They're Coming After You - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-26-2008, 10:22 AM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LJT
I think saying bars are a choice compared to a restaurant because 'we have to eat' is quite a bad comparison. I would associate greater luxury with going to a restaurant....no one has to eat out, as much as no one has to have a drink.
Why greater luxury for a restaurant compared to a bar?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:00 PM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Here's my problem with the whole smoking ban issue. Why is it government's job to regulate this? Where I live the county passed a no smoking ordinance a couple of years ago. It ended up hurting the small business owners who were forced to create outside smoking areas and less people went out due to it. There were no laws banning someone from opening a non-smoking bar. YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government? It just seems big brotherish to me. Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?
__________________

__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:17 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Here's my problem with the whole smoking ban issue. Why is it government's job to regulate this? Where I live the county passed a no smoking ordinance a couple of years ago. It ended up hurting the small business owners who were forced to create outside smoking areas and less people went out due to it. There were no laws banning someone from opening a non-smoking bar. YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government? It just seems big brotherish to me. Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?

I never heard of second-hand obesity.

I don't know what you define as 'restaurant', but in Germany eating out at a restaurant (which is not a fast food chain or something like that) is seen as luxury as normally you cook dinner yourself.

And in some countries bars/pubs almost are defined a necessity.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:17 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 10:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Whats next, posting government officials outside of fast food joints to ensure obsese people don't frequent them?
That's almost happening. In Mississippi, there's a legislation going through the state government over banning obese people from restaurants.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:30 PM   #20
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega



I never heard of second-hand obesity.

I don't know what you define as 'restaurant', but in Germany eating out at a restaurant (which is not a fast food chain or something like that) is seen as luxury as normally you cook dinner yourself.
The issue isn't about second hand smoke. Its about control and Government telling you whats best for you. Is smoking healthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy things that people do that the Government hasn't gotten themselves involved in. People who go to Pubs and bars where there is smoking are making a choice. The funy thing is that where I live we have Casinos that are run by the tribes and they don't fall under state law. So basically, the smokers just moved. I just think that we are on a slippery slope regarding government involvement with these issues.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:50 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 03:09 PM
Well, the point is that government got involved to a large extent due to other people being involved, second-hand smoke, and many people asking, or even demanding, government to take a step.
The more people are pushing for legal action against obesity, the more you will see in state or governmental laws regarding that issue.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 01:53 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
YOU the patron ultimately have the say in whether YOU want to be exposed to second hand smoke or not. Shouldn't the market dictate this not government?
How does Mrs Smith have a say in whether she wants herself or her child exposed to second hand smoke in a subway or public buildings?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-26-2008, 03:24 PM   #23
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
Government telling you whats best for you.
And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-26-2008, 04:14 PM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


And if "the government" is doing this as a response to demands from its citizens? You know, democracy? Then what?
First off, I'm not talking about a referendum by the people. I'm also not talking about a subway platform or a bus stop. I was specifically talking about a bar, where there is an expectation of smokers. Sorry if I didn't clarify that. Where I live, the office of public health unilaterally decided to impose a smoking ban in restaraunts and bars. It was illegal because the office didn't have authority to create law. However, I like it when the people are actually involved rather than some politician coming out and saying, "this is what the people want." I can make my own choices, can I not? If I don't want to smell smoke in a bar, I can choose to patronize a bar that doesnt allow smoking. People can make choices with their wallets. The smoking ban is getting out of hand. I don't even smoke. There are places in California that have banned smoking ANYWHERE within city limits.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 04:17 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
The issue isn't about second hand smoke.
Uh ... that's exactly what the issue is.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 05:10 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby


The issue isn't about second hand smoke. Its about control and Government telling you whats best for you. Is smoking healthy? No. But there are plenty of unhealthy things that people do that the Government hasn't gotten themselves involved in. People who go to Pubs and bars where there is smoking are making a choice. The funy thing is that where I live we have Casinos that are run by the tribes and they don't fall under state law. So basically, the smokers just moved. I just think that we are on a slippery slope regarding government involvement with these issues.
Just wait and see what happens if the government takes healthcare completely over. The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 05:58 PM   #27
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby
I can make my own choices, can I not?
I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-26-2008, 05:58 PM   #28
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail
The slope could get pretty slippery in order to keep the costs down.
Because the private insurance companies are much better at this!
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-26-2008, 06:09 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I'll ask again: What about the employees who don't want to breathe in the smoke of the addicts?
Its called finding another job. This was the argument used when the state put it to a vote a couple of years ago. First off, these people were already working somewhere where smoking was PERMITTED. If you were so concerned about the dangers of SHS, why did take the job? Thats like a firefighter saying he doesn't want to run into a burning building. Its what you signed up for. You had a reasonable expectation that you were going to be breathing in SHS, and you were ok with taking that risk. As an adult I would expect you to either decide to live with your choice or find another career path.
__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 02-26-2008, 06:15 PM   #30
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 06:09 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Abomb-baby


Its called finding another job.
The libertarian fantasy!

Where the rights of the addict and the business owner are more equal than the rights of the employee.

I guess cancer and respiratory diseases should be a part of the job. Tell me, does the libertarian fantasy allow theses diseases to be covered by workers' comp? Or are these poor bastards on their own?

What about when the employees are a part of the electorate that decides democratically to prohibit cancer-causing chemicals in their workplaces?
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com