Government

[user 423]

(Ice-maiden: I was speaking in generalities; not about your personal situation)

There will always be differences of opinion as to exactly what the gov't should or should not do to promote the common good. We can jawbone all we want about it but at the end of the day we should all do our best to make democracy work. With our huge population it's not going to be perfect and we can never satisfy everyone. Sometimes we need to stop and appreciate that it works as well as it does.

There is more than a little exaggeration by some about how bad the intrusiveness is and it results in a lot of whining about things that aren't really that big of a deal. To what degree are we limited in reading and thinking what we want? If you are not hurting an unwilling participant, the gov't doesn't limit what you do in your bedroom. You can still smoke...just not in the faces of those that don't. We don't have any widespread limits on what or how much we eat. Unless you have some violent jihadist ideas or want to blow up abortion clinics or otherwise harm others, isn't it pretty open as to how you can worship in this country?

 

[owl]

Zil, Really ?

ice, I like your attitude.

slow, some of what you say is valid, but isn't it alright to have the discussion?

Kurb, with all due respect, the jury is still out on the things you mention. But lets say what you believe about food is proven. What gives the government the right to regulate or limit my intake. Where does nannyism stop? In New York the city government tried to limit the size of soft drinks you could purchase. I think that is about as intrusive as some of the other schemes some governments are coming up with. The Supreme Court said no, no, no.

 

[user 423]

ice, I like your attitude.

X2

In New York the city government tried to limit the size of soft drinks you could purchase. I think that is about as intrusive as some of the other schemes some governments are coming up with. The Supreme Court said no, no, no.

OK, that one is a little ridiculous. From a Republican mayor no less. Good on the Supremes.

How about if it was a ban on pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing crack?

 

[jeanontheroad]

No matter how many laws you pass, you can't protect people from their own stupidity. You are lucky if you can protect innocent bystanders from it.

 

[ice_maiden]

How about if it was a ban on pregnant women drinking alcohol or doing crack?

The bigger question would be .... how would you stop a woman from breaking that ban?? Would she be incarcerated in prison to be further abused, only then it would be by others? Maybe held in solitary confinement till the child was born. How good would that be for either mother or child. How much mental damage would you do to the mother for the sake of the child. Which is more important? Mother or child? What it all boils down to still is that you can't save people from themselves. The only thing in life that is guaranteed is death, it can't be stopped. And some things are never meant to be.

 

[owl]

Laws will never save anyone from bad choices, never happened, never will.

W.C. Fields said " During prohibition, I once survived a week on food and water".

 

[twokniveskatie]

Hey Owl, no wonder you wondered where I was! I didn't step on this from the git go.

 

[user 423]

That was a rhetorical question. You can't force compliance but I think lots of people would support the attempt. It involves moe than just the individual.

---

slow, some of what you say is valid, but isn't it alright to have the discussion?

I guess so, since we haven't been shutdown. Either that or the mods realize so many of us have to much time on our hands and need an outlet...

 

[owl]

K, snuk one by ya Seriously, I was concerned, missed you.

slow, we are probably not as far apart on some of these issues, that goes for all of us here, as it might seem. Perhaps the approach would be different. The final result is probably something we could work out.

Good job everyone, keeping this above the belt.

 

[flying kurbmaster]

I don't think they should regulate the size of your soft drink. In the case of NYC, it is likely the only venue it had, my guess it could not raise the taxes on soft drinks (federal???) that is what really has to happen (political suicide) raise the taxes to offset the health care costs from side effects of drinking sugar like they do with Tobacco and liquor in most western countries, tax them like crazy, so only the very rich can afford them. That way it will make being rich a little less appealing.

 

[ccbreder]

welcome back, katie.

 

[highdesertranger]

what a great thread. highdesertranger

 

[Zil]

wow. myopic reading. i'm sorry i misread your name ice maiden. i assure you i meant no disrespect or offense.
the smoking part was my trying to illustrate something, not exactly aimed at you. As, where does their rights end and mine begin, and how do we resolve the conflict with out our government intervention.

really! "Hey! (*insert name here*)." is a standard greeting. Now i agree i would not greet a male friend as Honey unless he used the title himself. however i have been greeted as honey more times than i could list.

 

[ice_maiden]

Zil, no offense taken

You make a valid point about rights... I remember when we had smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants... but that was not good enough for the non smokers... Our governments came in and said ... no smoking at all... Okay I can live with that.. it is a public place and others have rights too.. The government is protecting WE THE PEOPLE. But for a government to tell me I can't smoke at all or to charge me differently because I do... becomes government approved discrimination. When businesses are allowed to not hire someone because they smoke then it is discrimination.. Yes this is allowed. It doesn't matter if they don't smoke at work....This is no different than saying I won't hire you because you are this race.

But since smoking is such a battled subject already, lets see how you feel about rights when the subject is similar but probably doesn't effect you.

I am extremely allergic to colognes and perfumes. Or for that matter air fresheners, candles, incense, anything of that nature with a strong scent. I can't stress extremely enough. It effects my ability to even take a breath. My throat closes and I am gasping for air. I will be alright if I can move into cleaner air, away from the scent. But in close situations... I have to leave. PERIOD. Who's right should take precedence then. Mine or the perfume wearers. It is the same situation as smoking... the air is still contaminated for someone.

I have to use care when entering any public place. Even going grocery shopping is problematic for me. I have to redirect many times before I get everything I need. Is it right for me to tell everyone they can't wear perfume? I know several people like me....so I am not an isolated case. And just as there are inconsiderate smokers... There are people who think their cologne should get there 10 minutes before they do. So should our government step in and ban cologne wearing?

 

[jeanontheroad]

Ice-maiden: Scent allergies

Me: Yes, I have problems too, tho perhaps not as bad as yours. Most long-lasting or very strong perfumes or scents have petroleum products added to them to make them that way. That affects a lot of people. The ingredients don't have to listed, or some wearers might not want to wear it. Perfume is supposed to be an intimate statement with people you allow to be close to you. Some people seem to be trying to fumigate the roaches behind the drywall with it. You'd think that the flies dropping out of the air, dead, in a 10 foot radius of them would give them a hint.

---

BTW, as we get older, our sense of smell gets weaker. So, we wear more perfume because we can't smell how much we are putting on. My doctor, who specializes in old coots, has a big sign requesting no perfumes be worn. I don't know if he has ever turned anyone away or spoken to them about it, but his waiting room is a perfume-free zone.

 

[user 423]

Some people seem to be trying to fumigate the roaches behind the drywall with it. You'd think that the flies dropping out of the air, dead, in a 10 foot radius of them would give them a hint. My doctor, who specializes in old coots, has a big sign requesting no perfumes be worn. I don't know if he has ever turned anyone away or spoken to them about it, but his waiting room is a perfume-free zone.

LOL
--------------------------------------
Ice Maiden:

Smoking vs. perfume....apples/oranges. How many people die from 'second-hand fragrance'?

I'll agree it can be obnoxious but it's hardly on a level with smoking.

I'm thinking businesses mainly refuse to hire workers who smoke because it raises their health insurance costs. There are probably other good reasons, at least to them. As private businesses, they have the 'freedom' to do that.

---

BTW: The extra costs of health care for smokers is huge and a big portion of that is paid by the gov't thru Medicaid and Medicare so some see there is plenty of justification to tax tobacco.

Also, all non-smokers would be paying for that extra cost,too if their health ins. premiums were the same as smokers.

And you keep saying the gov't wants to prohibit you from smoking totally. That is not true...they just want to discourage you from harming others and to pay extra for your vice.

 

[Unchained]

Smoking vs. perfume....apples/oranges. How many people die from 'second-hand fragrance'?

I'll agree it can be obnoxious but it's hardly on a level with smoking.

Tell that to the person who literally cannot breathe in the presence of certain scents. My coworker is one.

 

[ice_maiden]

Smoking vs. perfume....apples/oranges. How many people die from 'second-hand fragrance'?

Slow, I can respect your opinion, but to me it's apples to apples, But then I'm guessing perfumes are only offensive to you. To me they pose a life threatening health risk.

Lock me in a room with 10 smokers for 30 minutes and I will live through it, even if it stinks. And MAYBE I will acquire, some health related issue later.
Do the same with 10 wafting perfume wearers and I will die from lack of oxygen in a pretty dramatic way..No Maybe, no later... It would be a fact you could see, right then in less than 30 minutes.... I think death is pretty detrimental to your health.

Of course, I have the option to leave ... just like a non smoker has the option to leave the area of a smoker.... But who has more right to be there?

Think about this... Smokers can no longer smoke in an office work place. (I have nothing against this) But they can still wear perfume.. Non smokers can now breath the air in that environment ... I still can't... who has more rights now. Is it alright that I can't breath the air just because a non smoker can? Should I expect government intervention in this matter?

I'm thinking businesses mainly refuse to hire workers who smoke because it raises their health insurance costs. There are probably other good reasons, at least to them. As private businesses, they have the 'freedom' to do that.

So then they should also have the right not hire someone because they are black, or they have a health issues that will also raise their health insurance. Discrimination is discrimination... no matter what excuse is made for it.

 

[user 423]

If there were enough people who are as severely affected by perfume as you are, I suppose they would try to do something about killer perfume. However, it's not the same level of threat!

Discrimination against smokers is based on their behavior, not who they are or what race they may be. Again...apples/oranges. Besides,the federal laws against racial discrimination are mainly enforced only at businesses with more than 15 employees. On top of that, it's hard to prove bias since there are subtle and devious ways to get around those laws. There is plenty of de facto discrimination out there because most of the businesses in the US are small businesses with only a handful of employees. They can get away with stuff like,"No longhairs, No women, No this or that". If you're against gov't intrusion, why would you be all for them going after private businesses just because they don't like smokers??

....and with that, I'll leave this thread to the other good folks out there.

---

Oh,forgot. Some businesses do discriminate if you have other diseases or engage in risky behaviors. If they know you have a chronic disease like End Stage Renal or AIDS, they won't hire you; again because it's a hit on their insurance plans. Even though it's supposed to be illegal, if they find out you have Hep C (thru a pre-employment blood test) they may not hire you because they know their insurance may have to pay for a $200,000 liver transplant in the future.

 

[ice_maiden]

BTW: The extra costs of health care for smokers is huge and a big portion of that is paid by the gov't thru Medicaid and Medicare so some see there is plenty of justification to tax tobacco.

Also, all non-smokers would be paying for that extra cost,too if their health ins. premiums were the same as smokers.

And you keep saying the gov't wants to prohibit you from smoking totally. That is not true...they just want to discourage you from harming others and to pay extra for your vice.

..
Slow, there are many things that raise the level of health care costs...smoking has just been allowed to be the whipping boy for all of them. The chemicals that big companies are adding to your food pose an astronomical threat to your health and add all kinds of costs to health care. Heck, bread no long molds..it's scary! But they are actually being given tax breaks. Everyone is paying for this. Our government allows it because they get big political contributions for their campaign funds from these same companies.

I think though the point is being missed in this whole friendly debate though. The point is NOT to defend smoking or smokers! Smoking was used because it is the current politically correct whipping boy. Everyone feels like it's okay to bash a smoker, it is okay to charge them more, it is okay to discriminate against them, simply because the government has allowed it to be so. It's not okay.... Once they are allowed to do this, they will try it again with something else. They are already aiming at obesity.... How's your body mass index? Many people who you would not consider "fat", will still be deemed so according to their BMI. Then they will be given a fat tax for their so called vice. It is also just as unhealthy to be too skinny, but society see that as being fashionable, so it is not taxed. The whole point is people need to learn more tolerance of others, including their vices, They need to stop pushing their own values as the only right way. And when it doesn't adversely effect others as individuals the government needs to stay out of it and stop using it as a taxable scapegoat.

I have no problem with people not being allowed to smoke in public places.....This does effect other...
I do have a problem with the government being allowed to use it as a whipping boy... Not because I am for or against smoking, But because it opens the door to allow for more and more of this kind of government invasion.