Re: OT: "Nanny state"?
- From: claudel@xxxxxxxxx (Claude V. Lucas)
- Date: 24 Mar 2007 23:40:30 GMT
In article <1174771813.691181.53510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
RichL <rpleavitt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 3:52 pm, clau...@xxxxxxxxx (Claude V. Lucas) wrote:
In article <1174768723.895771.267...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,seems to
RichL <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 24, 2:42 pm, "Lord DSP" <Lord_...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote inmessagenews:1174751702.808098.170660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: On Mar 24, 1:16 am, "Phaser Man" <y...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > On Mar 23, 6:25?pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > > I wonder where you folks stand on this one.
: > > It's pretty common knowledge by now that New York City has banned
: > > trans-fats in all restaurants. ?Now it appears that the county I live
: > > in (Montgomery, MD) wants to follow suit. ?The county council is
: > > considering a law based on the NYC one.
: > > What's wrong with just labeling the menus, so that those who wish to
: > > avoid trans-fats can do so?
: > > It's like the smoking bans. ?We COULD have restaurants and bars
: > > labeled as smoking and non-smoking, and let the free market sort it
: > > out. ?If there are too many "smoking", they won't get enough
: > > customers, and some will close as a result, and vice-versa. ?It seems
: > > like this type of system would naturally come to an equilibrium where
: > > there was the right percentage of each type to satisfy the customers.
: > > Concern about the employees? ?If it's assumed that the percentage of
: > > smokers in the general population was reflected in applicants for
: > > restaurant/bar jobs, then there really wouldn't be a problem there
: > > either.
: > > Admittedly, I'm a smoker. ?I know I should quit, and I try on
: > > occasion, but if and when I do it's MY decision. ?I don't need Uncle
: > > Sam or his subordinates to try to dictate my behavior. ?What happened
: > > to our worship of capitalism and free-market economies? ?This
sit with: > > me to be one area where these types of issues can be sorted out on
: > > that basis (perhaps with the aid of "truth-in-labeling" laws). ? I've
: > > now got to travel 2 counties away to find a place where I can
: > > friends while I'm enjoying a smoke and a beer. ?And they're supposed
: > > to go smoke-free in June, and Maryland is considering a state-wide
: > > ban.
: > > I will now duck while the responses come in. -- Rich
: > I like it when people smoke. They advertise aspects of themselves
: > (telegraph) that you'd normally need to wait for them to open their
: > mouths to reveal. Given the grossly abundant profusely evident damage
: > smoking does, free market disincentives like taxing the living shit
: > out of cancer sticks has been a relatively effective means by which to
: > reduce the phuctarded habit. I understand that some national bill is
: > floating around and may add an additional 60 cents a pack to the cost.
: > Interestingly, youth notwithstanding, it isn't rich, wealthy or even
: > upper middle class people doing the smoking -everyone realizes who
: > smokes...
: > As to the trans-fat banning, it's clearly a case of government acting
: > in an affirmative manner to keep the uneducated and stupid from
: > harming themselves. The lobby not to simply insurgent / al queda down
: > every McD's/BK/ etc. is too
: > powerful to rid the land of such shitbox feed troughs for born
: > waddlers, so the next best thing rests with removing their vein and
: > artery sludge from geographic regions, by law.
: > I don't duck -I drop the truth bomb and laugh. :-) mvm
: Amazing, this ability of yours to judge a person's character, heart,
: and soul without hearing what he has to say.
Which is exactly what you are doing right now with
your presumptions about Marcs meaning.
He never asserted any judgements of character at all.
He simply said,
"They advertise aspects of themselves
(telegraph) that you'd normally need to wait for them to open their
mouths to reveal."
What he said is exactly true. However, what it reveals, isn't
much other than the fact that they have a cig in their mouth.
I pretty much understand both positions being that I at one time
felt rather strongly about smoking that it's such a stupid
habit that one would have to be damn stupid to smoke.
Then one day I read an article about nicotine and how
it elevates dopamine. Being that I've always had ADHD,
which has progresively worsened with age,
I decided to give it a whirl and see if it would help me
to concentrate on electronic and math problems.
It did indeed help immensly.
Instead of every little thing distracting
me, I was able to ignore the dogs barking, doors opening and
closing, the tv in the next room etc etc and to my great
relief actually focus on a problem long enough to see it
through to a conclusion.
I of course found that nicotine combined with caffiene
was a good combo to somewhat counter ADHD.
I guess that's why when I saw a tv program about the scientists
that developed the nuke-u-ler bomb, they were all sitting
round a table on a coffee break with their pipes in hand.
I had quit smoking years back but took it up again after
Katrina when faced with a shitload of hurricane damage to
deal with. The brain stimulating effect was most helpful in
dealing with the depression of knowing that right as I was about
to finish the biggest amp design project of my life, I was going to have
to instead spend one to two years just repairing and rebuilding.
It was a really frustrating and depressing situation and cigarettes
did indeed help to cope
So, thanks to nicotine there are a lot of accomplishments behind me.
However, I don't delude myself about the tradeoff I made concerning
my health and that's why I quit a few months back.
I saw a program on tv where they showed that there's plenty
of statistical evidence that it's highly likely that people suffer
health effects from smoking later in life even if they quit at
an early age.
I have friends the same age as me that smoked since youth
and still do and their health has really suffered. A couple of them
are on the verge of conjestive heart failure. I suppose if it were
just myself to consider, I might well be in the same boat.
However, I'm married and have a wife and a lot of animals
depending on me. So I guess that helps to keep me on the
straight and narrow.
Do you just apply it to
: smokers, or are you able to do it too with people of different races,
: nationalities, economic backgrounds, etc? I'm really impressed! Tell
: me more!
: Unfortunately, your "profile" doesn't fit me in the slightest.
He didn't profile you at all, but I can see how it certainly
might seem that way if one wants to take a defensive stance
: elitist rant, however, does speak volumes about you.
Touche' ( possibly)
Now now guys, puhleeeeez, let's try to establish just
exactly what our positions are before we commence
to tearing each other new turd cutters
IOW, instead of shooting first and asking questions later,
how bout questions first.
Communications a bitch even in person, let alone on the net
OK, sorry if I went a bit overboard. The "asking questions" approach
is the one I'm attempting with DGDevin. What I'm trying to do is to
see if there's a way that concerns of non-smokers can be FULLY
addressed while granting us smokers some relief.
Interesting that you should bring up the guys who developed the nuke.
Most of them are physicists; maybe that's another connection? As a
physics student, I was educated at the hands of their students and
"grand-students", and most of them were smokers too, up to and
including my Ph. D. thesis prof (he preferred to stink up his office
with cigars). I was also raised in a family of smokers, and all but
one of my four siblings are smokers.
One could argue that these were and are environmental influences, that
and "evil companions", and the fact that the dangers of smoking when I
first started smoking were not known anywhere near as extensively as
they are now. In the end, all of these are excuses of a sort, and as
a former smoker, LordDSP, you certainly must be aware of the struggles
that most present smokers go through (and former ones like yourself
have gone through, and possibly still are now), in their efforts to
ditch their nasty habit.
I personally have gone through various efforts including a "cold
turkey" one that lasted 6 months, as well as nicotine gum, patches,
etc. So far, no luck. I wish I had never touched one of the damned
things. But I haven't given up, I'll try again and again.
LordDSP, I wish you luck in your endeavors to remain smoke-free, and I
hope to join you in the category of former smokers. I just wish that
society wouldn't treat us as pariahs in the meantime.
It's *really* not that complex.
Don't poison others with second-hand smoke, and
they won't treat you like a "pariah".
It's nothing personal, just some people don't
appreciate sharing your toxic emissions.
Marketing opportunity alert !!
Perhaps some sort of plastic bubble would allow smokers to
smoke to their heart's content without imposing the fumes
on those of us who don't want to breathe proven carcinogens.
Claude, read my posts. I *don't* smoke in areas where it will bother
non-smokers. Maybe some do, but not me. If a certain number of
restaurants and/or bars were designated as smoking throughout, and all
the rest entirely non-smokers, wouldn't it be likely to reduce the
number of situations where you have to penetrate through the cloud of
smoke arising from all the smokers standing around outside the door to
get inside a restaurant of your choice?
I was using the generic "you" to refer to all the nico-fiends.
If the rest were as considerate as you, Rich, there would be no issue.
This is a current events situation here in Nevada, as a rather
severe anti-smoking initiative passed the vote last election.
Smoking has been totally banned where food is served, and there is
a scrable to comply. Some places have made the choice to no longer
serve food and allow smoking, other places have made the choice
to ban smoking, and others have made the choice to adequately
insulate eating areas from the smoking-allowed areas at no small
The large hotel/casinos spent a *lot* of money to defeat the
initiative, even going so far as to sponsor a competing one
that failed to pass. ( Brief pause while I shed a tear )
There's even more strict measures in the works in some places.
Belmont, Ca. either recently passed or will soon pass a law that
bans the practice in "attached dwellings" AKA apartment complexes...
The bottom line is that non-smokers just *don't* want to breathe
tobacco smoke. At all. It stinks and is deadly. You (generic you)
again, don't have a right to poison others.
I know that there's a long laundry list of other things people
do to poison each other, but this particular one's time is
almost up in spite of all the money it generates and in
spite of the number of people who claim to enjoy it.