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.
Of course. I'm not disputing that. What I argue is that, for example, in Arizona now (where I live), smoking is prohibited in every single public restaurant, bar, club, etc. Why? Why not give restaurants, bars, etc the choice, or have a certain number of each so that there are places to go for smokers, and places to go for non-smokers. Why a blanket ban? That's all I'm asking.
Because they can, because you let them, because when all is said and done and people lose this issue (fairly or unfairly), people will just head back to their homes and grumble about it.
You know how smoking bans would be thrown out the window? If everyone who was against freedoms being violated by social will got together with a lot of weapons and said "No, you won't take those freedoms, you have no right".
If everyone stood up for their rights with that level of conviction, the government would truly fear its people and laws like these that take freedoms away would be a fading memory.
Because they can, because you let them, because when all is said and done and people lose this issue (fairly or unfairly), people will just head back to their homes and grumble about it.
You know how smoking bans would be thrown out the window? If everyone who was against freedoms being violated by social will got together with a lot of weapons and said "No, you won't take those freedoms, you have no right".
If everyone stood up for their rights with that level of conviction, the government would truly fear its people and laws like these that take freedoms away would be a fading memory.
You know, part of the problem with legislation like this is that they stuff so many different issues (even though they say they're related) into one document, so people vote for or against it depending on what's most important to them, even if they disagree with another aspect of the proposed legislation. Earmarks need to be abolished. I don't care if having separate proposed legislative documents is more time consuming. It's not right to force people to either vote for a law because they want one of the items to pass, or against it because they disagree with one item. For example, in Arizona, the proposition banning smoking in public also contained items such as raising the tobacco tax, the revenue going to preschool and kindergarten services. That is manipulation because if the laws don't pass, then children will be denied the additional funding, and who doesn't want kids to benefit? It's deceptive.
I always vote during state proposition elections. The only other thing we could have done, that I can tell, is to rally, trying to convince people that they should vote against any law which removes individual freedom, but as you can see in this thread, that's difficult to do when people have their mind set on a certain idea, and don't understand the point a person is making.
You know, part of the problem with legislation like this is that they stuff so many different issues (even though they say they're related) into one document, so people vote for or against it depending on what's most important to them, even if they disagree with another aspect of the proposed legislation. Earmarks need to be abolished. I don't care if having separate proposed legislative documents is more time consuming. It's not right to force people to either vote for a law because they want one of the items to pass, or against it because they disagree with one item. For example, in Arizona, the proposition banning smoking in public also contained items such as raising the tobacco tax, the revenue going to preschool and kindergarten services. That is manipulation because if the laws don't pass, then children will be denied the additional funding, and who doesn't want kids to benefit? It's deceptive.
I always vote during state proposition elections. The only other thing we could have done, that I can tell, is to rally, trying to convince people that they should vote against any law which removes individual freedom, but as you can see in this thread, that's difficult to do when people have their mind set on a certain idea, and don't understand the point a person is making.
Any other suggestions?
Thats the really hard thing. You attempt to educate, but in a media based society where disinformation is dispersed like candy, it is really hard.
To be honest, I have no real solutions that you might want to hear. The people who are abusing the system do so with a great advantage. Most people don't really care about issues until it effects them and even then, it isn't enough to cause them to really devote time and effort to the facts.
There are problems on any side. Most people on all sides are misinformed. They follow their heart and while that is noble, your heart without your mind is a wasted effort. I have seen real facts in disputed cases be brushed aside in even the smallest areas of society simply because facts, truth and right is less important than agenda.
It is such a confusing time, but that in my opinion is part of their advantage. People don't rally together, more importantly they do not rally as they did in our past to which led to the formation of this country.
All you can honestly do is continue voting, continue supporting organizations that fight for what is right and fact and hope that things get better. If they do not, know that there are hard times ahead. There will come a point where that "silent majority" gets tired of the populace striking away rights left and right and it will eventually draw them into a corner. At the point is when they will defensively fight at all costs.
The danger at that time will be if we have a body who can draw people to a just purpose and avoid the defensive scared animal syndrome that attacks at anything and everything.
I wish there would be a viable peaceful solution to the situation, but we are honestly too far gone for that. Education is down to points where people are easily misled and there are so many problems in society that it is very easy to put people on a biased track rather than one that achieves a honest purpose.
The good news is that when life and death, that is the true fight for liberty becomes at hand, people start to shed away the BS for personal agendas and realize there is a greater goal and purpose. Our founders realized this, but we have grown soft, lazy, and lethargic to these principals of freedom. They tried to warn us, but well... we think we are too smart for them, that their warnings do not apply to us because we are more evolved. History due to repeat itself ehh?
Whats funny is that many think the dangers are the government, and while I agree that is true in some respects, our true danger is the people themselves. The mob based behavior of them who act on their own lust for blood. That danger goes overlooked and that danger was clearly warned by the founders.
Just do what you can, play by the rules and wait till eventually one day the gloves come off. Hopefully, what results from the conflict will put us back on track. Hope is really all we have in situations like this. That and the willingness to see it through.
lol, as long as the leaf eaters didn't spit any of their fodder onto my plate, or belched some seed pods into the air, I don't care what they munch upon. See, that is the difference - all these examples, they are fun and amusing [while almost at times realistic, in a Monty Python or Orwellian manner ], but the difference is that the fumes and ashes that comes from smoke are offensive and invasive to that which I desire to breath. Smoke all they want, just keep the odor and smell from others that don't want it while sharing the same facility [bar = drinking/music/dancing; restaurant = eating]...
LOL! That was very creative and funny. But actually, it sounded to me like he was talking about "leaf eaters" passing a ban so that meat eaters wouldn't be able to eat meat in any restaurant because it could be hazardous to their (leaf eaters) health if any meat touched their food. He wasn't suggesting you would share a restaurant with the leaf eaters and eat meat yourself, you wouldn't have an option to eat meat. You either go there and don't eat meat or you don't go there. You would have no restaurants where you could eat meat. It was a quite insightful analogy (IMHO) and it should bring home our point to non-smoking pro-ban meat eaters. But only if you understand what he was trying to say. (Please correct me if I am wrong about what you were saying Artliquide). Another analogy might be peanuts. A lot of people can die if they eat peanuts, not just be uncomfortable, but die. This is so deadly serious that now food processing plants must put on their label if they ever process peanuts in their plants, not just if it is in the food but if the equipment has ever touched a peanut. For this reason, a proposal banning peanuts in all restaurants makes a LOT more sense to me than one banning cigarettes, and yet peanuts have not been banned.
Most of us, I think, understand you don't want to be around smoke or smokers, we have heard that loud and clear and I honestly understand it and don't blame you. When you used the word "sharing", I realized you (like others) are still thinking we are talking about sharing a facility (i.e. smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. Many of us aren't. We are talking about seperate restaurants.
We know you don't want to share. The pro-ban crowd doesn't want to share unless it's on their terms. Fine. We don't need to share a restaurant/bar, the smokers would be happy to have their own, but NO, the non-smoker pro-banners don't even like that. They vote to ban smoking everywhere. It's not even the "get your own sandbox" mentality, it's the "you can't even have a sandbox" mentality. Pro-ban people want all restaurants/bars to cater to them, and [b]none to cater to smokers. And yet you wonder why we are so upset.
Last edited by Arizona Annie; 10-25-2007 at 07:16 PM..
You know, part of the problem with legislation like this is that they stuff so many different issues (even though they say they're related) into one document, so people vote for or against it depending on what's most important to them, even if they disagree with another aspect of the proposed legislation. Earmarks need to be abolished. I don't care if having separate proposed legislative documents is more time consuming. It's not right to force people to either vote for a law because they want one of the items to pass, or against it because they disagree with one item. For example, in Arizona, the proposition banning smoking in public also contained items such as raising the tobacco tax, the revenue going to preschool and kindergarten services. That is manipulation because if the laws don't pass, then children will be denied the additional funding, and who doesn't want kids to benefit? It's deceptive.
I always vote during state proposition elections. The only other thing we could have done, that I can tell, is to rally, trying to convince people that they should vote against any law which removes individual freedom, but as you can see in this thread, that's difficult to do when people have their mind set on a certain idea, and don't understand the point a person is making.
Any other suggestions?
Exactly. Remember all the "information" and propaganda all over the place too? People were saying they were so confused about the 2 different propositions they didn't know what they were voting for or against. That didn't help.
Now it's too late for us. But maybe we could help some others from losing their individual freedoms by communicating like we are here.
Whats funny is that many think the dangers are the government, and while I agree that is true in some respects, our true danger is the people themselves. The mob based behavior of them who act on their own lust for blood. That danger goes overlooked and that danger was clearly warned by the founders.
Yes, that is absolutely true. I think I remember reading recently that Madison was the one who wanted the U.S. to be a republic because as the book about the constitution I was reading stated: "the masses are not educated enough for this to be a direct democracy"...I paraphrase loosely. But basically, when he drafted our constitution for the constitutional convention, that was one of the points, I believe, which is why we have representative democracy.
We have the right to protest publicly, and form militias, to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, but how many people actually protest? Maybe it takes too much effort. I have to admit that with my personal endeavors, I have little time to be a grass roots political leader/organize any kind of protest, though I would absolutely participate if it were planned first. Maybe that's one issue with many people; lack of time (since our current economy forces us to work more to receive less). Second issue would be apathy, which is what you're talking about. Third issue would be that the government does repress public protests to a degree, partly because some people become overwhelmed with the desire to protest violently, taking away any credibility of those who protest peacefully.
So I say, yes, there is apathy, but maybe it's even more complex than that.
(Please correct me if I am wrong about what you were saying Artliquide).
The only thing I can correct is that I'm a she
But yes, that is exactly what I was trying to illustrate, or trying to hit home for those who don't understand why a blanket ban seems ridiculous to some of us. Maybe if the "other side" could walk in the shoes of others with an open mind, through an illustration, maybe they could understand the other perspective. Wishful thinking?
Exactly. Remember all the "information" and propaganda all over the place too? People were saying they were so confused about the 2 different propositions they didn't know what they were voting for or against. That didn't help.
Now it's too late for us. But maybe we could help some others from losing their individual freedoms by communicating like we are here.
Yes, the fact that there were 2 almost identical propositions was idiotic. The only differences were the percentages of cigarette tax increase, I believe? In any case, I assume that raising the tax was an attempt to make everyone want to quit smoking, since it was lumped together with the smoking ban, and I believe it was created by an anti-smoking group. But it's silly anyway because tons of people buy cigarettes on the Native American reservations (tax free), several of which are either right next to or within the Phoenix metro area. In any case, it was confusing and many people, as they often do, voted uninformed. They see buzzwords and decide based on whether those buzzwords fit their lifestyle, not really thinking deeply about the issue.
I also think there should be a committee that helps groups write initiatives, because we have a history of citizen groups writing incoherent and confusing initiatives, but that have a great impact on Arizona. Maybe if there had been a legislative committee to help them with these propositions, it wouldn't have been so confusing and ambiguous.
But yes, that is exactly what I was trying to illustrate, or trying to hit home for those who don't understand why a blanket ban seems ridiculous to some of us. Maybe if the "other side" could walk in the shoes of others with an open mind, through an illustration, maybe they could understand the other perspective. Wishful thinking?
Oops! Sorry about that!!! I thought so, and usually I put "she/he" until I know for sure, but I guess my fingers got to typing and I just didn't catch it this time. I'll try to remember now so I don't do that again.
I know, I was hoping when I read your post it would be understood finally, wishful thinking I guess. Maybe the peanut analogy hit home with some. That's a definitely deadly (for quite a few) item.
Yes, the fact that there were 2 almost identical propositions was idiotic. The only differences were the percentages of cigarette tax increase, I believe? In any case, I assume that raising the tax was an attempt to make everyone want to quit smoking, since it was lumped together with the smoking ban, and I believe it was created by an anti-smoking group. But it's silly anyway because tons of people buy cigarettes on the Native American reservations (tax free), several of which are either right next to or within the Phoenix metro area. In any case, it was confusing and many people, as they often do, voted uninformed. They see buzzwords and decide based on whether those buzzwords fit their lifestyle, not really thinking deeply about the issue.
I also think there should be a committee that helps groups write initiatives, because we have a history of citizen groups writing incoherent and confusing initiatives, but that have a great impact on Arizona. Maybe if there had been a legislative committee to help them with these propositions, it wouldn't have been so confusing and ambiguous.
I agree, or they just follow along with whatever someone (or some group they let guide them) tells them instead of investigating the issue for themselves and making sure it was absolutely crystal clear to them. I'm afraid we'll never get clear and precise wording in initiatives because I'm afraid I believe incoherent, confusing, and ambiguous (as you say) are exactly what they are going for when they draft them.
I also have noticed we have a huge problem with voter apathy in this state, thereby allowing the few to make decisions for the masses.
AA
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.
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.
], but the difference is that the fumes and ashes that comes from smoke are offensive and invasive to that which I desire to breath. Smoke all they want, just keep the odor and smell from others that don't want it while sharing the same facility [bar = drinking/music/dancing; restaurant = eating]... 
But actually, it sounded to me like he was talking about "leaf eaters" passing a ban so that meat eaters wouldn't be able to eat meat in any restaurant because it could be hazardous to their (leaf eaters) health if any meat touched their food. He wasn't suggesting you would share a restaurant with the leaf eaters and eat meat yourself, you wouldn't have an option to eat meat. You either go there and don't eat meat or you don't go there. You would have no restaurants where you could eat meat. It was a quite insightful analogy (IMHO) and it should bring home our point to non-smoking pro-ban meat eaters. But only if you understand what he was trying to say. 
I thought so, and usually I put "she/he" until I know for sure, but I guess my fingers got to typing and I just didn't catch it this time. I'll try to remember now so I don't do that again. 
