Slashdot Mirror
2006's Bill of Wrongs
Jamie continued the never ending flow of year-end recap stories, this one is the Bill of Wrongs which lists the 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of the year, according to Slate. Several of these aren't news to Slashdot readers, but it's still worth a read.
I was please that he did not get the death peanalty primarily because he so obviously WANTED to get the death penalty. The man wanted to die, and I'm glad he was not given his wish.
San Francisco Photographers
Banning trans-fats in New York, banning smoking in Seattle. This has been the year of banning activities in the name of public health. Talk about violating civil liberties! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
Comment of the year
Bush & Co. have not been drawn and quartered for this laundry list of infractions that go DIRECTLY against his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Yet.
This is actually just a list of anti-Bush talking points, there are many serious wrongs missing from the list, and many petty "wrongs" added to it.
"Bush sucks".
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Personally I'd like to know what the author would do in the Ticking Time Bomb scenario; Dahlia probably wouldn't have any answer.
In any case, the number 2 complaint listed is The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which is strange because the author would presumably like to have constitutional protections apply to non citizens captured on a foreign battlefield. Apparently the point of our civil liberties is to protect everyone on earth, including the terrorists, huh?
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be deposited unceremoniously and permanently on the streets of Baghdad amidst the people that they "liberated," and there left to enjoy the "gratitude" of their Iraqi friends. Let the people of Iraq decide what to do with the "decider." If Iraq really is as free and as much better off as Bush & Co. continue to claim, I'm sure they'll be, ahem, "greeted as liberators," given a palace and a beer in short order, and will live out their days comfortably...
On the point, I'd say.
That's all just moveon.org, put your enemies first, self denouncing liberal, forget the UN raping kids type stuff. It's not worth a read at all.
I haven't heard of the ACLU jumping in to defend anyone's rights in this case.
Yes, "the government" tried to execute someone. Everyone in the entire government was in on it. They all wanted to slay him mercilessly. But wait.. The jury decided against it. Hrmm. And the jury is technically part of "the government". Remember, the three parts of the US government? Yeah, one of them being judicial? Apparently "the government" decided not to execute him after all. Because once you are selected for a jury you are in the government, being paid by the government, performing a government role. So, let's get a little more specific, shall we Slate? It wasn't "The Government" that tried to execute him. It was overzealous prosecutors riding a power-trip straight to hell.
Way to misrepresent the facts. The prisoners were deemed potentially to be the so-called vicious killers. Given the attacks on the USA, can you really expect us not to be at least a little sensitive to the possibility? So we found out many of them weren't. That is why we released them. And, what do you expect, we should yell at the top of our lungs that they were innocent? Nobody really cares. The USA is out for blood after 9/11. If we find people to be innocent we release them. There's really no reason to go out of our way to release them any way *but* quietly.
This point at least has some reasonable balance to it. There's no doubt the Bush administration is having serious trouble with their information intelligence. Whether their motives are pure or not we cannot say. Do you have proof they are injuring civil liberties out of mere selfish political drive? I don't see it anywhere if you do.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
If I want to choose to eat at a restaurant that uses transfats then that is between me and that restaurant.
I for one, am happy to be a European right now - although the Blair Government is currently contemplating putting people predispositioned to crime in jail before they actually commit a crime. Nice....
Anyway, some people in Washington may need a reminder of what they claim the USA is about:
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Seastead this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bill_of_Rights_is _not_a_suicide_pact
Check out the Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, Minority Office. This is the official view of congressional Democrats of what the administration has been doing wrong. They're the minority office, so they can't do much except update their web site.
On Tuesday, they become the Majority Office. Congressman Waxman becomes committee chair. Investigations will start shortly thereafter. We're going to see plenty of Administration officials being asked hard questions. Under oath. On TV. That's how Waxman works.
"As set forth in House Rule X, clause 4, the Committee on Government Reform may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter."
I've heard from some people that he did a "double fake-out". Moussaou didn't want to die, so he let it be known that he wanted to die so that the jurors would think they would martyr him. The jurors, not wanting a martyr, decided not to press for the death penalty.
The author of this article has stolen my intellectual property, I demand compensation ! ;)
Poor terrorists, we're violating their "civil liberties". Remember the freedom fighters that the terrorists hung from a bridge in Falujah? How about their "civil liberties"...
When pressure came from Human Rights Watch the US government's response was to pass a "Prisoner rape elimination act" the chief result of which was to commission a study by one Mark Fleisher, who concludes that, get this:
So the way your government retreats from its threat of having some ethnic gang make you its bitch and infect you with Hepatitis C if not AIDS while sexually torturing you because you're a technologist who got out of line, is to claim that you aren't being raped, you are experiencing "sexual awakening".This should have topped the list and of course, since American technologists don't count (just look at the H-1b and outsourcing riots trashing their ability to support families) it didn't appear anywhere
Seastead this.
Hmm... I guess human rights violations only happen in the USA! I don't know why anyone wants to live here! After all, the Sudan, Somalia, Iran, China, Cuba, and North Korea are much better places to live! You don't have to worry about religious or ideological persecution there!
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Somebody ought to label the initial "What about bans?" irrelevant and label its poster a troll. I can't do it, but this one is not only unrelated to the questions of civil liberties raised, but arguably the product of either stupidity or payola.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
...alas I miss my mod points now. Your post is very redundant and is often used by people to silence any discussion. Same as saying : "Let all immigrants stay" - "No, then we will all lose our *jobs*, and we don't want to lose our *jobs* now do we ?". In Slashdottish, this is called FUD.
Journalists hiding behind their cloak of secrecy as an excuse to divulge national security secrest is apalling. Furthermore, people who choose to put their heads in the sand and ignore these atrocoties are pathetic anti-patriots whom I feel do not deserve the priveledge of being an American citizen.
Not to mention the likes of Sandy Berger committing crimes punishable by DEATH. The current theory as to why Sandy Burgler has not been indicted is that Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton could have been implicated and the resulting scandal would make the U.S. look bad. There is also a lot of speculation that Berger and Clinton were not tried because they struck a deal with other politicians who would have had their dirty laundry aired if a deal could not be reached.
Sad sad sad.
This has nothing to do with "Your rights online", nothing to do with geekitude, it's just a partisan bump of a partisan shill.
Horseshit, I say.
Point out the unconstitutionality of citizen disarmament and wealth redistribution, and these same brave defenders of the Constitution start babbling about living documents and suicide pacts.
Oh, and Taco? Slate? Are you fucking serious? Get a life.
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked? If this ranks as one of the more serious problems you have with the ACLU, then they must be a remarkable group.
I'm sorry, I just don't see these as civil liberty issues. Of course, there are things the ACLU fights for that I also think don't qualify, but still, to claim silence on such petty issues is the same as support, is like saying that you obviously supported Kenneth Kaunda since you never spoke against him.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I have felt bad for the Duke Lacrosse program and its players from the start, if only because I recognized the case as a probable "Tawana Brawley" incident early on. For those who don't know. Tawana Brawley was a teenager in Wappingers Falls, NY who made wild rape accusations a generation ago. The owners of the gas station that was a focus of her accusations were eventually vindated, but lost their business in the process.
The appearance is now real, but that doesn't make the Duke lacross players who were charged victims of an attack on civil liberties. They are victims of what a false accusation of a sex crime. Such accusations are serious, not particularly uncommon, and often hinge on "she said, he said" evidence rather than the testimony of third parties. Actually, if you take out the unfortunate press coverage, which transformed what should have been a quiet investigation into the death of a Lacross program, the firing of a coach, and the transformation of an entire team of lacross players into persona non grata in the schools they tried to transfer to, the system actually worked pretty close to the way it should. At this point the only problem is that the prosecution has been taken too far (something that is not all that uncommon).
It must be admitted, however, that there is one huge difference here from other cases. Paying strippers to perform at a party created an impression of wanton sexuality and out of control behavior that made the accusations extremely plausible. Unless you feel that bringing strippers to parties is a "civil liberty", this case comes closer to being a candidate for the Darwin awards than anything else.
At this point, there is just about nobody associated with the case that one can't feel bad for. I think that's particularly true of the prosecutor who, having been stuck between a rock and a hard place the entire time, now faces disbarment. For what its worth, the Tawana Brawley case wound up in about the same place, with the prosecutor in that case ultimately accused of being a racist and rapist (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley).
Look at number three on the list for an attack on civil liberties that makes the Duke case look like a little blip on the radar.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
What is this crap! Jose Padilla, Moussaoui, Guantanamo Bay... Are those involved in terrorism cases the only ones these liberals care about? Call me crazy, but I think it is a far bigger outrage when American Policemen shoot an innocent person with every bullet in their guns, dead, no trial, just dead and no one cares. Why do people only care about protecting suspected terrorists? Is terrorism just the new counter-culture? Why is this whole list about Muslims?
That reminds me of this guy the featured on the Public Radio show "This American Life." He was convicted of a murder he did not commit, so during the penalty faze of his trial he did everything he could to get the death penalty. His logic, if he was wrongly convicted to life in prison, nobody would give a s**t and he would rot in jail forever. If he was wrongly sentenced to death, some liberal lawyer would take up his case and exonerate him. The amazing thing is the plan worked. He convinced the jury to fry him and he found a liberal lawyer to overturn his conviction.
San Francisco Photographers
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/commercial/11064le
From the article:
With the Bush administration claiming and acting as if we are at war, "The War Against Terror" and relinquinshing our rights without due process, when will we ever not be at war? With this attitude we have lost our Civil Liberties forever and becoming just like cold war era Soviet Russia. The more things change, the more we are becoming the same.
The author's hotmail address in the article doesn't appear to be working, conspirocy theories anyone,LOL.
L
In my country, the majority of people do not smoke. Smoking is known to cause many health problems, and we've long since debunked the myth that passive smoking is harmless. So is banning smoking in a public place -- something that directly prevents harm to the health of the majority, at the expense of some convenience for the minority -- really an infringement of freedom?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
There are lots of rights and freedoms, and by default we should defend them all for everyone. But sometimes they come into conflict. Sometimes resolving that conflict is difficult, particularly when it involves an important principle (such as a right to privacy) clashing with a very practical need (such as the right to travel safely, even if it means your fellow passengers have to be searched/background checked/whatever).
But sometimes, the decision is very easy for most people. Should the freedom of movement of a tried and convicted murderer outweigh the right of his neighbours not to be killed, or should we throw him in prison until he's no longer a danger to others? I believe the decision in that case would be near unanimous anywhere.
There are no right answers on these ethical issues, no black and white, always shades of grey. But you're wrong that the argument can be used to ban anything, at least if you mean used effectively. Some things are worth spending money on, even though it means compelling everyone to contribute. If a strong majority really did not agree with this (rather than just whinging about paying taxes, while at the same time being happy to use facilities funded through taxation) then chances are that we would long since have reverted to a completely private, insurance-based, very multi-class society.
For an argument about cost-saving to be effective, there has to be a clear moral case that the consequences are justified. In the case of smokers, as long as they were genuinely aware of the consequences and capable of making a reasoned decision independently, I don't see that there's much moral argument for putting their interests ahead of others who are given no choice about the smoker's actions, yet who suffer in health and potentially financial terms as a consequence.
If you want a more difficult argument with smokers, try the case of an older person, who smoked in their youth before the dangers were fully understood, but who has long since given up and who now gets lung cancer. But for current smokers, it seems to me that banning them from doing so (at least when non-smokers are nearby) can be easily justified in health grounds, and the financial argument is compelling (given that the public money you aren't spending treating smokers can then be spent on helping others who may not have had any choice about their misfortune).
(Footnote: The financial argument here assumes, of course, that the net cost of smoking to the health service is positive. This may or may not be a valid assumption, given that smokers tend to die younger and therefore not need increasing amounts of more expensive treatment in their old age. I've seen good arguments, backed by real statistics, on both sides of this argument. I'm not going to get into it again here, since my point is that the financial argument cannot be used automatically to justify arbitrary bans as the parent claimed, and smoking merely serves as a convenient example for discussion.)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I see a lot of sidestepping going on in this discussion. It remains that
That said, when is the Republican party going to step up and impeach this administration. They are out of control. They don't take the congressional or judicial direction they are required to take under the constitution, and they are undermining what is supposed to be their own libertarian agenda. The Democrats can't impeach Bush and company without being plastered with accusations of partisanship, but the Republicans can, and its about time that they did. Among other things the party would regain some measure of credibility.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
Have you even bothered looking at the evidence? Try this factsheet on passive smoking for example -- yours for the price of Googling "second hand smoking evidence" and reading the second hit. (For those who are curious but can't be bothered to follow the link: it's by an anti-smoking lobby group, but cites numerous scientific papers from diverse sources to back up its specific criticisms.) If you don't buy that one, go ahead and follow a few more links from the same Google search. There's no shortage of studies, and no shortage of campaign groups happy to highlight them for you.
In contrast, the only link I found among the first few hits that actually sided (somewhat) with the smoking lobby groups argued that one specific study (which wasn't really a new study, but rather an attempt to combine data from existing research in a new way -- a warning sign of something on dubious scientific/statistical ground anyway) could be interpreted at best to find a level of damage that was only slightly above noise. That same web page then suggests that we should ignore statistics, and that only a rise of 100% or more in the damage observed is significant enough to concern us because... well, because. Not exactly as compelling as "We conducted a formal study, and in households where both parents smoked, there was a >70% increase in childhood respiratory problems", is it? (That's one of the results in the factsheet I mentioned earlier.)
Seriously, this isn't rocket science: the often-devastating effects of smoking to the smoker are well-documented, and at best those around the smoker are still breathing in most of the same stuff after the smoker exhales it, just at a lower concentration (though possibly not much lower, depending on where you are). How can anyone with the slightest shred of understanding of basic science possibly assume that passive smoking is harmless?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
... to the functioning of a democracy, surely to goodness, would be to complain about the broken and/or crooked and/or non-auditable election process?
If you've got clean elections you've got some chance to fix the other stuff. If you don't have clean elections you're stuffed whatever you do.
A lot of this list focusses on the US, apart from Guantanomo. What I fail to understand: if keeping people imprisoned like that can make this list (and rightfully so!) why isn't the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq on it as well? Don't forget that most of the prisoners in Guantanomo originate from these two countries.
Surely improsoning people can't be worse than invading the countries they're in for reasons... that have yet to be proven legitimate?
Here's a longer summary:
- Protecting terrorists' rights is more important than preventing terrorism. Completely compromise the efforts to prevent terrorism rather than compromising terrorists' rights in the slightest degree (or even in appearance). Any other course of action (or even the discussion of it) is forbidden and evil.
- Courts and the media can do no wrong and are above scrutiny. Even discussions to the contrary are forbidden and evil.
- Bush is evil and you should believe anything bad about him, no matter how kooky, speculative, or outright false.
There is a huge pool of incidents to choose from, and it's obvious that the author chose the ones that illustrated her disdain for the Bush Administration so as to continue her campaign of anti-Bush propaganda. Unfortunately, despite the obvious bias of the author, the incidents selected were mostly eligible for a list of this sort.
It is depressing to read a list of this sort and know that it is only a small example of rights being trampled. It is depressing to read this article and realize that the government doesn't serve the will of the people; that government does not have the people's consent but does what they want regardless of the Constitution. It is really depressing to realize that very few people know the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so the majority of the US citizens couldn't evaluate these actions even if they cared.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
And what if we don't call them bans? The asthmatic is no more able to go into a bar here now than if there were a legal ban or armed guards on the door. Any "freedom" here is a mere illusion.
If you really think that allowing large groups of people to go to large groups of places they previously couldn't -- even if it wasn't officially called a ban -- reduces their freedom, then I'm afraid you're missing this very important point. Freedoms are only worth anything if you can meaningfully exercise them.
I don't like to do this on open forums, but on this occasion I'm going to make a guess about you: from your perspective, I'd guess that you're not asthmatic, an ex-smoker, the child of chain-smoking parents, a health worker, or anyone else who deals with the very real consequences of smoking to the unlucky non-smokers. The reason I give this list is that I know people who are in each of those categories. Funnily enough, after the recent announcement of a smoking ban in the UK, none of them has expressed the view that non-smokers' freedoms are being restricted by the ban. Quite the contrary, in fact.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This is exactly why we should legalize weed, crack, pcp, prostitution etc.
I find it interesting that we executed Sadaam (and yes, it was as much USA as Iraq). Personally, I would rather die quickly via hanging than to remain in a small prison cell like Rudolph Hess did.
In fact, I find the whole concept of the death penalty as it happens in the USA about the stupidest thing there is. We say that it will stop ppl from committing crimes, yet it make very easy and not so scary (a "humane" way of doing so), we do not publish it, and then expect that it will influence criminals to stop their behavior. Whatever idiot that came up with this logic should be shot.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you really think that allowing large groups of people to go to large groups of places they previously couldn't -- even if it wasn't officially called a ban -- reduces their freedom, then I'm afraid you're missing this very important point.
That it restricts the rights of smokers. Now they can't go to any bar and smoke. They can't even set up their own bar that allows smoking. You took away their ability to exercise a legal habit so that some other group could go to bars and feel comfortable - people don't have the right to be comfortable.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Actually, you'd be wrong in your assumptions. However, one anecdote from me wouldn't really contribute much to the debate either way when so much formal and large-scale research is already available.
You do inadvertently make a useful point however. It can be difficult to identify specific causes of death in individual cases at the best of times, so most established hypotheses about the damage from smoking are based on widespread correlation between smokers and certain conditions. Since almost everyone has been a passive smoker at some point in their lives, to widely varying degrees, it's not particularly helpful to advance the equivalent hypotheses for the general population, since this would be almost impossible to test experimentally. Most of the passive smoking research is aimed at subgroups of the population: bar workers, children of smoking parents, and other well-defined categories. For these people, some of the results are clear; see the research I cited elsewhere in this discussion.
In any case, your mention of alcohol is just a straw man. I haven't expressed any views on the relative danger of alcohol and smoking, nor am I going to waste time defending hypotheticals out of context.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yeah, but we all have to die sometime. How does extending the lifespan do any more than make this the problem of the next administration. It would appear to save a lot of money in the short term while compounding the issue 20 years from now...? Or is it cheaper to die of natural causes (considering the amortized nickle and dime health costs over the span of gained years living).
It's the age old argument of - steak and beer while you can take care of yourself or a lifetime of gruel and water so you live long enough for state funded convalescent homes. ... actually, I imagine that 30 years from now I will probably think I regret not eating salad my whole life, but not having suffered the fate personally these will hardly be objective regrets. And besides, the basis for the banning of unhealthy diet seems to be cost, yet it likely costs more to support cheaper procedures (than cancer, heart surgery, ...) for much longer lifespans, only to have the inevieatable heart failure, cancer, ... anyways. So it's really not much of an argument, they should base the curbing of free will on reality, not short term financial relief.
Seatbelts..... this one really irritates me. I think we pay more than enough taxes to provide ambulance rides and stuff, we pay a lot of taxes actually. You don't see drastic measures to cut back on ineffective military campaigns or drug wars but you'd better not expect cheese from the government. The worst part about the seatbelt laws is they promote illegal search and seizure - you can be pulled over and have your papers checked just because an officer doesn't think you were wearing a seatbelt but it's ok to go around without a helmet or fire extinguisher in your vehicle. It's also taxation without representation. The rationale for the law and resulting fines are based on cost to the administration so rather than raise taxes, they simply fine people. Supposedly it is a sort of selective taxation scheme, fair to those wearing their seatbelts, but discriminatory towards those not wearing a seatbelt while driving along not having a wreck. I think they just want to declare open season on civil liberties in general. Pull over everyone over at will, set the stage for fining these people if the officer spies transfats in their car.
Why is it so ok to split hairs over every benefit that directly applies to the populous but money is no object when it comes to funding and manning enforcement to crack down on said benefits. I'm going to NY to become a smoking enforcer, I'll have my own skyscraper full of beaurocrats, german shepherds, and state of the art water misting devices to annoy my victims before I fine them and ask them to empty their pockets, show me some ID, ...
You put it that way and it sounds peachy, only two items in the list named people, so the rest must apply to cans of pepsi or something. They all affect people, you and me whether Slate names them or not.
. html
e arch=N368CE&distinct_entry=true
0 061229-15.html
"Only for Extraordinary Rendition can even one actual instance be named. For the rest, we are to take the fact that despite the extraordinary scrutiny this government's every move seems to come under"
So you believe there is only 1? Even Bush admits 14 people. Now if only we could explain how 1400 rendition flights of medium sized passenger jets were used to fly a mere 14 people around we'd be laughing. Remember we know how many flights from the flight logs. We're talking thousands of people and potentially lots of Americans too. What you think Padilla is the only one?
Says 14 rendition people transferred:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1947647,00
The aircraft involved:
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regs
Can you name the 14? No? That's the secrecy for you, no names, no nationalities, no details, no lawyers, no trials. If you can't name them how can Slate? What about the rest? We haven't even got a real number yet.
As Bush put it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/2
"Today, Saddam Hussein was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime...Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule."
Wow hypocritical or what? He's a slimeball, the worst US leader ever, and if it turns out he's locked up a bunch of Americans and tortured them, then he and the people who worked for him should hang too. No different from that slimeball Sadam.
So you are saying someone's right to have a "legal habit" is greater then someone's right to be confortable? And it's not about being comfortable, it's about not breathing in poisons.
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And it's not about being comfortable, it's about not breathing in poisons.
So are you going to ban cars, too?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Only in bars.
Are you OK with the other two mentioned in point 5?
"The FBI's TALON database shows the government has been spying on nonterrorist groups, including Quakers, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Veterans for Peace."
Veterens for peace?
Quakers?
It looks to me like you're trying to change the subject.
So by your logic I should be able to go into a public place (a bar) and inhale some noxious chemical, one that is a known poison and carcinogen, and blow it in your face while you are trying to eat?
So are you suggesting that such stupidity as the design of the U.S.'s death penalty should be punishable by death? ;-) I agree that the death penalty's current execution, no pun intended, fails as a crime deterrent. If anything, those sentenced to death become martyrs. Life without parole, I think, would be very, very boring, dreary, and would help to instill feelings of hopelessness. Besides, if you're innocent, life without parole gives a much longer timeframe for evidence to be found to clear your name, and if you're guilty, you have more time to think about what you did. Let me see, did I leave out anything?
That drinking could be taken away, just as easily as smoking is also relevant, considering the facts. The anti smoking crowd lives in their own hypocritical world apparently.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Err, it wasn't the gp that began the "die-hard *political category*" statements. Trying to suggest polarization after someone defending the opposing standpoint broached it is unfair and disingenuous.
Oh, and Bush is somewhat of a pariah in his own party. May Republicans are much more conservative on many issues (e.g., immigration controls and reforms). The reason that the Republicans don't turn on him publicly is that they have some semblance of respect for the office of the presidency. Something many of his opponents lack. To claim that he and his "die-hard republicans" are in charge is very incorrect from the standpoint of party politics.
I know that conservatism is very unpopular on slashdot, but let me throw a bone out here to people puzzling over why conservatives are not seeking impeachment. We believe that America is at war, and a very scary kind of war. I am at least as frustrated with our current administration as you are, and I cannot wait to vote in a new president. However, it would be an extreme sign of weakness to oust Bush prematurely.
For people who say that Bush is getting away with all kinds of civil-rights violations, please consider that we know about so many of them! The news media is joining the executive-branch checks-and-balances. The Administration is effectively neutered. Fortunately, they've effected their economic changes (which are positive) before that, so now we're locked into a relatively steady state for the time being.
When the next Presidental Election comes along, let's demand someone who can produce results we want. The last two elections have been "lesser of two morons" elections.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Perhaps. I wouldn't have modded you off-topic, but if we're talking about smoking here, I don't see that confusing the issue with the independent question of whether drinking should also be banned is particularly constructive. I picked bars as a convenient example, but from 1 July 2007 the UK law is changing for all enclosed public places, regardless of whether they supply alcohol. My arguments apply equally to libraries or shops.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In fact, I find the whole concept of the death penalty as it happens in the USA about the stupidest thing there is. We say that it will stop ppl from committing crimes, yet it make very easy and not so scary (a "humane" way of doing so), we do not publish it, and then expect that it will influence criminals to stop their behavior. Whatever idiot that came up with this logic should be shot.
I too find it stupid that we, the US, has the death penalty, but not for your reasoning. Like Thomas Jefferson did, I believe it's better to let ten guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent. If an innocent is sent to prison for life there's still a change s/he can be cleared and set free but they can't be brought back to life once executed. As for the death penalty being a deterrent, if it really worked nobody would commit capital murder. And as for me if I knew that if I were to kill and be sentenced to death I wouldn't have a problem in killing many more to avoid getting caught, say any and all witnesses. I also find it ironic that we kill people to show killing people is bad.
Should there be a Law?
But we're well beyond falling for that. Nothing will come of this office. They'll investigate nobody, just in case something is found. Neither side wants that. So instead of dragging Cheney, or Rove, or Daddy Bush's shady former CIA contacts, or whoever in front of the bright, bright lights, and asking pointed questions about 9/11 and Iraq, they'll instead mumble some more crap about National Security concerns, or whatever, and this whole exercise will fade away, without so much as a whimper.
There will never be any kind of investigation of the things which scream out to be investigating. Not while those involved still live. Too many from both sides of the house would be implicated in so many things that nobody dares overturning any rocks. So I'm sure our friend Mr. Waxman will somehow make a lot of money for himself from this self-serving gig, but he'll never investigate anybody worthy of investigation. Why would he bother?
Perhaps some zealous person may decide to start digging in a hundred years or more from now, when the fear of prosecuting any public figures has passed, but it's not likely either, given the fact that American life is ruled over by economic and political dynasties. There would be no chance of prosecutions, but the potential for powerful American families to suffer a loss of face (say, should it be determined that any US political figures had something particularly nasty to hide about involvement with 9/11 for instance) would be unacceptably high.
We've once again been shown proof the hard way that we don't have the balls to defend the democracy which we have spent so long shoving in other people's faces. Americans would rather believe obvious lies than face the truth of the culpability and intentions of our "rulers". Our democracy is not democracy, and not worth shit.
Aside from that, please name the serious wrongs missing from the list and the petty wrongs that are added to it. Which "wrongs" do you feel on that list are petty (and why), and which serious wrongs do you feel are not on that list?
He's probably thinking of the Harriet Myers nomination. Harriet seems to have really upset some people.
Only if you're sitting at my table.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Finally the democrats have found someone else to blame for their own ineffectualness.
I didn't mean to imply that you were the one who modded me. You do at least seem to be willing to look at the issue.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Funny how every single item is related to the Bush Administration.....
This is more of a very slanted editorial than news. I do admit that the Bush Administation has made some big mistakes, but it is curious to note that every single item is Bush-related.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Tell her to go to a bar where the owner has banned smoking or quit her bitching. If there is a market for it like you say, then some enterprising American must cater to it. If there is not, then why should they be forced to? The free market is a powerful thing if people are willing to vote with their dollars instead of whining about the smoke when they knew it was gonna be there. Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
See above, go to a bar where smoking isn't allowed. If one does not exist either there is no market for it or the market is wide open. Since there is clearly a market for it I suggest your friend start a non-smoking bar or quit whining. Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
Sorry, some jobs have risks and health hazards. That's America, at least the America I love. You got the freedom to hurt yourself. You don't get to walk into a smoke filled bar knowing it was going to be filled with smoke and then whine because you have to breathe it. I am not a smoker, I never was one, I never will be. I have no problem finding bars in my area that do not allow smoking, or at least contain it to a completely separate room. I patronize those businesses because I respect their decision to stop smoking in their business and because I take responsibility for my own health. The government nanny doesn't have to step in and hold my hand and tell me what's right, and big brother sure as hell needs to stop telling bar owners legal activities they can and can't allow on their own private property. Grow a spine.
Will they drop to 0? Because $0 is all some people can afford to pay for an unplanned hospital stay. Or I guess the homeless should just die on the streets because they're too "lazy" to get jobs, right?
With lower tax and medical bills more people would be able to afford insurance. With lower healthcare costs, health insurance would be lower too so more employers could afford to offer employees health insurance. Then with lower taxes more jobs could be created thus employing the unemployed. For those who couldn't work or get work civil society would be able to help out more as more people could donate to these organizations with lower tax bills. And I am saying this as someone who collects SSI.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We do, in fact, place strict regulations on automobile emissions. Here in Maryland I have to take my car every two years for an emissions inspection.
Your right to pollute the air ends where my respiratory tract begins.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
ORMC, Orlando Regional Medical Center? I was a "guest" there for a few weeks after an accident. My mom is also a lab tech there.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Bush's "Signing statements".
You're basically arguing here from the assumption that a free market solves most or all problems, something that a reasonable person could easily disagree with. Nevertheless, you're claiming that your social vision be "forced" upon them, citing their ability to "use the free market" as the equality factor. The free market itself is nothing more than an arrangement among citizens, quite similar to government in that respect. So maybe instead of others using (possibly corrupt) free market processes to exercise their rights, you should use the (possibly corrupt) governmental processes to exercise yours.
But maybe you're right. Maybe the public commons should be run purely as a private enterprise, and people should resort to financial gambling to enjoy a healthy experience in "public" areas.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Coming from New York to Florida I've found the opposite. And of course their income is taxed down here.
The only tax on income in Florida is the federal income tax and a tax on intangibles such as devidents on stocks. What revenue the state collects is from a consumption tax (sales tax on none food or health items) and property tax. You only pay tax on what you buy and what real estate you own. Now there's also the voluntary tax that's called the Florida Lottery, which is supposed to go to enhance educational spending. Oh and I grew up in Florida, my family having moved there when I was three.
FalconShould there be a Law?
1)Bush was re-elected.
2)Nobody gives a damn.
3)If he could run for a third term, Bush would probably be re-elected again!
4)Nobody gives a damn.
5)The democrats retook the majority in congress because gullible people think that will make a difference...but not too different. Don't want to rock the boat.
5)All this because nobody gives a damn.
What?
So it's a toxic environment, but since the worker could clearly choose another job, it's no problem, because some idiot is just going to end up in the toxic environment instead? Pardon me, but what the fuck kind of argument is that? Would it be okay for a painting contractor to hire bums and choose not to provide adequate ventilation because the bums are too stupid to find healthier work? It'll be pretty hard to find better work once your cortex is fried by epoxy poisoning.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Why aren't YOU a member of the Free State Project?
Ah, if only the Free State Project were in Vermont instead of New Hampshire, or they switched places. I'd rather live on the coast, and not have to travel through another state to get there. I'd even accept Maine. But unfortunately I don't have much choice as to where I live.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Does your non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend have a right to go to any bar and find an environment that suits her?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
See above
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
Again, do people have a right to work anywhere? I'm scared of heights - what about my right to work in construction? Sky-scrapers take away that right.
People have a right to freely trade goods and services - if your friend likes a smoke-free bar (as I do), she has to find a person/business that is willing to cater to her tastes. She has no right to impose her needs and tastes on the rest of the world.
In my opinion, the CDC is the perfect example of where the government should get involved. And, I would suspect that people opposed to direct government competition with the private sector would mostly agree.
As a Libertarian, the CDC and the NIH, National Instituttes of Health, are two of the very few federal agencies I agree with the existance of. Many of the others I'd rather see vanish off the federal registry, two of those being the FCC and the FDA!
FalconShould there be a Law?
A lot of liberal sorts come from families where they resented their parents and they tend to transfer the hatred of a parent toward another authority figure (a safe one). The people with great hatred of Bush generally hated a parent (or someone who abused them) first and they could never resolve that so they project it.
Wow! Overgeneralized crackpot psychological hypothesis at its finest. Liberals mostly hate their parents and that's why they hate authority, huh? Just wow.
Secretly these people LOVE Bush's mistakes (real or imagined) because they get to FEEL superior. They acquire a compensatory identity via their judgements (a female trait btw. Republicans tend to be more masculine in principle and identity and all the kids who hated their Dads (and this id often encouraged by Moms in dysfunctional homes) tend to hate a Bush and Republicans. This is especially true in Europe which is very feminised.
I'm beginning to think I'm feeding a troll here. In fact, I'm beginning to hope I am. Please feel free to confirm/deny this.
They would rather have us all consumed homosexual marriage than self-defense even though homo marriage is one reason the Islamo Facists want to kill us.
Wow again! The dems are the ones making an issue out of gay marriage, huh? And because it's something the "islamo fascists" want to kill us over, we shouldn't do it? That would certainly jive with the "hate us for our freedoms" non-argument often put forth by Bush, so clearly restriction of our freedoms is in order to get them to stop hating us?
Anyway, to summarize with not-quite-Godwin flair, I'm sure you just think Hitler was evil because it makes you feel better about yourself.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Liberal is something to be proud of. It stands for justice, truth, honor, and enlightenment values, unlike "conservative" which is essentially violent, oppressive feudalism and fascism.
Note that I also included group policies as well. I don't see how having your coworkers pay higher insurance rates for your own foolish choices is in any way a morally superior choice.
I don't know where you live or get your health insurance from but every rates form for health insurance I've seen had one rate for nonsmokers and a higher rate for smokers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Most of this is opinionated Cr*p. According to this guy Bush or his administration is responsible for most of the evil in the world. While Bush might not be a great president, he's no dictator and the US government is a hell of a lot better than most other governments in terms of civil liberties.
Fortunately, we don't all have to live in your America, and there is a world outside.
In any case, you're basically arguing that if people care enough, they will take action to change things. And they have. The majority of people don't want to suffer the smoking of an inconsiderate few, and the elected government have (for once) respected the will of the people and banned it.
This is far more effective than your free market approach, when the marketplace is dominated by a few established players who (for the most part) aren't willing to risk being the first to upset a highly profitable status quo. I'm not usually one to advocate government intervention, but in cases where an entire industry is going the wrong way, that's what government regulation is for.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The right isn't that of the smoker vs. non-smoker it's the right of the store/bar/restaurant owner. Banning smoking in public buildings is fine. Banning smoking in the restaurant I own is not fine. Owners of these establishments should be able to make them smoking or non-smoking if they want to. In fact where I live a few non-smoking bars have opened and they are doing great business. As the balance starts to tip where there are more non-smokers than smokers I expect even more bars to switch over.
According to the majority of the people in my country, yes, and the law now reflects that.
I really don't see a problem with this. My right not to be killed trumps your freedom to murder me with a broken glass at my table. My right not to be hurt trumps your freedom to punch me in the face in the queue. And now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So you are saying someone's right to have a "legal habit" is greater then someone's right to be confortable? And it's not about being comfortable, it's about not breathing in poisons.
Take this argument and apply it to driving. Though I don't ride my bike much anymore I used to ride it 100+ miles a week, and I'd breath in all of the poisonous exhaust from the vehicles I was sharing the roads with. By your logic I should be able to ban all vehicles. However that doesn't even take into consideration another harm from vehicles. Car accidents can and do kill a lot of people. I myself had a serious accident while riding my bike. While I was in a coma after a moving van hit me, the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived (if I could see and talk to those docs I'd let them know I see my life as a living hell not as a miracle). And I no longer ride much because of that accident!
FalconShould there be a Law?
Great read. Its no wonder that people hate the United States.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
So by your logic I should be able to go into a public place (a bar) and inhale some noxious chemical, one that is a known poison and carcinogen, and blow it in your face while you are trying to eat?
I have no problem with allowing smoking in public as long as there's also a place where smoking is banned. Or to flip it around, I don't mind a place that bans smoking as long as there is an equivalent place where I can smoke. However a total ban on smoking outdoors, in restaruants, and such does not fit that. I should be able, if I wanted to, to own a restaruant that bans all smoking, or one that has a smoking section away from nonsmokers, or one without any separate sectons.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Ah but nothing is stopping you from patronizing a place that bans smoking, or of starting one yourself. What I find ironic is that you say this at the same tyme you use your sig, "Throughout human history, the greatest threat to life and liberty has been not terrorism, but the power of the state." Smoking bans in public or mandated by the government represents one of those government powers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is exactly why we should legalize weed, crack, pcp, prostitution etc.
Amen!!!
FalconShould there be a Law?
You mean it's a vast left-wing conspiracy?
This country would be a lot better off if the partisans of both parties would be able to face the facts when their leaders screw up. But so many people are so greedy for the slops from the public trough, they will do anything for just a couple of more years of feeding.
We are the 198 proof..
First of all, I don't disagree with your basic premise that smoke (and smokers) smell bad. Also, I don't dispute the possibility that this could be the primary motivation behind such laws.
However, you should try to understand how scientific studies work. They typically start off with a null hypothesis (e.g., second hand smoking is not bad for you), and then they see if the null hypothesis is violated beyond a certain level of significance. If it isn't, then the results are said to be insignificant. (Which is all that you claimed.) Frankly, I would be surprised if such studies didn't exist somewhere. The larger the population size, the more "power" that insignificance is said to have. I'm not aware of any studies that show an insignificant result, but if you're claiming it's insignificant, than approximately 95% of properly run studies should show that there is no significance at the 95% level of confidence.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You think smoke stays locally over one table in a bar?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
According to the majority of the people in my country, yes, and the law now reflects that.
So if a majority of the people are in favor of slavery and the law reflects that, there should be no problem right?
My right not to be killed trumps your freedom to murder me with a broken glass at my table.
I have the 'freedom to murder you' only if you enter my property (with fair warning). Unless the restaurant belongs to your non-smoking friend, she has to stay out.
My right not to be hurt trumps your freedom to punch me in the face in the queue.
See above.
And now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
This argument would work if I smoked in your property or a common property (like a park, road, etc). However, I can do whatever the hell I want in my property - if you don't like it, stay out. My property, my rules.
Is there any dust in your home? Do you use carpet freshner? My friend is allergic to those things - does my friend's right not to get asthma trump your right to live as you please in your home? How come you can do somethings in your home that cause harm to some people and yet a restaurant owner cannot do what he pleases on his property?
Larceny isn't as agressive as your invasion of my air space with your smoke. As much as I hate to agree with an AC, he's right. Your chain of logic has got some pretty weak links in it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-smoking gestapo. OTOH, I'm not going to lose any sleep over bans against smoking. In the grand scheme of things, it ain't very important, so no one should be faulting the ACLU for not stepping in. That was my original point. I've also never heard of any ACLU case against adult swim time at public pools. <sarcasm>Oh, the hypocrisy!</sarcasm>
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'm not sure you understand either my argument or my sig.
A smoking ban that is supported by the people, even at the expense of business, is exactly what state regulation of business should do. Businesses do not have individual rights, including the right to profit at the expense of citizens' health. The problem is when the powers of the state start trampling on individual rights, which is a whole different game.
As for places that ban smoking, there are a couple in my city, and they are generally very popular. The problem is that there is a vicious circle where any of the big businesses who moves first would lose a lot of money temporarily, and none of them is willing to bite the bullet and do it. This way they are forced to do what the majority of the public wants them to do anyway, something which is probably in their long-term financial interests anyway, and without any one business taking a big financial hit. It's probably a win for everyone, except the selfish people who think their smoking is more important than everyone else's health.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
public place (a bar)
Unless it is owned by the govt, it is private property - not a public place.
No, I think you need to be at my table to blow it in my face.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Can you imagine for a second the crap that would be put in our food and mislabeled or deceptively labeled? It's already pretty bad WITH the FDA stopping much of it, and without them, it would be a field day of cost-cutting at the expense of the health and safety of the consumer.
The FDA does stop some of it but it also allows much through as well as blocks some drugs that may be good. Who do you think the FDA relies on for drug tests? The pharmaceutical companies. The FDA just reviews the data handed to them by the companies and other interested parties who have the money and expertice to do research themselves. What I propose is to allow any and all drugs to be available over the counter and allow all data on drugs to be publically and widely available, the PRD being a start. However require these databases and what not to enclude all data and test results not just that which makes the drug look good or effective. Then strengthen the court system so when the drug doesn't work right when used right can file a lawsuit. The same with side effects, if they experence a side effect that's not listed when they agree to accept responsibility, they should have a good case.
Don't think for a second that your freedom of choice will protect you, because your freedom of choice doesn't mean anything if there is no agency enforcing the availability of accurate and detailed information so you can make an informed choice.
Notice above how I said the court system should be made easier for someone to sue a drug manufacturer, pharmaceutical company. Also note where I said all "data on drugs to be publically and widely available". As it is now even doctors don't get all the data on drugs, make this available to all. The NIH, National Institutes of Health, could publish it. Of course some in the health industries, especially the pharmaceutical companies, would never go for this. It takes millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars for a drug to be approved which is just how big pharma wants it, they don't want anybody to take any market from them. This is the same reasons why they want to extend patents, so generic manfacturers can't release cheaper generic drugs. A few days or a couple of weeks ago there was an article on /. about how the GAO did a study on the efficiency of patent on drugs, Report Says Patents Prevent New Drugs
. FalconShould there be a Law?
Which other administration has been taking away our rights this year?
It starts with the president's complaints about "activist judges," Uh...yeah. Like when Ginsberg starts citing law from other countries to justify her opinions on how to rule... Don't like US law? Look for one you do like! That's just great!
So a sole-proprietor who owns his own bar doesn't have any rights to his own property?
I have no rights in my front-room LAN-party/PC repair shop in my own home?
Democracy is tyranny from the majority.
And now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
So go somewhere that's smokefree. If I own a bar and want to allow smoking it should be my right to do so, just as it's your right to go to a bar that bans smoking. Then if the market says it wants smokefree businesses I can either allow smoking and loose business, or ban smoking to stay in business.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I remember Watergate well, having followed it live at the time. But that was an investigation of politicians by reporters. Waxman is a politician. If you're going to toss examples around, it'd pay to know what you're talking about first.
Of course, it makes no difference at all, since few reporters these days would dare bite the hand which now feeds them, so an investigation is highly unlikely by anybody. Back in Woodward and Bernstein's day, reporters would have been all over 9/11 by now. Sad how things have changed so much for the worse.
while there is certainly a rational argument to be made for smoking bans (regardless of whether you agree with said argument or not) some areas take it too far. the city right next to me (Santa Rosa, California. about 50 miles north of SF) just past an outdoor smoking ban. you cant smoke in public parks, you cant smoke at outdoor restaurant seating and you cant smoke outside of bars. the new law was pushed through the city council by a pair of anti smoking advocates on the council who i think would probably see smoking outlawed if they could get away with it.
it stinks for me because while i dont smoke i have friends who do. when this law goes active soon, going to the bars in santa rosa (the biggest urban area around and the possessor of some very respectable micro brew pubs) will be a pain in my ass as my smoking friends wont want to go.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
A smoking ban that is supported by the people, even at the expense of business, is exactly what state regulation of business should do.
And what if the people supported slavery, should it be allowed? Afterall that's what democracy is isn't it? Reminds me of the "tyranny of the masses".
Businesses do not have individual rights, including the right to profit at the expense of citizens' health. The problem is when the powers of the state start trampling on individual rights, which is a whole different game.
Ah but businesses do have rights, so says some Supreme Court rulings. I disagree with this but a person should have the right to allow smoking on property they own, even if it's a business. And governments are trampling this by making, passing, bans on smoke on private property. The only way I could see such a ban as being ok is if the ban is a condition of getting a government backed loan, if it's on public property, or if the business has a government contract. But how many business loans are government backed?
It's probably a win for everyone, except the selfish people who think their smoking is more important than everyone else's health.
My freedom trumps mob rule. And that includes allowing smoking in a business I own. I just have to accept responsibility if I loose business by allowing smoking. Ah, but it's to safegard everyone's health? In that case we should ban vehicles as they are a serious danger to not just people's health but their lives as well. I know this full well, after being hit by a van while riding my bike the docs told my family it's be a miracle if I lived while I was in a coma. I also knew of someone who burned to death when the car she was in caught on fire.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And "smoking" returned this:
So yes, if you're blowing smoke in people's faces, the ACLU supports bans on that. But your alarmist attitude towards the ACLU, while commonplace among the right, is based on either ignorance or dishonesty. It's true that they don't support the 2nd amendment as well as they might, but hell, that makes them 900% (9/10 vs 1/10) as supportive of the Bill of Rights as the NRA. I'll take that.
As for the FDA, I dunno if I agree... after all, they're pretty intertwined with the NIH, wouldn't you say? I could see an arguement for downsizing it, but doing away with it completely would probably be disasterous.
No, get rid of the FDA. What little, if there is any which there isn't, Constitutionally authorized actions the FDA does can be done by the NIH.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's not a deterrent. It's a punishment....
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Let's get this straight from the beginning: Smoking is a drug addiction, & nicotine is a proven to be dangerous, deadly drug. Smokers are drug addicts, and they will always ignore this fact and complain of their "right" to smoke. that is why they will smoke even when diagnosed with lung cancer. OK, by that logic, is there a "right" to shoot heroin? Smoke crack / PCP? Of course not, but just because the government says it's legal to use this drug, but illegal to use that drug, doesn't make the legal drug safe to use. And, just like a user of hard drugs, the user / smoker has no "right" to impose his use or the side effects of his use on others- smokers will deny that their drug use endangers other people's health. Smokers are hard drug users, and the sooner they own up and quit using nicotine, the better for all of us.
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
It's also your right if you choose to eat at a restaurant that serves dog meat, but good luck finding one since that's illegal as well.
In the US yes, but dog meat is a delicacy in some countries such as China.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Now, I am not an american and i don't know the exact details about the laws passed there, but are they really banning you from eating trans-fats? How, then, are they planning on enforcing that? Will you be pulled over by an officer demanding to search your trunk for trans-fats when you have been to the mall or will the customs seize packages suspected of containg trans-fat?
My guess is that won't be the case. My impression (which is as informed as the guess of any european watching the news) is that they are banning resturants from serving trans-fats. That means they are not banning you from hurting your health and cause yourself a premature death - they are banning others (the resturant owners) from exploiting you in way which shortens your life. They are protecting you from the greed of scroupulus bussinessmen. Doing so does not enchroach any civil liberties.
Hubris is the number 1 civil liberties violation?! You have to be kidding me.
Pre-9/11. Get over it.
The stakes then was embarrassing a mediocre president. The stakes now include emboldening an intelligent and suicidal enemy.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Because too many people just don't understand what was actually intended by the founders of the U.S.A. And dare I say they don't care?
It's partically because of apathy I think. Because most in the US hasn't had to fight to preserve them, they don't appreciate the Bill of Rights. It's a matter of taking them for granted.
FalconShould there be a Law?
This isn't an article about 10 civil liberties violations. It's '10 things I hate about the Bush administration'. Things like 'slagging the media', 'slagging the courts' and 'hubris' make it even though they aren't even civil liberties violations simply because they provide an opportunity to do some Bush bashing, whereas trans fat bans and university speech codes never rate a mention even though they arguably are civil liberties violations because they are liberal in origin.
Since when do we get upset when a branch of our government tries to acquire more power? There are three branches constantly doing this, every single day. Anyone who says the courts aren't trying to expand their ability to create law is off in la-la land.
This is what branches of government do. They did it when Clinton was in power too. Please don't pretend it's a trait unique to this president. The Executive branch always gains power during times of military conflict. It's designed and intended to step to the forefront during such situations.
This is why we have congress and the courts, to block unchecked expansion of power.
I don't like it either, but where the fuck were we during the Clinton years when this shit all got started? This isn't exactly new, Gore and Clinton have laid the groundwork for this before Bush ever got into office. The Wiretapping capabilities, and email scanning capabilities... neither are the inventions of this president. Now, that doesn't mean the Bush administration gets a free pass. Some of the stuff that's been enacted since 9/11 is ridiculous.
However, it's unfair to blame everything on Bush, Cheney, or a made-up specter of Darth Rove. Our Senators voted for this shit, and they can undo it. Why aren't we demanding that they undo the mess they caused by not reading the fucking bills they signed. Why aren't we screaming at the Supreme Court to strike the whole thing down? Seriously? All people do is blindly say "Impeach Bush" when the only reason the Executive Branch has these powers is because Congress openly gave it to them?
No. He is the focus of a polarization. Let me put on my anti-big-media hat and say that the complete and total mindfuck that several big media institutions have executed as a way to push their corporate politics is mostly at fault. Bush's administration has failed at their #2 job, which is telling the American people what the hell is going on, but this has been compounded and greatly muddied by a fleet of talking heads that spit venom. The only positive point of this president is that he's done great things for the economy, and while I appreciate that, I know from history that there are presidents who can do that and actually do a decent job of foreign politics and PR.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury d
I'd love to be on a jury. Though I've been called for jury twice I wasn't selected either tyme, I wasn't even called for questioning. For those who want to avoid jury duty though, all they have to say is they believe in Jury Nullifaction. This is exactly why I wanted to be on a jury, so I could rule against a bad law.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Oh right, I forgot that everyone always has the choice to have a different job than they currently have. No one ever gets stuck, unable to find a better job and unable to quit and live with no job.
This might of been appropriate if the workplace was smokefree when the workers started working there but changed to allow smoking. It is totally different though if the place allowed smoking when they started working there. If they didn't like or it bothered them they shouldn't of started workign there to begin with.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thank-you for taking an absurd argument all the way through to it's logical conclusion. Universal health cover should mean what it says, ie: it should be universal.
The way universal health cover works over here in Australia (and it does "work"), is that people are treated in order of medical need. The people in the hospitals and clinics are there to treat your problem, there is not one person in the whole building wasting time with reams of red-tape trying to figure out wether or not you are worthy of treatment in the first place or what your place number is in the "queue". The money saved goes directly to reducing the length of the "queue" by spending money on the patients rather than the administration of the patients.
I am a "pack-a-day" smoker, and in case anyone has failed to notice there is a huge tax on smokes. As I said Australia has an excellent "socialist" health system, last I heard ( a good while ago ), smokers contributed $4B to revenue as a direct tax on their habit, the state spent $24M on anti-smoking campaings, and the national health budget was ~$20B. In otherwords the extra revenue from smokers could have been used to fund 20% of the nations health budget. I suggest similar level of tax on alcohol and stilleto heels to boost health funding a further 20%, (naturally, I don't drink or wear heels).
So let's cut all the anti-smoker bullshit, we are not leaching your financial resources, if anything non-smokers are leaching mine.
BTW: My revenue rant is not aimed at you, your post is actually one of the few in this thread that make any sense, I just wanted to point out that the general assumption of this thread (ie: that smokers are a net burden on the public purse) is false, well, at least here in Australia it is.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In the US now you can pop out a few kids, never work a day in your life and make the equivalent of 35k-50k/year (depending of what state you live in) with all the gov. assistance that's handed out.
First let me state I don't believe in the US federal government giving out welfare. Now can you tell me where you got your data that those on welfare get "35k-50k/year" in any state of the US? Because I have a disability, I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, I get SSI. I served in the US army and worked for more than 20 years after I got out, paying income taxes the whole tyme so I paid into SSI. Yet my SSI will come to less than $10,000 this year, and that is all of the government assistant I get. I seriously doubt anyone except corporate farmers and others who get corporate welfare receive even half of $35,000. I'm tempted to say this is just an attempt to spread disinformation.
FalconShould there be a Law?
At what expense? By imposing a ban you're limiting the freedom of a resturant owner to decide what will make him or her the most money. If some people are willing to pay a premium to eat at a resturant that allows them to smoke, or allows them to smoke in certain areas, why should a city, state, or country have any say whatsoever in the matter? A resturant is not a public place and no one is forced under the law to attend a smoking-only resturant or stay (or return ever again) should they discover that the place permits smoking.
I am a smoker. I am an American. I was going to point out how both your and your parent poster's comments are without merit. I am just not eloquent enough to do so without being long-winded. So: If you are an American, then you should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the state-mandated erosion of others' rights in favor of your own. By doing so you only lend support to legal precedent that will ultimately serve to justify the abuse of your own rights, and those of your progeny. Do not advance the misconception that even as adults, we require a babysitter because we are too immature to work out equitable solutions to our problems on our own.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
You don't get a say in where you go?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Banning smoking from places where innocent people can be harmed by the second-hand smoke is a decision in favor of, not against, civil liberties.
No it isn't, it would be a violation of civil liberties if all places were required to allow smoking. The violation in this case is in not allowing owners to decide for themself if they want to allow or ban smoking on thier property.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You have no right to harm me that way. If anything the Seattle ban should go farther- it should ban any smoking in any public place, including outdoors.
I wonder if you're willing to far enough to ban vehicles as well. I'd bet they are more dangerous than cigarette smoke. Years ago I used to ride my bike 100+ miles a week, and I had to breath in all that exhaust from vehicles. That all ended when I was hit by a moving van while riding my bike. While I was in a coma the docs told my family it'd be a miracle if I lived. NOT!!! My live has been like living in hell since.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Washington's smoking ban appies to public places and workplaces. You are still quite free to breath toxic radioactive smoke in private, but your right to pollute the air ends where my respiratory tract begins.
Does that right not to breath radioactive smoke apply to any right to not breath the radioactive gas radon?
FalconShould there be a Law?
This is just more senseless Bush bashing. Now that everyone thinks that Bush is a "failure" this sort of emotional drivel can pass for news. Bush was not a great president, but he certainly isn't the source of all evil in the world. In terms of wealth redistribution, that is exactly what the whole tax system has become. If you don't believe that, just look at the tax structures in NJ, extraordinarily expensive and it provides benefits a minority of the population. Up until the early to mid 20th century, there was no such thing as a tax, so don't start with the whole "taxing in legal" thing. Taxes were never intended to be permanent or as high as they are now. The US currently bears little resemblance to the one that the founding fathers created. This is historical fact, just look it up (unless you feel that history wasn't recorded properly and should be rewritten).
What is so sad is that only "liberals" would care if you were set to be executed for a murder you didn't commit. I'm a conservative when it comes to the budget, but when it comes to issues like this, I would be ashamed to stand on the same side of the room as conservatives. This is also why their "right to life" movement rings so hollow. It isn't life they cherish. They just don't want women escaping the consequences of sex.
Amen! Or whatever. It seems most antichoice, anti-abortion, people support the death penalty. And most of them are Christian as well. I ask them where their "pro life" stance went when it comes to the death penalty, as well as what happened to "turn the other cheek"? The rest of your post sounds like you're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's like a Libertarian. I'm that way myself. Socially I've against victimless crimes and for liberty, such that I support ending the "War on Drugs", I'm for allowing "homosexuals" to marry (though I have a real big problem with assigning homosexuality because it ignores those who are neither male nor female or are both, intersexuals), and I am very much pro small government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sex isn't the only cause of pregnancy. Which I had the reference but in some medical documents there was a case of a female getting pregnant during the US Civil War without having sexual intercourse. What happened was that a male got shot, the round passed through his testes then hit the female and she ended up pregnant. I know it may be unusual but the point is is that it does not require sex to become pregnant. Heck even "Mary" didn't have sex when she became pregnant.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Eminent domain has been a contentious issue for a very long time. Most eminent domain cases involve localities who have filed for eminent domain on behalf of public works (most highways have involved some measure of eminent domain). Recently we have seen an increasing number of localities seek eminent domain on behalf of businesses whose plans, it is felt, will benefit the community.
All the Supreme Court recently said was that within the law as it is currently written, localities have the right to make such judgments. I disagreed with their decision in the case they decided. Many people from every part of the political spectrum did. But that simply sets up the most reasonable solution, changing the laws that allow it. This of course, is something a number of legislatures have done since. In other words, the law and precedent associated with eminent domain remains in play, and will likely continue to do so into the (I hope) indefinite future.
This is an area where the process, by and large, is working, and I hardly see it as a right or left issue. Nobodies civil rights are any more at issue now than they have been for as long as eminent domain has been an issue, and it has been a part of the common law for much longer than the U.S. has been a country.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
"if people want to be hoes, that's their perogative. And no, "ho" does not just refer to women, so I'm not being a misogynist. Men can easily be (and often are) hoes. If you're in a long-term relationship and comfortable with the fact that a child could result if you take off your pants, then you are ready to have sex."
What a crock of shit. What happens if I don't want to be emotionally handcuffed to one person, I'm supposed to jerk off for the rest of my life? The term whore (or "ho" if you must) means doing something you don't like with your body for payment, ie: we all spend time "whoring". In the modern world, unwanted children come from a lack of intelligence, lack of education, lack of access to birth control or some combination of all three, they do not come from "sleeping around" even though sleeping with "someone" is normally a pre-requisite.
"Seriously people, it's not hard to keep it in your pants and keep your skirt to your knees."
Adults are pre-programmed to have sex in the same way they are pre-programmed to seek food and water but with a lower priority, adults can get all sorts of diseases from all three activities, they also don't react well when denied access to any of the activities ( again sex has a lower and more variable priority ).
Disclaimer: I caught the end of the "free love" orgy in the 70's, was married for 20yrs (90% happily), 2 adult kids (both now living with their lovers), got "snipped" but it felt like being "bricked", divorced the unfaithful alcoholic that is possesing my wife's body, had a long "midlife crisis" to the tune of "you and me baby are nothin' but mammals", and will soon be celebrating the 5th "anniversary" of my monogomous relationship with a new love (albeit seperated by 1km). I have no idea what will happen to my sex life in my remaining years, perhaps I will just get bored with sex and post two minute rants on slashdot instead.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Talk about violating civil liberties! (And, natch, in every single case the ACLU was behind it 100%.)
I keep on seeing others say the ACLU was all for these bans but I have yet to see any evidence the ACLU in fact did support them. Searching ACLU's website I found this:
Isn't this creating a right to smoke?
No. The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home.
Further down on the page is this:
The city of North Miami, however, recently adopted an ordinance barring smokers from any municipal employment. The Florida A.C.L.U. has challenged this policy in court, 8 and the result will shed much light upon the extent to which public employees are already protected.
Here the Florida ACLU fought against a smoking ban. Again on the same page:
1. Prohibit Discrimination Based on Off-Duty Smoking
This is the most limited form of protection. While it protects one of the largest groups of victims, it leaves many unprotected. It also lends credence to the charge that the legislation is about smoking rather than autonomy and privacy. Its only real benefit is that its impact is limited and clearly defined. This can reduce, or even eliminate, opposition from organized business.
It continues on with more on smoking and with one exception they are about protecting smokers with nothing about the ACLU supporting smoking bans, the one exception is where it says "The A.C.L.U. does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke.We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home." The only conclusion I can come to is that either are against smoking bans as well as against the ACLU or they're blowing smoke out of their ass. I hope I'm wrong and someone will correct me.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Black bears are scavengers, so acting dead is just playing right into their hand. In fact, they've been behind most of the play dead propaganda in the hopes of easier meals...
Grizzlies too will take the easy food. Those living around Yellowstone have found they need bear proof trash cans and need to empty them daily. More and more grizzlies are leaving the park and going into national forests along with onto private property. The magazine On Earth has an article on this, The Rancher and the Grizzly: A Love Story.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Everyone bitches about a smaller government, but the fact is, they only want it downsized in certain areas.
That's about the size of it. Conservatives talk about shrinking social programs while today's liberals or neoliberals or whatever want to shrink military and corporate welfare. And please notice I said "today's liberal", they are a different breed than Classical Liberals, who are more like today's Libertarians. There are a few though that want to shrink all of them, take the Constitution of the USA; a list of federal agencies, bureaus, departments, and what not; and a pair of scissors then go through the list and check it against the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the agency, et alia, cut it out, throw it away, and get rip of it. Doing that will lead back to a Constitutionally authorized government and reduce the tax burden. Then income taxes can be seriously reduced if not eliminated.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't want for my already high taxes going toward keeping murderers and kid touchers locked up for decades. Rope is cheap.
Perhaps there's some other difference between a Big Mac and a sauteed piece of fish that accounts for the difference in health outcomes among those eating it than that the former is made with partially hydrogenated oils and the latter with olive oil? We just don't know yet.
There is a big difference, some fish are high in Omega 3 fatty acids which are heart healthy. Big Macs don't have any. Unfortunately I don't like fish therefore I don't, or only rarely, eat fish. It's funny I say I love seafood but not fish, I love shellfish such as crabs, clams, lobster, mussels, and oysters.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wait, PETA's not a Terrorist group? Since when?
...I got nothing.
If they would simply give up the use (and we could legislate this away very easily) of gypsum phosphate based fertilizers on tobacco crops we could cut cancer from smoking by more than 80% (some say 90%).
Do you have a single published study in a peer-reviewed medical journal that backs up this assertion?
I was courious about this as well so I did a search. Google didn't return anything but the first result with Alta Vista, there are 49, returned this: SENATE STAFF ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT(pdf). The summary is:
This bill authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to abate imminent hazards from phosphogypsum stack systems through the use of funds from the Nonmandatory Land Reclamation Trust Fund (NLRTF). The bill provides registration fees and financial responsibility requirements. It also provides for a right of action and lien to seek reimbursement of expended funds and provides for the closure of abandoned stack systems. It also repeals provisions exempting certain small mines from review as developments of regional impact.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I personally find the most disturbing event of the year, at least over the long term, to be the martial law legislation signed back in October.
Allowing any President to declare martial law that easily seems a very dangerous step to me.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Rights are inherent in property. If you possesses property, real property, or personal property, you have sovereign individual rights given to you by either God, or the Universe/Nature (choose your poison).
You touch on somewhat of a point here that MANY people take for granted. When people give up their rights to their own property, such as their own land or bodies, for a bit of security or safety, then they no longer have some rights. For example if society wants to trade their right to pollute their body (think smoking, trans fat, alcohol etc)in favor of the government providing health care, then society at large has surrendered their rights over their own property (their individual bodies). Once WE, as in "THE PEOPLE", begin to accept government handouts then we become subject to many many rules and stipulations that trample our natural rights. For a prime example look how the States are forced into rules such as Federally mandated drinking and smoking laws because they are given highway funds from the Fed and threatened to lose those funds if they want to self-govern.
Fortunately here in the US we are founded on the rule of law as a republic which says Americans can NOT give away their rights no matter what. Unfortunately the government and People seem to be ignoring the Constitution and circumventing those rules anyway, thus surrendering our rights.
You can find some more fascinating videos on the Net about this and of course other topics to read. YouTube/Google has videos of Michael Badnarik discussing the subject, and www.cato.org probably has some basic primers on classical liberalism, libertarianism, and self-determination.
Libertas in infinitum
Insofar that medical treatment extends one's life, American republicanism expressly states that it is a valid aim (indeed, a raison d'etre) of the state to ensure that all citizens can obtain it. This is from a document ratified by delegates of the duly elected legislature of the state in which you wish to establish your "Free State." Whether a particular people wish to grant their republican government that particular power is ultimately up to them, but to imply that the act of establishing any level of state-sponsored healthcare is inherently wrong and illiberal is, to put it bluntly, unAmerican. The language of the Declaration of Independence is far less ambiguous about the validity of a government acting to secure life for its citizens than it is about a government paving roads.
Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance. And it specifically states what powers the government has, it is a limit on what government can do not what it should do. If the Constitution says nothing about something then the government, the feds, can't do anything. Of course it violates the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution daily
The route taken by the State of Washington and agents of the State of New York involves the government stepping in to ensure that the people make good healthcare choices; it happens to be the choice that abandons the fewest citizens while still fulfilling the states' responsibilities to secure life for them.
Though I may not like it the states don't have the limitations put on the federal government so they may take proactive steps to offer healthcare, as long as their constitutions allow it. However just because they do it doesn't mean they should bar smoking, every or alomost every state has a tax of tobacco and if this tax isn't there to pay for higher healthcare costs for smokers then it's not my fault. Any and all taxes on tobacco should go to healthcare the state pays for as well as other tobacco expenses. Also when people get health insurance they pay more for the coverage. Fact is is that smokers do pay more for health insurance.
This past November, voting taxpayers across the 50 states of the Union approved a record volume of bonds rather than increase taxes, ignoring the fact that bonds come with interest payments.
I didn't approve of any bonds. I vote for liberty and small government, which most of the tyme would mean a balanced budget. If all of the federal agencies et alia that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA were abolished then taxes wouldn't need to be as high as they are. This would mean the economy would be more robust and people would be able to spend or save and invest more of the money they earn. More employers could offer health insurance and people could then afford the insurance.
And this is in addition to the already strong focus of instituting user fees rather than taxes, which ignores both the higher overhead needed to collect and manage those user fees as well as the way such fees dissuade users who might otherwise avail themselves of the services offered (how far out of your way have you gone to avoid driving on a toll road?).
I am all for user fees. If I don't use something why should I pay for it? Take roads and the highway system, the money to build and maintain them should come from those who use them, and this can be done easily without much overhead. There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this. Speaking of toll roads, where I used to live the government decided to build an expressway and have tolls to pay for it. Once the road was paid for the tolls were supposed to be removed. What did the government do? It decided it didn't want to give up the money so the tolls were never taken out. Instead they kept adding more and more toll roads. Like all typical bureaucracies, they didn't want to give up their power. And I knew some people who had had thier homes taken from them through eminent domain, they didn't want to sale so the government took their homes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Same thing. The fact that if you do a thing, you will be punished for it, deters you from doing it.
Yes, but simple deterrence is not the sole factor in deciding how serious a punishment should be.
It could be that what is sufficient to deter would still be getting off too lightly. Many people put murder in that class at some level.
It could be that what is sufficient to deter is too strong a punishment: ask anyone on this board who is actively fighting the DMCA. If what the DMCA asks is too strong, imagine how unfair any punishment that actually deterred people from "piracy" would be.
There could be crimes for which deterrence is impossible, but which cannot go unpunished. Sex offenses tend to get placed in this class. We can't let people get away with rape, but we don't think any punishment will deter people from doing it simply by existing. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have any idea what a reasonable punishment for rape should be, and even less for the lesser offenses in the chain.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
This whole topic is pathetic and so biased that the mind simply boggles.
A40A75841440029A3AF33797CBFBCA33
You've yet to establish why a tobacco consumer should have the right to cause non-consumers to have to deal with the waste products of the consumption (i.e. the passive smoking problem). Since there are other ways of consuming tobacco that do not inflict a disgusting health hazard on other people (e.g. chewing tobacco, gum, snuff, patches) smoking has a real problem in that it is strongly inclined to tread roughshod over other peoples' rights. It is because these other alternatives exist that I support banning smoking in (wide-sense, not just governmental) public places; it's a small reduction in some peoples' rights to gain a set of rights for others.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
"Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance."
I knew somebody who failed civics would bring this up. In case you've forgotten, you're talking about a federal constitution, while I specifically and deliberately focused on the states. While I agree that the role of the federal government getting involved in an individual's healthcare is, at best, debatable, there is nothing in the federal constitution denying the states any involvement. Go reread the Ninth Amendment.
"However just because they do it doesn't mean they should bar smoking, every or alomost every state has a tax of tobacco and if this tax isn't there to pay for higher healthcare costs for smokers then it's not my fault."
Note that you felt compelled to use the word "should." Whether a state should enact such laws is a political question, but whether they can is hardly debatable, well... I believe I've already made my stance clear.
"Also when people get health insurance they pay more for the coverage. Fact is is that smokers do pay more for health insurance."
You are paying more for health insurance while you have it, while smoking and trans-fat consumption cause lifelong problems. Unless you are able to guarantee that you will always be insured and never fall under the aegis of state programs designed to attend to those who are otherwise unable to afford such insurance, it is (to say the least) in your own self interest to continue paying into such state programs; an insurance policy for your health insurance.
"I didn't approve of any bonds. I vote for liberty and small government, which most of the tyme would mean a balanced budget."
Then I hope, for the sake of your own principles, you do not use any of the resources those bonds paid for, demonstrating through your own actions that the money was truly not needed.
"If all of the federal agencies et alia that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution of the USA were abolished then taxes wouldn't need to be as high as they are."
Aside from the fact that you seem to be conflating the state and federal governments, taxes are not high! The tax footprint we live under is ridiculously low for the industrialized world, and the unseemly amounts of debt we've amassed isn't a coincidence. And it is the fiscally irresponsible voters such as yourself that maintain the status quo, refusing to fund even the state-provided resources that you yourself use. We don't enact any new taxes, our debt skyrockets, our infrastructure falls apart, and our standard of living continues to decline, and there is no reason to believe that things will not continue to decline to the Third World level at which we tax ourselves.
Of course, if you really insist on focusing on federal taxes, if the Union dissolved tomorrow, it is the states like New York and Washington, thanks to these ultimately fiscally responsible laws, that would be able to make the adjustment with the least amount of change. What was once collected for federal coffers would be diverted to newfound responsibilities for defense and diplomacy, while the rest of the states, who need federal money because their own voters are too stupid and irresponsible to pay for things themselves (indeed, populated by people such as yourself who deny their necessity), are the ones most likely to descend into civil war an anarchy.
"There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this."
No, that's a tax, not a user fee. In order for fuel tax to be a user fee, there'd need to be state agents posted at all border crossings, whose task it would be to measure the amount of fuel you have in your vehicle both leaving and returning to the state, to ensure that you do not drive on state roads with fuel you bought in another state (which would certainly be cheaper, since they're not the ones that need to employ such fuel monitors). Us
For the same reason that you can (according to your post) kill someone entering your property, but not elsewhere: one is private, the other public.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
...meanwhile, every citizen in the entire world outside the United States was able to exercise what we define as civil liberties with no problems at all last year.
(and yes I realize the irony that this is also a troll)
Most useful law-making is an exercise in balancing conflicting "rights". As I observed in my original post to this discussion, such things are rarely black and white. And inevitably, some rights are viewed as more important when such conflicts arise.
What misconception? Businesses have always needed regulating to ensure that they act in the public interest when profit-making would dictate otherwise.
Given the health and social implications of allowing smoking in public, some businesses clearly do require a babysitter who can teach them how to behave with respect for others. They are demonstrably not capable of working out a solution on their own; I have elaborated on the economic reasons why a small number of non-smoking bars in my city do very well but most businesses have not gone that way elsewhere in this discussion.
As for your personal freedom to smoke, I just don't see how you can complain without being hypocritical. Your entire argument is that it is unfair for others to restrict your freedom, yet you have been doing exactly the same thing, in all but name, to others for years, and moreover the damage to public health caused by your approach is demonstrably greater and more people have their freedom restricted by it. One could apply your argument just as well to say that we should allow violence in public places, or indeed repeal any law that restricts the freedom of a few in the interests of greater benefits for many.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Tell her to go to a bar where the owner has banned smoking or quit her bitching.
or tell smokers to move to another state. problem solved, just as glibly.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
So if a majority of the people are in favor of slavery and the law reflects that, there should be no problem right?
yeah, banning smoking is *just like* slavery.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
The asthmatic is no more able to go into a bar here now than if there were a legal ban or armed guards on the door. Any "freedom" here is a mere illusion.
He most certainly is able to, it just may be hazardous to his health. But people do hazardous things all the time. The fact of the matter is, in the current state of affairs, both smokers and non smokers alike can chose to go to bars that both allow and do not allow smoking. By contrast, with a ban, there is no such choice possible. Therefore there is a net loss of freedoms. You can not (I should say should not, as we do it all the time) reduce the freedoms of the whole of society for the convenience of a subset of society.
If you really think that allowing large groups of people to go to large groups of places they previously couldn't -- even if it wasn't officially called a ban -- reduces their freedom, then I'm afraid you're missing this very important point. Freedoms are only worth anything if you can meaningfully exercise them.
How have you increased their freedom? Could they not go to bars before? Maybe they couldn't go to that specific bar (by choice I might add) but they could certainly petition the owner of the bar to establish a non smoking policy, and before you say that can't be done, let me inform you that I live in tobacco country USA and I've seen it happen, but it takes meaningful exercise of your freedoms to do it.
Now, instead you have forced the choice and taken away the freedoms of both the bar owners and the smokers and non smokers who prefere a smokey bar to smoke free accross the table and no option to even make their own. That is a loss of freedoms.
I don't like to do this on open forums, but on this occasion I'm going to make a guess about you: from your perspective, I'd guess that you're not asthmatic, an ex-smoker, the child of chain-smoking parents, a health worker, or anyone else who deals with the very real consequences of smoking to the unlucky non-smokers. The reason I give this list is that I know people who are in each of those categories. Funnily enough, after the recent announcement of a smoking ban in the UK, none of them has expressed the view that non-smokers' freedoms are being restricted by the ban. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Ad hominem arguments, appeals to emotion and anecdotal evidence are not legitimate arguments here. If you must know, my experiences with smoking involve watching several very close family members develop lung cancer and watching as it slowly kills them over the next few years as they throw their money at treatments which do little but prolong the disease and make them sick. In the end, they spend their last few months coughing up blood every few minutes until they finaly die, and not always peacefully in their sleep. It's a reason why I never have and never will be tempted to smoke in my life, and has left enough of an impression on me that I work very hard to get my friends and family to stop smoking, those that still do anyway. That by the way, was the short and PG rated version of the events. But I assure you, I know full well what the effects of smoking are.
But all of that is irellevant, as people still have a right to chose what they do to their bodies, and bar owners still have a right to chose whether they want to accept the risks to themselves, and employees have a choice of whether they want to work such a job, and non smokers (asthmetic or not) have a choice of which bars they will attend. At least they do for now. Your ban (and a rose by any other name is still a rose) would eliminate that choice for all. A net loss of freedom.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
How is the industry going the wrong way, when non smoking bars are on the rise, and not in places that are banning it? Until all other actions have been exhausted, one should never look to the state, because once you surrender a freedom to the state, you are very likely to never get it back.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I can't speak for anywhere but the UK where I live, but here the entire industry, give or take a few small and independent operators, is unwilling to depart from status quo. There are sound economic reasons for this, which boil down to the first mover losing lots of money in the short term. The regulation imposed will allow the whole industry to do what most of them really want to do anyway, while conveniently providing a smokescreen so they can fend of the whinging few, and much faster and with much less risk than they could under market forces alone. Why do you think they all paid lip service to disliking the ban and how terribly it would affect them, yet went strangely silent in the run up to the parliamentary votes that meant anything?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
However, what was it Jesus said about turning the other cheek? My understanding of it is that it overruled the whole idea about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, regardless of however much we think the person getting the death penalty deserves it.
I'll grant that in some cases, it's entertaining to see the punishment fit the crime (who here has heard the one about the guy who cheated at billiards?), but when it's a life that's on the line...
You have the right to neglect even the most basic forms of hygiene on your property, yet a restaurant owner would get shut down pretty quickly if he does so. There are different rules for what people can do in their home and what they can do in a commercial enterprise. And for good reason. Equating the liberties of a restaurant owner with a home owner is nonsensical.
(b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do.
If this is true, then where are all the non-smoking bars? Wouldn't it make sense for the bar owners to voluntarily prohibit smoking from their establishment if it were true?
Have your choice: responsibility, or freedom.
-metric
I always forget that their are people on the whacked out fringe of neoconservatism that make George Bush look like a "liberal" by comparison. More draconian border closures than who? When was the last time you needed a passport to return to the U.S. from Canada? I think that was never (at least in the 100 years; before that there was no border control at all there). And what is that big fence they are building on the Mexican border about? Blocking migratory animals I suppose. And at what point, since its emergence in the common law centuries ago, did eminent domain turn into slavery? Are you telling me you can't own property? Has your property been subject to eminent domain? Did you have no recourse? Was the action not considered in the light of your objections? Did you not receive compensation sufficient to obtaining other property? While I agree that the Supreme Court decision you refer to pushes eminent domain too far, it hardly seems like an assault on the right to own property. This isn't a real issue. Move on.
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
If I'm around smoke, then breathing secondhand smoke is hardly voluntary. Nevertheless, I recognize the whole "by force" rant and will not belabor the issue.
My whole point is that I hardly feel this falls under the ACLU's purview, so they're not being hypocrites by not addressing these issues. Do you disagree with that specific point? (Note: I'm not asking if you like the ACLU.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Please read my other comments in this discussion. Those bars that are non-smoking are oversubscribed, but there is a strong economic incentive for the others not to move first, resulting in a stalemate, which this regulation conveniently breaks to the advantage of almost everyone.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"Ah but the Constitution of the USA doesn't not say anything about healthcare insurance."
I knew somebody who failed civics would bring this up. In case you've forgotten, you're talking about a federal constitution, while I specifically and deliberately focused on the states. While I agree that the role of the federal government getting involved in an individual's healthcare is, at best, debatable, there is nothing in the federal constitution denying the states any involvement. Go reread the Ninth Amendment.
Purhaps you missed it but I did address states being involved with healthcare. Notice how I said "Though I may not like it the states don't have the limitations put on the federal government so they may take proactive steps to offer healthcare, as long as their constitutions allow it." I think that handles it quite well.
I believe I've already made my stance clear.
Yeah, you're antismoking period and will use whatever excuse to ban it.
You are paying more for health insurance while you have it, while smoking and trans-fat consumption cause lifelong problems. Unless you are able to guarantee that you will always be insured and never fall under the aegis of state programs designed to attend to those who are otherwise unable to afford such insurance, it is (to say the least) in your own self interest to continue paying into such state programs; an insurance policy for your health insurance.
Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?
The tax footprint we live under is ridiculously low for the industrialized world, and the unseemly amounts of debt we've amassed isn't a coincidence. And it is the fiscally irresponsible voters such as yourself that maintain the status quo, refusing to fund even the state-provided resources that you yourself use.
I had nothing to do with maintaining the status quo, or of making it worse. If I had had my way we never would have had this hugh, massive, national deficit. I was against the adventure in Iraq, and cutting taxes without cutting spending as well. Bush took the US from a budget surplus to the nation's largest deficit, and I voted for him neither tyme he ran for president. Actually in 2000 instead of voting for whom I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush, both Bush and Gore were bad but Gore was less bad than Bush, so as the elections was so close I thought it was more important to try to deny Bush the win than to vote for who I wanted as president.
"There are already taxes on fuel, just have the tax (a user fee) enough to pay for this."
No, that's a tax, not a user fee.
It is a user fee, if you use fuel you pay. That is unless you've got an underground connection that doesn't charge you the tax. If so I'd like to know where I can get cheaper fuel.
FalconShould there be a Law?
So if the state pays for your medicine, I guess they own your body and can do with it what they see fit. How is that any different from forcing you to excercise against your will, or not allowing you to, say, drink alcohol (the 2nd largest toxicological killer)?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"It" being the fact that had W&B not investigated, nobody in the Senate or Congress would have, even though there was plenty of evidence of wrongdoing around DC before reporters got involved to justify it.
The Senate only investigated once the crimes became very public. They felt obliged to back then. Now they don't, and happily ignore this Administration's crimes, secure in the knowledge that they can ignore them without repercussions.
What bothers me is that nearly everyone by and large has that chance. Certain cultures in the US just don't look at education as important and then don't take advantage of the opportunities given.
Partially true but do you know how much tuition has been raised and how much financial aid has been cut? For someone who comes from a lower income background being able to pay for college can difficult if not impossible. Education is one of the things the cost of has risen more than inflation, the other being healthcare. oops, perhaps I misspoke, according to this article financial aid has gone up too. So maybe, I hope, I was wrong about the costs of getting an education. I'd look more but my pc is acting like it's about to crash so I need to send this then reboot.
FalconShould there be a Law?
.. , except the selfish people who think their smoking is more important than everyone else's health.
It's more like the people that force their preferential lifestyles on others that are selfish. Do you see smokers _forcing_ non-smokers to do anything? Why do you somehow think that non-smokers have some right to go into anyone's business establishment? They can let whomever they want in or not. If they want to allow smoking, then it's the non-smoking activists that need to be using something called "responsibility".
-metric
As for places that ban smoking, there are a couple in my city, and they are generally very popular. The problem is that there is a vicious circle where any of the big businesses who moves first would lose a lot of money temporarily, and none of them is willing to bite the bullet and do it.
Exactly. Say hello to the free market. Notice the word "free" in it.. just like the word "freedom".
This way they are forced to do what the majority of the public wants them to do anyway, something which is probably in their long-term financial interests anyway...
Nice speculation. So.. people are stupid and don't take advantage of good long term investments? I doubt it.
-metric
Quoted from Abstract of
g i?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract&artid=552336
"Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia"
"A high flux of fructose to the liver, the main organ capable of metabolizing this simple carbohydrate, perturbs glucose metabolism and glucose uptake pathways, and leads to a significantly enhanced rate of de novo lipogenesis and triglyceride (TG) synthesis, driven by the high flux of glycerol and acyl portions of TG molecules from fructose catabolism."
Authors:
Heather Basciano,(1) Lisa Federico,(1) and Khosrow Adeli(1b)
(1) Clinical Biochemistry Division,
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology,
Hospital for Sick Children,
University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(1b) Corresponding Author
Follow link below to abstract and link to Full Text article on Pubmed "... the U.S. National Library of Medicine's digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature, providing free access to the full text of articles."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fc
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Poster is NOT an author of the cited work.
Poster has NO relationship with any author or institution connected with cited work.
"Purhaps you missed it but I did address states being involved with healthcare."
Then why did you decide to introduce nearly an entire paragraph on the federal constitution to the discussion to begin with?
"Yeah, you're antismoking period and will use whatever excuse to ban it."
I am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.
"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"
As has been noted before "should" and "can" are two different concepts.
"If I had had my way we never would have had this hugh, massive, national deficit. I was against the adventure in Iraq, and cutting taxes without cutting spending as well. Bush took the US from a budget surplus to the nation's largest deficit, and I voted for him neither tyme he ran for president."
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).
"It is a user fee, if you use fuel you pay."
Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.
Additionally, if gasoline tax was a user fee, then the tax would increase for vehicles with higher mileage, as wear and tear on the road surface is independent of a particular vehicle's fuel efficiency. The user fee would be per mile, rather than per gallon.
Any connection between the consumption of gasoline and the maintenance required by roadways is tenuous at best, there is no effort made by state governments to ensure that all users are charged and only users are charged, it is nothing more than an excise levied in addition to the gasoline purchased. It is a tax.
Would you make the same argument about disabled people? Do you object to the government requiring that certain basic provision be made to allow people with disabilities to use essential services?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
So you agree that the free market won't do something that is against a first-mover's short term interests, then ask whether people are stupid and fail to take advantage of long-term opportunities? I think you just answered your own question. Businesses are short-sighted, often caring about little more than hitting the figures in time for the next shareholder report or executive bonus cycle. As long as they're beating their competitors, they look good, even if they could look better if they all collectively changed their practices at the same time.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Actually, yes. I would make the same argument. Now, requiring government/public institutions... I wouldn't have issue with. The disabled are perfectly capable, as are non-smokers, to patronize establishments that cater to them.
-metric
You presuppose the existence of such establishments, and in sufficient numbers and with sufficient access to be helpful. If history showed that businesses (even those in essential areas like groceries and transportation) catered reasonably to minority markets like this, the world wouldn't be full of anti-discrimination legislation to protect for disabled people many basics that you or I take for granted. Sadly, this isn't the case, so to protect the vulnerable to state imposes certain restrictions on businesses.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Solution, tax cigarettes (at a low rate at first) until you can tax to pay for the health risks.
A lot of countries are already doing this.
I've been thinking about it and there is a simple way to solve this problem, tax based on the amount of dangerous chemicals in a cigarrette based on testing by the public sector.
Poorer (and younger) people will likely move towards progressivly lighter cigarettes.
And there will be competition in the tobaco industry again instead of the big love in of addicted consumers.
I'd look more but my pc is acting like it's about to crash so I need to send this then reboot.
I'm back and I found this:
2006-07 College Costs
Keep Rising Prices in Perspective
There's no escaping the fact that college costs are rising. According to recently released reports from the College Board, most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $90 to $1,238 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college.
But there is good news. There is more financial aid available than ever before--over $134 billion. And, despite all of these college cost increases, a college education remains an affordable choice for most families.
The page continues with education costs and financial aid.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I personally happen to dislike that approach. As a matter of principle, I think if something is bad, it should be made illegal in an open and transparent fashion. Taxes are not there to support social engineering, though they are frequently abused for this purpose by many governments. Taxing something bad rather than banning it simply discriminates against those less well off people who can no longer afford the same privileges as the better off.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I am against the mismanagement of my tax money. As I have stated before, I don't care what you do so long as you don't place an undue burden on our overtaxed healthcare resources. Get rid of the smokers, get rid of the things to smoke, or provide more hospital beds.
No, get rid of taxpayer financed healthcare. I realize it's an impracticality now but I don't support and in fact am against the federal government paying for healthcare, with few exceptions such as those in the military or are otherwise fulltime government employees.
"Can you point to me where I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance?"
As has been noted before "should" and "can" are two different concepts.That still doesn't answer my question, you implied I said I shouldn't pay into health insurance and I said no such thing.
I'm sorry, I thought we were still talking about state government. You're already on the record as voting against both taxes and bond issues. Many states had a bond on their ballots to pay for roadwork, but I know of none that had a ballot issue concerning state funding of the invasion of Iraq (likely because there is no such funding).
Right, I vote against taxes, income taxes, and some bonds that are from the federal government. As for whether states tax income, that's a matter for the residents of the state to decide. Apply it to bonds as well.
Going back to the example I just used in the very paragraph you pasted from, if you buy gas in Pennsylvania, you've paid the "user fee" to drive on Pennsylvania roads. New York doesn't see a dime of it and, using a strict "user fee" interpretation, they would do well to set up roadblocks along the PA-NY border to ensure that the fees have been collected from people driving into NY using PA gasoline.
The same applies turned around, A New Yorker fills up then drives to PA. As for more people go from PA the NY or it's the other way around I don't know but I bet it's pretty much balanced. Even if it's not there's still a federal tax on fuel and not just state taxes. And the federal tax helps pay for many roads or highways, such as Sen Ted Steven's Bridge to nowhere at a cost of $315 million.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As for your personal freedom to smoke, I just don't see how you can complain without being hypocritical. Your entire argument is that it is unfair for others to restrict your freedom, yet you have been doing exactly the same thing, in all but name, to others for years, and moreover the damage to public health caused by your approach is demonstrably greater and more people have their freedom restricted by it. One could apply your argument just as well to say that we should allow violence in public places, or indeed repeal any law that restricts the freedom of a few in the interests of greater benefits for many. I am not being a hypocrite. I don't smoke in places that disallow it, and don't complain about it. If I had a problem with that, I would simply go somewhere that better caters to my needs. I don't understand why someone that worried about their health due to tobacco smoke would knowingly go into a place that doesn't ban smoking. It doesn't make sense. Passing an anti-smoking law doesn't change the fact that people are ultimately responsible for their own personal welfare. Alcohol is a HUGE public health risk which is at times detrimental to people who aren't even consuming it. Yet we already tried to ban alcohol and ultimately failed. Fast food is another public health risk, yet nobody's closing down McDonald's. By your logic, we should ban just about everything under the sun because it may ultimately infringe on someone else's freedoms.
I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I am quite glad the government hasn't yet made that a crime as well.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
01/12/2006 - Mark it on your calendar. On this day it became illegal to smoke in all enclosed public places in Canberra, Australia.
It's going to take years to get the smell out of the carpets though..
So, on one hand we have smokers who can choose to be at a location or not and who can choose to smoke or not. OTOH, we have non-smokers who can choose to be at a location or not and who can choose to breathe or to suffocate. Your solution appears to ban non-smokers who choose not to breathe second hand smoke from certain locations rather than to ban smokers from smoking at certain locations. Do I have that about right, or am I missing something?
So, your rant about the ACLU aside, I take it you don't disagree with my point? I.e., that smoking/eating trans-fats is not a civil liberty that a civil liberty organization should be overly concerned about?
(I'm not the biggest fan of the ACLU, but I'm not a hater, either. I view them much as I do the NRA. They serve a purpose, even if they do go overboard from time to time. Also, if you think they only serve "leftist" causes, then you've been drinking too much Fox News kool-aid.)
((Why do I suspect that once again you won't answer my central question?))
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
(b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
BS. This (the US) is a capatalist society. As such, people open business and run them in an attempt to maximize their revenue. If there was a majority that prefer non-smoking venues thats what we would see as venues.
I am sick to death of this "I can't go to XYZ bar because it restricts my freedoms, and damages my health." You don't like the smoke/nudity/attitude/food/UV Blacklights? Too bad, go somewhere else. Some music infers racial and sexist remarks too, you want stop all music venues from playing it, since you think it's degrading and could be harmfull to a handfull of spineless, play-doh heads? It's called a private business because the owner gets to decide what it's gonna be and how it's gonna get run. Don't approve? Don't eat there. Not good enough? Get take out. Still not good enough? Complain to the owner. If he doesn't change anything, then go somewhere else, and stop being a dick.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
Of course this is not to say that there aren't serious issues with practices for both farmed and caught fish that may have adverse nutritional impacts as well.
Both caught and farmed fish tend to have higher levels of mercury. Depending on where they're farmed farmed fish may have lower or higher levels of mercury than wild caught fish. The thing with farmed fish is that many think they keep the oceans from being emptied by commercial fishing, but in actuality farmed fish threaten to empty the oceans of fish faster. This is because many farming operations rely on wild caught fish to feed those farmed and it takes more fish to feed farmed fish than if the caught fish were eaten themself. Also farming requires a lot of antibiotics and the feces from them cause asphyxation, lack of oxygen, in the water around the pens which either causes the wild fish there to die or it becomes the equivalent to a water desert. This doesn't apply to all fish farms, there are ways of farming that are much better but typically they are more labor intensive and or more expensive.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You're totally right! We non-smokers are free to quit breathing at any point, that would completely solve the problem for those non-selfish smokers!
You can find good deals in education though. I came from a lower middle class family. My parents made just enough to not qualify for any free college money (and I'm not a woman or a minority), but not enough to actually pay for it. So what I did was live at home and go to a local school [cofc.edu]. Now, we were fortunate enough to have a good local college nearby, but my example shows that education doesn't have to cost 100k+
I came from a lower income not lower middle class, my dad retired from the Air Force and was enlisted not an officer and my mom worked her way through a two year technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital when I was little. However in spite of, or perhaps because of, this my two sisters of mine and I went to college. My older sister first into the army then when she was discharged she started college. Because of when she was in she was covered by the old GI bill which paid most if not all of her educatioanl costs. She studied nursing and is now an RN working in an oncologist' office with cancer patients. Next, I went into the army in part to save money so I could go to college under the VEAP program wherein the military deducts money from your pay and puts in into an education fund. Though I started college and got my AA or two year degree, I didn't finish a degree in my major, which was Computer Engineering. Instead, years ago I had an accident that sidetracked me. Because of my injury even if I wanted to continue I would basically have to start all over again. The injury damaged my memory amoung other things and most of what I learned I no longer know, such as calculus and physics. I did go back to college but I didn't know what I wanted to do, so I started a 2 year degree on web programming. Unfortunately though I only have one or two classes left I have not taken a class in almost two years. What I wanted to do was to transfer to a university near me after I got the two year degree then take an interdisiplinary program to get my bach.
Now my younger sister, I'm the middle child, went straight from high school to college while working. She eventually got her Masters and is now a CPA, Certified Public Accountant, and with friends runs her own accounting firm.
So yes, I know a person can get an education however without help it's difficult.
FalconShould there be a Law?
On that, at least, we can agree entirely. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
No. That's the difference between interpersonal relationships and the government.
The law is the law. If you believe such things, all government is from the consent of God....
I didn't say it was alright for you to exact revenge on someone who has wronged you in such a way as to deserve the death penalty.... That is what "turn the other cheek" is all about.
Remember, Jesus also said "I didn't come here to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Meaning we're not bound by the curse of the law anymore, but we are still bound to uphold it...
And the punishment in this country for crimes that warrant it is the death penalty. That is the law.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
A relative of mine once served in the Texas legislature. His position on the state Senate's filibustering rules was that he didn't like the rules that were there, but as long as they were there, he would use them. Apparently he successfully filibustered as an active member of the state Senate twice, both times on the last day of the legislative session, when everyone just wants to get things wrapped up, so the lieutenant governor had a placard made stating, "Never recognize [relative] on the last day of the session." There was one other instance, but now is not the time.
;-)
Sorry about that. What I was planning to get around to saying was that my position on the death penalty is that it's a law that we don't need and that I don't agree with, but as long as it's there, we have to accept it and try to change or remove it. Unfortunately, I live in Texas, which is a fairly conservative state, so I don't think that the death penalty where I live is going away soon without an order from on high (the preachers or the White House, it doesn't matter which). Your position seems to be that whether or not it's morally right, it's the law, and so we need to follow it. While I admit that while it's there, it needs to be applied (to the right people, of course, but our Court of Criminal Appeals is horrible at admitting when they're wrong), I also think that it's not morally right and so needs abolishment as soon as possible.
Oh, and government is (supposedly) by the consent of the governed, which one assumes that the legislators should treat as a lesser deity...
I give you credit. You really threw the kitchen sink into this post. I'll cut to the core issue and then add some clarifications of your other points.
The core issue, of course, remains eminent domain, and it doesn't surprise me, given your very strong views, that you have some property that is at risk of being condemned. Neither does it surprise me, given your whacked out fringe views on other issues, that your eminent domain issue is one that the recent Supreme Court decision has no real bearing on. Eminent domain has been long accepted as necessary for the creation of public works like highways (that's what the Elvis movie I referred to was about), but there are always people among the displaced who take extreme views on the subject. The movie raised all the issues you do, including "can there ever be adequate compensation for the value of a home" and "corrupt politicians".
Hint: the only approach that ever works consistently is to identify a unique ecosystem that will be destroyed forever (with the likely extinction of a unique species) if the public work is built. Residents of Long Island, New York still spend hours driving in traffic through New York City when heading up into New England because a bridge was stopped using that tactic.
As for compensation, it is supposed to represent the fair market value of your property. You should be able to get other property for an equivalent price. Not everybody is happy with that compensation. Those who aren't often sue. They sometimes succeed (usually when they can show that the compensation was not a fair market value). Property tax assessments and appeals are meaningless in this context. Property taxes are generally based on a percentage of the fair market value and property tax appeals (in my experience) often succeed, but only if you can show that your properties appraisal is significantly higher than equivalent properties. I have appealed property tax increases twice. One time I got a 35% reduction. The other time I got a smaller, but still significant reduction. I know other people who have succeeded as well. Simple complaints about tax increases, however, almost never succeed. One way or another, taxes only go up. You have to show that the appraisal of your otherwise unimproved property went up more than your neighbor's did.
Property prices go up sometimes. Property prices go down sometimes. Right now we're in a down cycle. I can name towns in Michigan where property values are lower than they were 40 years ago. There is swampland in Florida that still isn't worth what people bought it for fifty years ago. Where I am right now, property values are down significantly from where they were six months ago. I don't think anywhere is up at the moment. The good news is that if price are down for your property, they are probably down for the property next door as well.
As for your so called land grab, what you describe is not a case of corrupt politicians being paid off by developers. Its a highway (the very definition of a public work). Overpasses every 20 miles seems extreme, so you must really be in the middle of nowhere. If there is a plan to add rail as well, it is because trains can carry freight long distance for a lot less than individual trucks can (and usually faster and for less than ocean shipping). I probably wouldn't worry too much about terrorists attacking "choke points". Terrorists like targets that have television cameras pointing at them. If cameras can't be there in five minutes, they generally aren't interested. Sounds like that lets out your locale altogether.
I would reiterate. You have not identified a new attack on your rights.
That said, some clarifications:
Davis http://davis.foulger.net
Oh, I agree too. I live in Texas as well. I am not a native Texan, and haven't lived here for very long, but I am not a fan of the death penalty... however, I see the underpinnings of it working, and really want it reformed rather than outright abolished... (if there is no way to fix it, then abolish it.. but we've not given enough time or energy to fixing the process before we toss it out completely.) There is no need for an "express lane" (like Ron White once said...), and appeals though costly should be transparent and involve things more than small technicalities and procedural violations (unless those things hampered the jury's ability to render a verdict). I do not have a moral objection to the death penalty, with the exception that in terms of it being used, it should show no cultural, socioeconomic or racial bias. I do have a problem with it being used as a means to keep the "mob happy", or to keep the wool pulled over the public's collective eyes. The system is broken, and it should be fixed... adding a swifter death row process doesn't fix anything, but determining the best way to mete out the most equitable punishments for the most heinous of crimes is key. Anything less is short-changing the public. And anything more drastic at this juncture is not prudent (though it might shake things up enough that real reforms will take hold...) I am skeptical of the election of judges in this state in a general sort of way... it turns them into more politicians than I am used to (but perhaps Texas had that in mind when it provided for electing judges instead of appointing them... that way the people can see a semi-unfiltered view of who it was in the robes... not some backroom appointment situation that most other states engage in... (as well as federal...)
:( One of the most enlightening ways to illustrate this whole debate is handled in one movie (of the play) "12 angry men." It really made me think... and Henry Fonda was great in it. :) I didn't see the remake though... If more people were simply more curious, and more inclined to seek truth and fact rather than a certain biased-laden reason to mold the situation so that their answer fits the question (guilty or innocent), our system of justice would be long on its way to healing itself... and the people who got it there would be the same people who benefit the most from the healing... the average citizen like you or me.
I am a firm believer in personal responsibility and I find that people who are "pro-government" are sometimes blindly so, as a general rule. (they tend to be the most dug-in on their views of the death penalty in general.) I am consistently skeptical of the government and though their sole purpose is to be at the will of the people, I am aware they often do not represent those who elect them. People who are emphatically pro-death penalty are usually of the group that does not cast a skeptical eye on their government, and therefore are not working to affect change in a broken legal system... which repeats the cycle over and over.... making real change that much harder to achieve.
I think if there was a sentence that could be considered as definitive enough to be a proper punishment for things like 1st degree murder, I would rather have it than what we have now. We need to fix it... but I guess I'm saying I don't really know where the first changes are going to (or should) take place.
I think you alluded to the first one... The Appeals court admitting they are wrong and having the stones to do it. Not overturning a ruling purely on professional pissing contests (as judges in circuits can sometimes do), but saying "we messed up... sorry." I don't think that should be as hard as it is...
And we need to stop appeals court justices (even at the federal level) from arbitrarily inflecting their bias into decisions. Cold, impartial and blind is how justice should ALWAYS be... but there are few these days that believe that.
Sorry if I sound incoherent... I took some Nyquil.... heh.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Well, the problem we have with our system of justice election, IMHO, is that none of the candidates represent the viewpoint I'd really like to see in office. The Republicans are the incumbents, the Democrats don't challenge in most of the races that I'm aware of, and the Libertarians, from what I can tell, haven't been much of a useful choice. I haven't been paying too much attention to those races anyway, though I probably should for the next few elections at least.
:-(
I'm only pro-government when I see no reason to change it, which right now, as I'm sure you can tell, I do. The Republican party, especially the religious hard-right, have control over our system now, and we need that to change. I still can't do anything about it, though.