referring to is your assertion that it is "100% false ... that anyone has ever died of second-hand smoke." If that is the case, then it is 100% true that no one has ever died of second-hand smoke.

Show me how you know that no one has ever died of second-hand smoke. This is the second time I have asked.

In short, this recent study doesn't seem to "prove" anything.

I didn't say that that study "proves" anything. Environmental health risks do not have to be "proved" to justify public policy responses.

There is a mountain of evidence that second-hand smoke is extremely harmful. The most recent major study found that chronic exposure to second-hand smoke is effectively equivalent to being a light smoker yourself.

Posted by Don P at July 19, 2004 01:08 PM

Since you cited a study that you later admit DOESN'T prove the above, why state it and give the study as your evidence?

Beloney

beloney:

Since you cited a study that you later admit DOESN'T prove the above

I didn't say that the study "proved" it, as you might have realized if you had bothered to read the sentence of mine you quoted more carefully.

Pretty much every anony-mouse post provides abundant evidence of it.

*yawn*...a cop-out, and a lame one at that. I'll take that as a compliment, such as it is.

Don, you're not making an argument. If anony-mouse has provided such abundant evidence, can you point to it, or are you attempting to discount her arguments by character assassination?

sjisstarr:

I'm discounting her arguments by the same method by which she is attempting to discount mine in her post of 12:50am.

anony-mouse:

I'll see your *yawn* and raise you two *yawns* and a *sigh*.

Ah, I see. Two wrongs DO make a right...

Your math needs a tune-up.

It is therefore your job to produce evidence of a single documented case where a medical doctor has certified that a patient died from exposure to second-hand smoke.

Well, while not "proof" (and the victim is not dead yet...), the Worker's Compensation Board of Ontario ruled that a waitresses cancer was caused by second-hand smoke. They did so based on widespread medical opinion (here).

Here is the Ontario Medical Associations (= a whole lot of doctors) declaration on the effects of second hand smoke.

I'll see your *yawn* and raise you two *yawns* and a *sigh*.

I'll call. An entire hand full of aces, with a supporting play by Will Allen.

Posted by Don P at July 19, 2004 04:37 PM

"Environmental health risks do not have to be 'proved' to justify public policy responses."

True. Under statist governments like ours, the only justification "public policy responses" require is that the advocates of these responses be able to secure the votes of a majority of the teensy number of legislators running a government.

As Di Fi, the senior senator from California, told "60 Minutes" regarding her 1994 "public policy response" banning new production of "assault weapons":

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an_out_right_ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I_could_not do that. The votes weren't here."

No proof of a problem needed, no proof that this "response" will solve a perceived problem. Just 51 senate votes and 218 house votes out of a population of 270 million and POOF, you have a public policy response.

Terry

---
Have you ever been beaten half to death with wooden rakes?
No, but I did sit through 'The English Patient' once.

The proof of the stupidity of the assault weapon ban is the present easy availability of those same weapons. I can walk out my office today and buy a case of rifles functionally equivalant to the AK-47 semi-auto knock-off that supposedly were the greatest threat to america ever, along with as many 30 round mags and as much ammo as I'd like, but somehow now we're safer than before, cuz these don't have bayonet lugs or flash hiders. And yet street shootings are down. Yup, must have been those bayonet lugs...

Sorry I'm arriving late to this love-fest, but I just wanted to commend Mr. Weintraub (remember him?) on his exceptionally lucid letter. My despair recedes somewhat when confronted by such spirited common-sense.

As far as all of the rest of this forum's preceding claptrap, we have arrived at a most peculiar point in history when the so-called victims (employees subjected to second-hand smoke) get to govern their oppressors (the employer). These paradoxes will get even tougher to sort out when we are all victims.

My short answer: employers get to decide who they want to work for them and employees get decide if they want to work for that employer. If an employer wants a smoke-free workplace, great. If he wants to smoke or to be surrounded by smokers, great. Either way, the economic cost and benefits are borne by the employer.

So that I am not misunderstood, I am just as opposed to mandatory smoking-sections as I am to mandatory non-smoking sections. Let a thousand businesses bloom, and let customers and employees patronize them as they see fit.

Comments are Closed.