ARE WE ANY BETTER WITH THIS? DON’T THINK SO.
When I was very,very young and a smoker (my chest hurts just to think about it but I miss it sometimes) I never had a problem not smoking in a car driven by a non-smoker. I also did not have a problem with not lighting up in my own car if driving someone who didn’t smoke. But it was my choice to be considerate. Not some damned govt. agency or group of weepy heath nuts. I really don’t understand this at all. And oh btw I never had an accident because I was a smoker in a car.
I’m getting real tired of this crap. As a member of 3 to 5 “minority groups” that everyone else is encouraged to be prejudiced against, I think its past time to rethink these laws.
If smoking is so bad, so noxious, so unpleasant, so wrong ... then just ban it. Period. Don’t grow any more tobacco. Don’t subsidize the tobacco farmers. Outlaw sales of tobacco products. Don’t import or export the weed. Yeah, you’ll have some rather grumpy people for several months, several businesses will go under, but in the end it will be “for our own good”. Oh, but the gov will have to adapt a bit due to the loss of quite a lot of tax revenue. But hey, its for “their own good”.
If we’re going to live in a nanny state, then let’s have an effective one on this issue. Knock off the endless piddling little bullshit laws and just ban the whole thing. Or else get out of my face entirely and STFU.
My mother and sister are both highly allergic to cigarette smoke. I don’t even smoke in my own home, as I know too many singers and don’t want my house to smell like an ashtray. Many times I have stood outside my own home in nasty weather to smoke a cigarette. Nonetheless, that’s MY choice in how to treat MY property.
Personally, I feel that the proper answer is for those who normally use their own cars for work to refuse to do so, on grounds that once they do, they are no longer allowed to treat their cars as their own property. I mean what the hell, if I’m not allowed any authority in my car, I shouldn’t have to bear the expense. You don’t like it boss? talk to the government, it’s not my problem. If the car I use for work is REQUIRED to be treated as company property, fine, the company can buy me a car for work.
It’s bad enough that I am required to wear a seatbelt when the only person put at risk if I don’t is ME. I’m an adult, I’m supposed to have authority to choose what risks I take. If that isn’t so, someone needs to explain to me why playing the stock market, much less skydiving, is still legal.
This reminds me of something else, but I’m going to save it for a seperate post, in case it justifies becomeing a seperate thread. The subject tends to generate a fair amount of controversy…The RAAP Box
This is something the Navy taught me in boot camp, so the government can’t claim they don’t know this.
Draw a box. Label the four sides “Responsibility”, “Authority”, “Accountability”, “Privilege”.
The concept of the RAAP box is simple: In order for anyone to do anything consistently and well, all four sides of the box must be equal. All “proofs” ultimately rest on assumptions that cannot be proven and are taken on faith. The assumptions behind the RAAP box are:
1. Irresponsible authority is corrupt, by definition.
2. To hold someone responsible for something they have no authority over creates a scapegoat, but accomplishes NOTHING else.
3. Responsibility that is not matched by accountability has no teeth. In other words, it’s not enough to say “It’s your fault...”, you must also be able to say, “...and this is the price you pay *because* it’s your fault.”
4. If privilege is not equal to the other three, doing well is not in your self-interest. Too much privilege, doing badly doesn’t cost you enough to matter. Too little, doing well doesn’t *get* you enough to matter.I first learned about the RAAP box in January of 1986. In 21 years, I have seen one, count ‘em, ONE place in any human civilization where all four sides of the box are equal. That’s in military units *on the line in combat*. Once they go to the rear, the box stretches out of shape until they go back to the front. Why does it work there, and only there? I can’t prove it, but my guess is that anyone in combat who tries to stretch the box out of shape gets “accidentally” shot by his teammates. There, and only there, do people’s lives *directly depend* on getting it right.
So what good does this do anyone? Well, I don’t think there is any hope of calling our leaders to account based on this, I really don’t. But I think it IS a pretty accurate and simple test to show just where the corruption lies and how deep it goes.
FAIR WARNING: I think I can safely assure you that once you start using this standard, you will be even more shocked, dismayed and disgusted than you are now by how universal the dodging of responsibility is, and how nearly non-existent people who actually LIVE by the principles they espouse are. Worse, if you like to think of yourself as living by your own principles, your life will probably get a whole lot harder once you start applying this standard to yourself. We all lie to ourselves and make excuses why “Oh but that’s different.” All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God. It’s only fair to let you know up front that once you apply this standard to yourself, it starts slapping you in the face with “No, it ISN’T different, either. It’s precisely the same as what you despise when others do it.” That can be very difficult to face. The good news is that the more often you face it, the better and stronger you become, the closer you come to being the person you wanted to you were all your life.
If you don’t want the improvement of your heart and soul badly enough to take the pain, I won’t blame you. It’s VERY painful, and it will never stop as long as you draw breath. The only comfort I can offer are words that have been immortalized by soldiers across the world and across the centuries:“Pain is the feeling of weakness leaving the body.”
“Only the dead feel no pain.”
I think it’s appropriate to close this note with the words of the Standard Bearer of Jeanne D’Arc upon accepting his commission:
“If I should ever fail in this trust, my companions will know well how to do a friend’s office upon my body, and with this I charge them.”
A bumper sticker suggestion for peiper…
1649 Charles I: Divine right of kings
2007 Whitehall: Divine right of stupidity
1649 People of England: Give us Cromwell!
2007 People of England: Cromwell Redux!Oh, yeah, I forgot. Whitehall has already disarmed you. Pity.
T’was pity that stayed his hand. “It’s a pity I’ve run out of bullets.” - Bored of the Rings
"Subjects”, not “Citizens”; remember.
Yikes! Should I show that to my wife? Wedding cake is damnably effective stuff!
I got in a little trouble a couple of months ago after a ‘sexual harassment’ video we had to watch. As we were filing out of the room, Mike was grumbling about being harassed. I piped up with ‘Remember Mike, harass is two words.’ Which caused everyone, women included, to crack up.
The ‘moderator’ tried to call me into the office for that. She was not amused.
But I said, “If you want me in the office, you WILL go through my supervisor. And my Union rep will be there.”
My supervisor, a woman, liked the joke and declined to have me called to the office.
Now, was THAT offensive?
Guess stuff like this is right out.
Im divided over this, I hate smoking and its stink and mess but it seems wrong to ban it, perhaps we should ban the selfish ones (good life training that) BUT cellphones are banned but smoking OK? I have repaired 3 cars I know crashed cos the hot end dropped on the drivers nuts but so far none due to cellphone use (I have seen some low ability drivers swerving all over the place on the blower) so what is the most dangerous?
By the way I can drive and phone in a straight line-honest officer.Posted by Chris Edwards
12/30/2007 at 06:01 PM
I’ll agree with the sense and justice of banning cigarettes…
1) the day they stop pussyfooting and make it illegal antirely, AND
2) the day they make alcohol illegal.Until that day, don’t bother wasting your lies on me, Mr. Legislator, as I’m not gullible enough to believe them. Until that day I have GLARING evidence available that no, it’s NOT about safety, it’s about making political pressure groups happy while continuing to get the most money you can from lobbyists. Anyone who will *routinely* lie to me for their personal gain does not merit my respect, or even my courtesy, so I will save my personal opinion of those like yourself until I can say it to your face.
Suffice it to say that when I first heard of someone being charged with “Contempt of Congress” I immediately thought, “Well what would you expect? Respect and contempt are things that are only TRULY bestowed when earned, and you folks have done that bit of work long and well.”
As an ex-smoker living with someone who is very s....l...o...w...l...y weaning off the habit - I don’t buy all these faux laws. I can abide by public buildings (such SS, Court houses etc) - no indoor smoking, I can abide by places where ‘safety’ would be an issue (theaters, arenas etc) but your own car?!? In your own house - hey, call the shots, but in bars, taverns, dives, etc - why does the minority get to call the shots on the majority?!? That’s bad enough but in my own car, house, life? Ban it or get out of my life.
And in addition to GOF’s if it is so bad - ban it (of course they won’t, they learned that lesson with prohibition, plus as mentioned the 1.6 billion tax revenuea would be a real loss) here is my other if/then - when the healthcare professionals stop smoking - then we will talk laws/bans.
ahttp://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0313.pdf; pg 1.
The bottom line is that you’re welcome to run a bar or restaurant that is exclusive to non-smokers, but you are forbidden by law to run an establishment of any sort, EVEN A TOBACCO SHOP, that allows smokers the right to light up. The fact that it’s your own business, paid for with your own money, nobody but you sweating blood trying to make it succeed.... who cares? None of that is as important as whether Rosie O’Donnell or someone else equally far away and equally idiotic feels slighted.
In the same way, you’re welcome to run a gay bar and advertise “100% gay owned and operated” (seen the ads myself).... but just try running an ad that says “100% heterosexual owned and operated” on any kind of business. I’m not quite sure how “all are created equal” translates to “conservative straight white males are the only people who should be expected to make compromises”, but it’s pretty obvious that’s the case.
12/29/2007 at 01:51 PM
Next entry: Find Christopher
Previous entry: ONE PO'd LADY TAKES ACTION AGAINST PUNK SLIME. Result, ARREST. HERS.