U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-12-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 3,884,430 times
Reputation: 2550

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by samcrow2 View Post
This is over the top. I was watching the stupid Mika Brazin something polish on MSNBC today and she was ranting about how this was needed to stop the manufactures of death from putting out addictive things.

Smoking bans in restaurant's where a smoker forces other non smoker customers to breath their crap is a good thing. You don't have the right to make me breath your crap. But you drinking a soda does nothing to me. I agree drinking sugar laden crap is bad for your health, but is not my job nor the governments to tell you you can't. Tax it? Sure fine, but don't tell people they can not have it or how much they can have.

Labels on food to tell you how much crap is in it or calorie counts fine good. Education on how to eat? Great idea, but don't tell me or some kid they can't have a cupcake. Try healthy foods for kids? Great idea, but do not make it illegal to have a twinkie on the shelf of the local walmart. Its state control gone wild.
Ha ha liberals. Take that! How's it feel when the courts rule in favor of freedom, and against your totalitarian nanny state dictates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2013, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 3,884,430 times
Reputation: 2550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Really? What proof do you have of this? Scientific study has shown no effects on adults using the drug, if started after the age of adulthood. There are some studies that show that adolescent use can diminish IQ levels, but so can alcohol and nicotine. We don't make them illegal for adults
Yeah, but the liberals would sure like to. Except for white wine, of course, since that's their adult beverage of choice
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 3,884,430 times
Reputation: 2550
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Mike Bloomberg is a total statist who believes he has a right to regulate everyone's behavior in New York City. And to think of him as President?
Bloomberg is exhibiting typical Wall Street big moneymaking trader mentality. I worked on Wall Street for several years, and observed this behavior all the time. These folks think that because they make more money than everyone else they have the right to dictate to everyone else.

Hey, Bloomberg is a smart guy and made lots of money a Salomon Bros. and after Salomon fired him (laid off due to merger) he took his golden parachute money and founded a great company that continues to dominate the financial and business news markets.

Yet here he is, telling everyone else what to do again. You dont matter. Only he and his ego matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 04:09 PM
 
77,975 posts, read 33,265,332 times
Reputation: 15589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Really? What proof do you have of this? Scientific study has shown no effects on adults using the drug, if started after the age of adulthood. There are some studies that show that adolescent use can diminish IQ levels, but so can alcohol and nicotine. We don't make them illegal for adults
I appreciate the rare post that doesn't try and cover the negative aspects of what one is arguing for but rather makes a rational argument why the negative aspects really aren't relevant in the overall picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,178 posts, read 3,884,430 times
Reputation: 2550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Here is the thing, if you don't start recognizing the infringements you place on others, nobody will care about the infringements placed on you.

Nobody is "forcing" you to breathe smoke. You are free to be a patron to a business or not based on what the business chooses to allow. That means, if a business allows smoking, then you either "choose" to be around it or you "choose" not to by refusing to be a patron. You are not forced in anyway as it is completely your choice to partake in such an environment.

However, when you dictate to a business that they can not allow such because it bothers you, then you are "forcing" the business owner to operate in a fashion you decide, you remove their choice. This is the key point. Too often people forget that the business is owned by private individuals, that the business is private property and privately ran. It is not required to serve you and can refuse you at its discretion. So when you dictate to a business, you are dictating to an individual how and what they can do with their own private property.
I came of age in 1970, having grown up in a time when the majority of people smoked, and in which it was standard that smokers could smoke everywhere - in offices, bars, grocery stores, restaurants, movie theaters, airplanes, trains, buses, and more. Non smokers did have a choice, which was "take it or leave it"

Now, free market people might say things like "just make your opinions known and sooner or later maybe business owners will open smoke free restaurants, offices, grocery stores, etc" However, to create smoke environments for the minority who did not smoke might take decades.

The line between free market corrections and the need for government regulation is not so thin. I personally think we have overcompensated on the side of non smokers. I believe we are past time where businesses should now be exempted from the "no smoking at all whatsoever" to having a choice to become smoking environments. But then I'm a reasonable person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:40 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,202 posts, read 18,212,540 times
Reputation: 8031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
But shouldn't that be up to an informed adult to decide...no one is saying lets grab the kids and get high.

Alcohol has a negative effect on the brain. So be wise and decide for yourself.
More evidence proving my point.

Go back and re-read my post, and pay particular attention to the text I quoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:44 PM
 
9,969 posts, read 14,562,728 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Good so now birthday parties at Chucky Cheese can still have a pitcher of soda for the entire table.
Gotta keep those kids wired or they get sleepy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,172 posts, read 7,019,756 times
Reputation: 4174
If they want to ban something in New York it should be the 18% gratuity added to parties of "1 or more" at the high-end hotels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:49 PM
 
Location: NJ
16,813 posts, read 11,753,580 times
Reputation: 10809
That 16oz law should have been overturned on the basis of stupidity.

Let's see who voted to approve that law. Too bad it took up so much tax payer money to file and appeal. Let Bloomberg pay that back out of his pocket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2013, 05:49 PM
 
77,975 posts, read 33,265,332 times
Reputation: 15589
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
I came of age in 1970, having grown up in a time when the majority of people smoked, and in which it was standard that smokers could smoke everywhere - in offices, bars, grocery stores, restaurants, movie theaters, airplanes, trains, buses, and more. Non smokers did have a choice, which was "take it or leave it"

Now, free market people might say things like "just make your opinions known and sooner or later maybe business owners will open smoke free restaurants, offices, grocery stores, etc" However, to create smoke environments for the minority who did not smoke might take decades.

The line between free market corrections and the need for government regulation is not so thin. I personally think we have overcompensated on the side of non smokers. I believe we are past time where businesses should now be exempted from the "no smoking at all whatsoever" to having a choice to become smoking environments. But then I'm a reasonable person.
This is why even those who might agree with the outcome disagree with how we get there. I enjoy going places and not have to worry about smoke also BUT once something is lost those who remove whatever it is we are talking about simply can't stop. They have to demand more and more control over what people do.

Cigarette's are a perfect example of this. First you have to provide no smoking areas. Then you have to ban smoking. Then you can't allow people to smoke within so many feet of the door. Then they want to ban people from smoking in their cars on the way there and then they will try and stop them from smoking in their own home.

The nannies to me are more offensive than the smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top