<p>Still, I am waiting for the time when a case comes up about whether smoking with a child in the house might be seen as abuse…that would be interesting to me. I mean kids might be seen as property, but do the personal habits, in this case smoking, of a parent constitute abuse or neglect?</p>
<p>What about the worker? An employer is supposed to ensure a safe working environment, does smoking break this guideline??</p>
<p>I don’t know, I need a case to help me answer this question…</p>
<p>After that McDonald’s case and the tobacco company cases, I think anything is possible…</p>
<p>Ever heard of a train? or busses for long distance trips? </p>
<hr>
<p>Well you see, trains and buses do not go everywhere and if they do, would require multiple stops and transfers. notice how i used the word EFFICIENT in my argument. Waiting in a bus station for a transfer is not a time efficient mode of transportation</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that these sorts of regulations should NOT be inplace because we should have personal choice.</p>
<hr>
<p>No, humans should not have unlimited personal choice. If one becomes psychologically addicted to a harmful substance, one isnt in their right mind to decide what is best for them. Therefore, the state must be that person considering the family is normally useless. To say that drug addicts should have complete personal choice is to say that mentally handicapped people should have complete personal choice. Neither have the ability to act in their own best interests</p>
<p>The constitution doesn’t say a lot of things that we take as rights. </p>
<hr>
<p>Your right it doesnt, and do you know what it says about this? Any right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is at the discretion OF THE STATE, not the population.</p>
<p>Actually come to think of it, drug trade is interstate commerce, which is specifically defined in the Constitution as being part of the Interstate Commerce Clause. This definition was just upheld in Gonzales v. Raich. So actually, the Federal government does have the right to make drugs illegal.</p>
<p>First, if you genuinely believe that people should not have free choice, and that the government should be able to force decisions on the people, that if your opinion and it will not be changed. I just hope that you are never in a situation where your freedom is impeded by the government and everyone around you tells you that it’s what is best for you.</p>
<p>“Your right it doesnt, and do you know what it says about this? Any right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is at the discretion OF THE STATE, not the population.”</p>
<p>Um yeah, ever heard of CALIFORNIA??? In CA there is sovereignty of the people, so in a sense the population is the state, and they voted to legalize medicinal pot.</p>
<p>Also Who says that drug trade is inter-state trade??? I know that when I’m in CA I buy pot grown in CA–there’s nothing inter-state about that.</p>
<p>“Don’t remind of that ***** who spilled coffee on herself! Ugh, I can’t believe she actually WON that case.”</p>
<p>It’s funny that you mention that, my econ prof last semester, who is a health economist, actually told us that there’s more to it than the generic “ooo hot ouch” that most people think of. Back then, ONLY in their drive through, Mcdonals would SUPER heat their coffee because they expected that when you get food in a dirve through your going to wait until you get where you’re going to eat it. So that coffee wasn’t normal coffee temperature, it was like rediculously hot, and hotter than she could have expected it to be. Granted it was probably not a good choice to put the cup between her legs, but how many of us remember what it’s like to drive in a car w/o cup holders? I know mot cars from back then didn’t have them. Anyways she ended up getting very very sever burns, like, through her flesh severe. So it wasn’t as stupid as the defense people made it seem. </p>
<p>About the award they gave her–do you know how they came up with the amount??? She was awarded what mcdonalds (internationally) made on coffee for ONE day. So if you think about it that case wasn’t THAT rediculous.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court also ruled in Dredd Scott v Sandford that slavery was perfectly ok. In Kelo v City of New London the Court ruled that the govt. can seize private property for any arbitrary reason. Supreme Court rulings mean jack **** in terms of actual liberties.</p>
<p>To equine: No. That ruling was ******** no matter which way you put it. Its that dumb *****'s fault she spilt her coffee, not McD’s. It doesn’t matter if she won 10 million or a dime. In principle, its still wrong.</p>
<p>“What the jury didn’t realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck’s seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously.” That came from some law firm’s website… all I’m saying is that coffee should not be so super heated (and before this, people weren’t aware of it) that you need skin grafts and a week in the hospital. btw she was not driving, they had parked and she was in the passenger seat when this happened.</p>
Unless I am mistaken, our good tort buddy wasn’t forced to buy their superhot coffee. She did this of her own free will, and paid a price for her stupidity.</p>
<p>i am only refraining from entering this discussion because I have a final tomorrow that I need to study for, however I checked ONE of your links, the national cofee association, and they reccomend BREWING temp of 200, not serving temp. </p>
<p>Also, they did not advertise their drive through coffee as being hotter than their regular coffee so how was she supposed to know that she what she was purchasing? </p>
<p>The recommended serving temperature is 180 if you actually bothered reading. Kinda like saying that its the gun sellers fault for not telling you that if you point it at your head and pull the trigger, you’re a goner…Believe me, there cannot be a justification for this, no matter what your socialist professor says.</p>