The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Dr Maturin]

<<It is to one side. And a very great majority of that side do not separate morality from religion in the slightest, so there's very little help or compromise from that quarter. But then, that seems to be a constant for both sides - maybe "America" needs to be labelled a religion. It'd clear up a lot.>>

I don't know that religion necessarily has anything to do with one's stance on abortion. If a huge majority of Americans are against abortion, then is that majority all religious?

If you have two sets of standards that are labeled Left and Right, then one exception on the Left is that they sometimes agree with the Right on abortion.

[Jan]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
I have one son and one step-daughter. And I have to say, I find it...unrealistic to portray child-rearing as slavery and indentured servitude. It makes light of real slavery.

Seriously, though, it's not anything like slavery, no more than having to work to pay for your house, food, clothing.

Perhaps to you, who did it willingly. To those of us who are childless by choice, the idea of forced pregnancy and worse, childrearing is abhorant. Not distasteful, really a horrific concept.

Working to pay for my food, clothing and shelter is a choice I make that effects only me. I'm free to live as richly or as poorly as my willingness to work will afford me. Add a child and that choice is largely curtailed if one has a concept of duty or responsibility. No, thanks.

Jan

[Radhil]

I don't know that religion necessarily has anything to do with one's stance on abortion. If a huge majority of Americans are against abortion, then is that majority all religious?

Square is a rectangle. Rectangle is not a square.

Or something. I seem to be broken today.

What I am meaning to say is rather simple. The largest majority parts of the vocal anti-abortion crowd seem to be very very religious (read: very very Christian, of the old-school stripe - Baptist, Evangelical, etc. etc. etc.), and I think this is a massive contributor of their rigidity on the issue. Their morals are dictated by their faith, practically one and the same, and faith once instilled is a very unshakable thing.

Not trying to say all religious people are anti-abortion. Or even all Christians, for that matter.

Dunno about standards. Dunno about majorities either - last I checked we started all this with a poll you didn't like that said the exact opposite, or close to it.

I know this is just a matter of your semantics being flawed here,

Yeah, the specifics of my terms are whacked. I need brain maintenance. The upshot of what I was trying to say was - these are businesses that basically have an open-invitation for service. That's a statement that applies to every retail store and food joint that ever had a door. By all common sense they have a "public" component (and yes, I know that has no legal meaning, which is what you were getting at by town hall and such). So to my mind, a few reasonable rules is not out of line.

Of course, I have to say cigarettes are damned disgusting little things, and I never fail to gag and cough within 15 feet of a lit one, so maybe I'm just biased.

And tired. Brain shut down now.

[Dr Maturin]

Originally posted by Radhil
Square is a rectangle. Rectangle is not a square.

Or something. I seem to be broken today.

What I am meaning to say is rather simple. The largest majority parts of the vocal anti-abortion crowd seem to be very very religious (read: very very Christian, of the old-school stripe - Baptist, Evangelical, etc. etc. etc.), and I think this is a massive contributor of their rigidity on the issue. Their morals are dictated by their faith, practically one and the same, and faith once instilled is a very unshakable thing.

Not trying to say all religious people are anti-abortion. Or even all Christians, for that matter.

Dunno about standards. Dunno about majorities either - last I checked we started all this with a poll you didn't like that said the exact opposite, or close to it.>>

That was my whole point entirely! Another miscommunication on my part! I really think understanding would be more achievable if humanity had some form of telepathy, so we could make our exact point clear.

My point was that since polls usually show that a big majority of Americans are against abortion, then that AP poll backs up my claim that their poll was really on whether or not people wanted justices who would be thoughtful and willing to uphold RvsW, not flat out for it...or against it. Remember, supposedly justices are "non-partisan." Supposedly.

<<Yeah, the specifics of my terms are whacked. I need brain maintenance. The upshot of what I was trying to say was - these are businesses that basically have an open-invitation for service. That's a statement that applies to every retail store and food joint that ever had a door. By all common sense they have a "public" component (and yes, I know that has no legal meaning, which is what you were getting at by town hall and such). So to my mind, a few reasonable rules is not out of line.

Of course, I have to say cigarettes are damned disgusting little things, and I never fail to gag and cough within 15 feet of a lit one, so maybe I'm just biased.>>

Yeah, they are public places, but they are still private property. I lost my father largely to cigarettes, but it was his fault for smoking them for almost fifty years.

And oh yeah, I agree with you on reasonable rules, like a non-smoking section. Granted, some restaurants' non-smoking sections are BS, but again, you can ask for a seat the furthest away from smoke. You may have to wait, but to be fair you are asking for a special service.

I don't have any particular love for tobacco, but I am very libertarian on this issue. That means if a business goes smoke free by their own choice, then nobody has a right to smoke on their property just as it means if they choose to allow smoking, then nobody has the right to tell them not to allow smoke.

[cruiser]

Hope it works for you.

hhmppmhhhmmmyyyggglll pppkkrrrtttt rrdddmmmllll ptooey!!!!

And that's all I have to say about that.

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
<<But it ISN'T just your choice. When I go to the same restaurant, I too get the smoke in my lungs and my clothes. I have no choice. So who should show consideration for the other: the smoker or the non-smoker?>>

It's private property. You don't have to enter the restaurant. The government shouldn't be involved in making business decisions. There is no consideration involved...smoking is legal and if a business decides to allow it, then that's the way it should be. Polls in smoking ban-affected locations show that though smokers are a minority, over half of the population is against a ban. I have done research on this and I even wrote an article on it for The Ride magazine.

If you're interested in reading it, I put it up here:

http://www.geocities.com/realsithsquadron/rtc6.html

I'm not.

Even in Ireland they have banned smoking in public places, like bars. Yes, pub-going did drop, for several weeks, but now it's the same as always. And, according to Swedish news, "noone" complains about it. Even smokers don't like smoky clothes... The Irish are happy standing at the outside to smoke and chat and sitting inside to drink.

And I see that you think that the smokees (non-smokers) should respect the smokers and not the other way around. Our views'll never meet there...
And you want to ban people with allergies from bars. Since they are such a small minority, that won't affect business in any discernible way so that's ok, then.

And I DO believe that the government should try to make public health better. Smoking is bad - so help people who don't want to do it to avoid it. (A ban on smoking would be best (IMHO), but we both know that that would be impossible to enforce so that would be useless. Drinking in many ways is even more dangerous, but since that's something I like to do I am not as much in favour of a ban there - just to show you what a hypocrite I really am). Just like the government should build safer roads, set speedlimits, set rules to make air transportation safer, etc. It's all the same.

<<In a word, yes. Show me any other situation or crime today that has the punishment being slavery without chance of relief for 18 years. Ignoring any other issues, that's simply punishment way out of proportion to the 'crime'. Even assuming an adoption option, the pregnancy alone amounts to unwilling servitude>>

No offense, but that sounds like laziness.

Of course raising a loved/wanted child is not slavery. But raising an unwanted child certainly is.

/IamS

[I love Lyta]

iamsheridan wrote:
"Of course!"

Can I recommend you as head judge of the court of family law over here?


Jan wrote:
"To those of us who are childless by choice, the idea of forced pregnancy and worse, childrearing is abhorant."

I couldn't agree more.
I also find it revolting that people without children will have to pay more for retirement insurance over here.

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by I love Lyta
iamsheridan wrote:
"Of course!"

Can I recommend you as head judge of the court of family law over here?

Please do!

My "of course" was a bit sweeping, but I more or less agreed with most of what I unswered to. However, the issues are not easy, and should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

/IamS

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
I don't have any particular love for tobacco, but I am very libertarian on this issue. That means if a business goes smoke free by their own choice, then nobody has a right to smoke on their property just as it means if they choose to allow smoking, then nobody has the right to tell them not to allow smoke.

In general, I am of a libertarian bent, too, but here a couple of thoughts on this issue I struggle with.

In the absence of regulations on smoking in public places, nearly all such places will allow smoking because they fear to give their competitor any advantage, real or imagined. Thus, the choice non-smoking patrons are often limited to is to accept the smoke or to stay home. Because of alergies, asthma and what not, this isn't always a simple matter of preference. Is it fair to the people who cannot tolerate smoke for health reasons?

Another stickler is the concept of a safe work environment. Many people working as waiter staff are not doing so becuase they chose the profession from a plethora of opportunities. They work because they have to, and they wait because it is where they find the opportunity. Second-hand smoke makes an unsafe work environment for these people. Can we really say to them, if it bothers you don't take a job there when we really want people to work in our society?

Also, non-smoking areas within a smoking restaurant rarely work. The air circulation system is generally the same and there are usually numerous air flow paths between areas. Sometimes the demarkation between designated areas is merely a matter of one table having an ashtray, and the one next to it a no-smoking sign.

Uniform regulation levels the playing field between competitors, and many businesses welcome it because it allows them to do what they are afraid to do in the first place. When they're put in place, the businesses do not ultimately suffer. I've now been in two states where this has been enacted, and know of no businesses that have taken a beating fromit. Because this issue has a public health component, I tend to support the bans, much like I am in favor of regulations that make a busines location safer due to proper exits, sprinklers, emergency lighting, etc.

[iamsheridan]

[i]I have done research on this and I even wrote an article on it for The Ride magazine.

If you're interested in reading it, I put it up here:

http://www.geocities.com/realsithsquadron/rtc6.html

[/B]

I actually took time to read it. I'm extra interested in this paragraph, and especially the part that I emphasized: "As for working in an environment heavy with smoke: the waiters, bartenders and busboys decided to work in that setting. It was their choice. Now that choice is taken from them along with the choice of businesses to determine their own smoke policy. ThereÆs an old saying that appliedùbefore the bansùto those sincerely hard-working, smoke-hating employees who decided to brave the fumes to make the moolah: Where there's muck there's brass. "

I take it that the smoke-hating employees are now forced to work in a smoke-free environment. I feel soo sorry for them.
And you also claim that for every smoke-banned city there is one where smoke is not banned next to it. And if the ban is state-wide? Or even nation-wide?

I don't think that people would stop going out just because they can't smoke. And I missed the paragraph with the evidence that lots and lots of places would have to (already had?) shut down because of the ban.

Why not have smoke-free restaurants, with a special smoking-room, perhaps with a nice, well-filled humidor?

/IamS

[Dr Maturin]

<< take it that the smoke-hating employees are now forced to work in a smoke-free environment. I feel soo sorry for them.
And you also claim that for every smoke-banned city there is one where smoke is not banned next to it. And if the ban is state-wide? Or even nation-wide?

I don't think that people would stop going out just because they can't smoke. And I missed the paragraph with the evidence that lots and lots of places would have to (already had?) shut down because of the ban.

Why not have smoke-free restaurants, with a special smoking-room, perhaps with a nice, well-filled humidor?>>

At least four strong restaurants and bars have closed down in my city. People are literally boycotting the city's restaurants and going to the three other cities that are within spitting distance. Most other businesses are moving before they get shut down.

That article was written around the time the ban was put into place. Eight months later...they're dropping like flies.

And WorkerCaste, I have read that numerous businesses have shut down in NYC due to lack of clientele due to the ban.

[bakana]

I have read that numerous businesses have shut down in NYC due to lack of clientele due to the ban.

The business with the highest failure rate is, (guess what?) Restaurants!

They drop like Flies in a bad economy.
Like the one gifted to us by George.

Blaming all the failures on Smoking Bans is disingenius at best.
"Oh, yeah, all my customers are smokers. So, my restaurant failed because they refuse to eat if they can't smoke."

Perhaps it's because the Food was lousy and overpriced.
After all, Cigarettes kill both sense of Smell and Taste.
When people aren't Smoking, they tend to be more likely to Notice badly prepared food.

Or maybe it's because that Hot New Place opened up just down the street.


On the Abortion front, I'd like to see all the Abortion protestors lining up to Adopt all the babies they Save .

But then I worry about how many of them would end up being declared Unfit Parents when they get caught punishing their little darlings for the Mother's Sinful Ways.

Oh, an interesting study was done recently which finds a direct correlation between the Roe vs Wade decision, the rise in popularity of Birth Control and the dramatic drop in the Crime Rate 20 years later.

Simple explanation:

Unwanted children are more likely to be Abused.
Abused & Unwanted Children are Much more likely to become Criminals.
Just check the life histories of the inmates at any penitentiary.

[WorkerCaste]

Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
And WorkerCaste, I have read that numerous businesses have shut down in NYC due to lack of clientele due to the ban.

The problem with most of the arguments about the impact to restaurants is that it is anecdotal. So far as I know, no real, earnest study has been done to compare the post ban failure rate with the pre-ban failure rate, much along the lines of what bakana was saying. All I can tell you is that in both areas I lived, I observed no fewer restaurants after the ban went into effect.

I can also offer this personal observation -- in the restaurants I frequent, the areas that were previously designated as smoking almost always had tables available, but after the ban they tended to be more full. Again, not scientific, but it is what I observed. I know a number of smokers, but I can only think off one that grumbles about the restrictions, and she has not cut back on dining out at all.

[Towelmaster]

Aw sh*t you're pressing my button....

(I'm only posting this because this is the Rampant, irresponsible political thread)


Considering that the new anti-smokers-laws come into effect in Holland as well(and they will, it has already started) :

How come I am then not allowed to smoke in any restaurant because it is bad for the visitors, the clients, the customers?

Why is it that everybody is blurting on about 'the strenght of the free market' but nobody want to let the free market do its job?

Suppose I am a rabid non-smoker(FYI : I'm not, I do smoke). Why - in the future - can I go to a bar where people are not allowed to smoke and not go to one that allows it? Wouldn't the market focus on smoke-free establishments if/when there is a market for them?


Just for the record: Cigarettes are no doubt bad for you health but...

...alcohol is a hard-drug that will destroy your health, it will muck up your drivingabilities(but loads of people still drive their cars home thus endangering me). It will make you feel absolutely horrible the next day and it can kill you much faster than cigarettes. So much for bars that serve alcohol then, lets abolish them all and save some people's health. Where does this meddling end?

Why not let anybody who wants to, and is qualified, open a restaurant or bar and have him/her decide whether it will be smoking or non-smoking?
The moment there is no market for places where you are allowed to smoke they will disappear or be reduced in number. But a smoker will still be able to go there in peace and quiet.

This - again - to me is pure meddling by a bunch of anti-smokers who just can't stand the fact that some people want to take their chances. I agree that non-smokers should be protected from cigarette-smoke etcetera. I agree that you should not smoke in public places like townhouses, hospitals, other government-buildings, banks, etcetera.

I do not agree that this reason is used to villify smokers as if they have just raped an 8-year old.

[iamsheridan]

Originally posted by Towelmaster
(I'm only posting this because this is the Rampant, irresponsible political thread)

Me too

This - again - to me is pure meddling by a bunch of anti-smokers who just can't stand the fact that some people want to take their chances. I agree that non-smokers should be protected from cigarette-smoke etcetera. I agree that you should not smoke in public places like townhouses, hospitals, other government-buildings, banks, etcetera.

It's not taking choice away from people. It's giving choice to people who can't (due to allergies or other illnesses) go to smoking places. It's giving choices for people who don't want to stay or work at places with lot's of smoke.

You can still smoke all you want (can't you?) - but on the outside.

And FWIW - I'm not rabid either. It just appears that way.

And while we're at it about hypocrisy: why is smoking not banned in the EU, while the use of moist snuff is (a tobacco drug very popular especially in the Nordic countries)? Answer: because it's easier to ban!

Imagine what the result would be if you tried to ban all tobacco (or alcohol for that matter). The American prohibition from the 20s would just be a small whiff compared to what would happen.

So the governments try to take small steps to increase public health.

I think

S-it! I wasn't going to post anything more in this thread...

/IamS