5 ms·

There's a clear difference between prohibiting drunk driving, and telling me I can't continue to use my wood stove inside my own home.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
There's also a pretty strong similarity. We're all driving the same roads; we're all breathing the same air.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Prohibiting drunk driving doesn’t involve depriving citizens of their property, especially property that was legal when they bought it.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    It literally does though. Drunk driving removes the usability of their cars that they could've spent tens of thousands of dollars on this.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      There is a clear and important distinction between restrictions on how property can be used, and the government literally seizing property. Trying to argue that those are one and the same is just silly. A better parallel would be fining based on emissions, which I would be fine with. But actually seizing private property? Hell no.
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        > But actually seizing private property? Hell no. Yeah like your car being seized due to not paying the yearly registration fee?
        ashtonkem 6y ago
        Only if you're driving it on a public road. Again, laws around how property is used are fine. There are all kinds of ways you can misuse your property that will result in it being taken from you; in general all of us are fine with that. It's legal to drink, and it's legal to drive, but if you drink and drive you might lose property or your freedom, probably both. What's not fine is the government saying "you purchased this legally and in good faith, but it's not legal anymore and we're going to need to take that". This feels like a good idea when it's something with obvious negative externalities, but it is a wildly dangerous power to give the government. Especially since this power will almost certainly be delegated to the executive branch by the legislature, giving random un-elected appointees the ability to expropriate property without even a hint of deliberation. Oh, and it's probably an ex post facto issue anyways. You generally can't punish people for something that was legal at the time that they did it. This is why various gun regulations almost always exclude all banned items that are currently in private hands, because attempts to take that property away would be unconstitutional.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        > Only if you're driving it on a public road. This actually depends on the jurisdiction. In many of them not having an active registration/inspection is grounds to having your vehicle seized. Even if it's only used on private roads. > What's not fine is the government saying "you purchased this legally and in good faith, but it's not legal anymore and we're going to need to take that". This feels like a good idea when it's something with obvious negative externalities, but it is a wildly dangerous power to give the government. Especially since this power will almost certainly be delegated to the executive branch by the legislature, giving random un-elected appointees the ability to expropriate property without even a hint of deliberation. Sure, except if compensation isn't offered. The government currently does this all the time, it's actually how many "public" offices fund themselves. Where is the outrage of this happening right now? We've already crossed that line. > You generally can't punish people for something that was legal at the time that they did it. We also do this currently. It's called not having clear laws and having to argue in court and creating new precedent. And "punish" only works if you're not offered compensation. If the government says "hey as your representatives we're going to ban xyz for this health reason, and provide compensation for buying them back from you" then it's fine. Again I'm not saying the government should waste resources going and finding wood burning systems and seizing them. However the government can ban the operation of it.
brlewis 6y ago
Absolutely. Keep 100% of the smoke inside your own home, and it's nobody's business except yours and your home mortgage company's.
aaomidi 6y ago
Is the difference that the other one makes sense because it's been around for decades while this one is an emerging study? If your wood burning is proven to increase the risk of cancer for your neighbours, what does that mean?
gnicholas 6y ago
They are both cases of individual behavior creating negative externalities for others. In the case of drunk driving, there is a risk of sudden death. In the case of wood burning stoves, there is a risk (more of a certainty, actually) that nearby people will have their health negatively impacted over a longer time horizon. Drunk driving generates more obvious and immediate effects, but burning a wood stove or fireplace can still harm others.
Gibbon1 6y ago
If the air quality impact was limited to inside your home that would be the case.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

There's also a pretty strong similarity. We're all driving the same roads; we're all breathing the same air.

ashtonkem 6y ago
Prohibiting drunk driving doesn’t involve depriving citizens of their property, especially property that was legal when they bought it.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  It literally does though. Drunk driving removes the usability of their cars that they could've spent tens of thousands of dollars on this.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    There is a clear and important distinction between restrictions on how property can be used, and the government literally seizing property. Trying to argue that those are one and the same is just silly. A better parallel would be fining based on emissions, which I would be fine with. But actually seizing private property? Hell no.
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      > But actually seizing private property? Hell no. Yeah like your car being seized due to not paying the yearly registration fee?
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        Only if you're driving it on a public road. Again, laws around how property is used are fine. There are all kinds of ways you can misuse your property that will result in it being taken from you; in general all of us are fine with that. It's legal to drink, and it's legal to drive, but if you drink and drive you might lose property or your freedom, probably both. What's not fine is the government saying "you purchased this legally and in good faith, but it's not legal anymore and we're going to need to take that". This feels like a good idea when it's something with obvious negative externalities, but it is a wildly dangerous power to give the government. Especially since this power will almost certainly be delegated to the executive branch by the legislature, giving random un-elected appointees the ability to expropriate property without even a hint of deliberation. Oh, and it's probably an ex post facto issue anyways. You generally can't punish people for something that was legal at the time that they did it. This is why various gun regulations almost always exclude all banned items that are currently in private hands, because attempts to take that property away would be unconstitutional.
        aaomidi 6y ago
        > Only if you're driving it on a public road. This actually depends on the jurisdiction. In many of them not having an active registration/inspection is grounds to having your vehicle seized. Even if it's only used on private roads. > What's not fine is the government saying "you purchased this legally and in good faith, but it's not legal anymore and we're going to need to take that". This feels like a good idea when it's something with obvious negative externalities, but it is a wildly dangerous power to give the government. Especially since this power will almost certainly be delegated to the executive branch by the legislature, giving random un-elected appointees the ability to expropriate property without even a hint of deliberation. Sure, except if compensation isn't offered. The government currently does this all the time, it's actually how many "public" offices fund themselves. Where is the outrage of this happening right now? We've already crossed that line. > You generally can't punish people for something that was legal at the time that they did it. We also do this currently. It's called not having clear laws and having to argue in court and creating new precedent. And "punish" only works if you're not offered compensation. If the government says "hey as your representatives we're going to ban xyz for this health reason, and provide compensation for buying them back from you" then it's fine. Again I'm not saying the government should waste resources going and finding wood burning systems and seizing them. However the government can ban the operation of it.

brlewis 6y ago

Absolutely. Keep 100% of the smoke inside your own home, and it's nobody's business except yours and your home mortgage company's.

aaomidi 6y ago

Is the difference that the other one makes sense because it's been around for decades while this one is an emerging study? If your wood burning is proven to increase the risk of cancer for your neighbours, what does that mean?

gnicholas 6y ago

They are both cases of individual behavior creating negative externalities for others. In the case of drunk driving, there is a risk of sudden death. In the case of wood burning stoves, there is a risk (more of a certainty, actually) that nearby people will have their health negatively impacted over a longer time horizon. Drunk driving generates more obvious and immediate effects, but burning a wood stove or fireplace can still harm others.

Gibbon1 6y ago

If the air quality impact was limited to inside your home that would be the case.