Brits Ban Smoke
GOVERNMENT CAN BECOME, TO A DANGEROUS DEGREE,
AN INTEREST GROUP, AS SELF-INTERESTED AS ANY
OTHER, AND MORE ABUSIVE THAN MOST.
-GEORGE WILLI’d change “can” to “will automatically, unless stopped”
Posted by Oink
02/15/2006 at 10:36 AM
In order to be fair to both parties, reasonable men generally seek equitable compromise. I want the right to smoke in a bar, you want the right not to be bothered by that smoke. Pretty simple, IMHO. Advertise well in advance that each bar or pub will, for one month, survey it’s clients on their wishes. Names will be taken to prevent duplication. The wishes of employees would also be tracked in a seperate survey. At the end of the survey, bars with a super majority (67%) in favor of smoking would be deemed “smokers pubs”, the rest would be smoke free. Non-smoking employees of smokers pubs would be allowed to swap jobs with smokers employed at non-smoking bars. Would it work? Probably. Would some bars suffer and others prosper? Again, probably, the free market being what it is.
Would something like that suit you? Sorry, there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hell of anything like it EVER being sanctioned by the Government-not here and especially not in England.
Why?
1. It makes sense.
2. It allows people to think for themselves instead of the government thinking for them.
3. It takes away some of the governments control over your daily life. Can’t have that, now can we?
Ok, the left calls the Bush administration a ‘regime’ - this is really the beginning of the regimentation of Europe into a nice little ‘PC regime’ of it’s own.
I know and agree that it is smoking is a disagreeable and somewhat public bad habit, BUT, like my momma always said - two wrongs don’t make a right.
‘Course they can do this in the Isles as they got universal healthcare for all. So it was only a matter of time B4 they started ‘ordering’ the citizens on how to live.
Right now they are arguing over national ID cards - seems too many ‘illegals’ are just flooding the Isles to get all that ‘free’ healthcare.
Yeah, they can forbid you from owning guns, forbid you from smoking just about everywhere, forbid you from making your kid behave - but can’t force you to prove you’re a legal Brit to get healthcare.
What’s wrong with this picture - be afraid, be very afraid.
Indiana is already there—not wearing seatbelt is a primary offence. I hope we’ll soon make mary-jew-wanna illegal, I WOULDN’T WANT TO LIVE WITH THE ANGUISH OF SEEING OCM DESTROY HIS LIFE. Now that he has health insurance, it’ll keep my premiums down.
Premise: Anybody who smokes or doesn’t wear a seatbelt has rocks in his head.
I like nasty, dangerous, dirty habits but always wear a seatbelt.
If people don’t like smelling cigarettes, the should go to a restaurant that doesn’t allow smoking.
I support mandatory car-seat laws for kids—they are citizens, and deserve protection from
4brains parents.
Conclusion: It is not the government’s job to save us from our own stupidity.
Action: Remember to tell a bureaucrat to go
himself today.
Posted by Oink
02/15/2006 at 12:20 PM
I wonder if the Muslim community in England and Her bedroom States is also bound by the no smoking laws? If the Muslim community were to insist -or even imagine- that smoking was a reglious symbol or some how not being allowed to smoke an insult to their manhood, I wonder if the PC crowd in the UK would change its tune.
Oink, I agree with you that ultimately others stupidity causes the non-stupids premiums to rise. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a practical means to make the stupid live with the consequences of their stupidity. Excepting perhaps the state of MA. BTW, I think that “shit4brains” should have some hyphens. Unfortunately, My Manual of Style doesn’t address this situation
Posted by yatalli
02/15/2006 at 01:12 PM
Thanks & I was being somewhat ironic—I can’t do anything that doesn’t somehow effect somone else, somewhere, sometime --the butterfly effect. If I get sick either your premiums, taxes, or hospital costs go up. The law uses the lovely term “clear and present danger” to limit govt. intrusion.
I do believe parents don’t own their kids like chattel. Kids are citizens and need some special protection of the law, until they are at the age of reason and can do dumb
on their own responsibility. BUT certain ‘status offences’ for teens should be cut back.
Posted by Oink
02/15/2006 at 02:03 PM
You are absolutely on point with the “butterfly effect”. There can be a very fine line between the Nanny State and a totally libertarian society. If I smoke a joint after work one day and the next day there is an accident at my work and, as a matter of policy, they drug test everyone. I test positive. Am I guilty? And of what? Is there a proximal relationship between the accident and the fact that I tested positive? Was I half a step slow getting to the switch or maybe missing a key safety issue because of the residual effects of the pot? Or was there another cause? Was the company negligent for not testing more frequently? I can tell you how a plaintiffs lawyer would view it.
How does the concept “clear and present danger” limit government intrusion? Unless I am missing something here, it would seem the opposite is true. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard the expression “to protect the children” or to “protect the environment” as a justification of passing another law that curbs another right, I think that I would be a marginally rich man.
Somewhat related to your point on teens and stupidity (yeah, it is redundant): there was an article in the Baltimore Sun(?) about the Army lowering its standards because they are having trouble meeting their recruitment goals. In the very recent past, having any criminal record (i.e. minor in possestion of control substance; petty vandalism, etc) was likely grounds for keeping you out of the service -it is probably still the case for the Air Force and Navy. The not-so-subtle implication was now the army is recruiting hardened criminals and habitual drug users. They would be trained as killers and then wash out because they lacked motivation or intelligence to succeed! For the longest time I was getting the distinct message from the “socially enlightened” that all these misguided youths needed was a chance and an opportunity. They were only acting out of frustration and weren’t a threat to society. Now they are a threat to the armed services? WTF? I have heard of brutal rape cases being plead down to simple assault because a conviction could jepordize a defendants chance at college!
Posted by yatalli
02/15/2006 at 02:54 PM
yatal: Good writing, good points, good questions—answer: I don’t know.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing on sedition/free speech—“the question in every case is whether the words used are in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Maybe a few guidelines before passing laws forcing a person to change his ways:
Is the connection between the act and the bad outcome obvious & direct?
Is it about to happen NOW? (not like Socrates charged with ‘corrupting our youth’)
Is the damage to other people substantive? (being self-rightously angry isn’t)My personal guideline is: “OK that’s bad. Now, am I willing to send in cops with guns to put a stop to it?”
Posted by Oink
02/15/2006 at 03:38 PM
Oink as usual I am in total agreement with you. They introduced a motorcycle helmet law in the UK in 1975 or something like that. When I lived in the US in Iowa there was no helmet law but I always wore a helmet. Common sense if you ask me. I don’t like compulsion and I detest the nanny state approach. We have to wear seat belts here by law. I would anyway, but I don’t need the state to tell me. There again when the state is responsible for the health system I guess there is a vested interest.
As for smoking. Well it’s a filthy habit but it does raise £9 billion in revenue per annum. I tend to encourage people to smoke more so I can cut down on my tax bill!!! (The impact to the National Health System is around £2-3Billion I believe). Seriously though I don’t like the idea of the government intruding into our lives at every level. I think if pubs want to allow smoking let them do it and non smokers will vote with their feet.
Skipper the socialists not only tried to ban fox hunting they succeeded. However many hunts ignore the ludicrous legislation or otherwise get around it. Apparently you can still use birds of prey to hunt or at least despatch foxes. So the hunts have employed the services of European Eagle Owls (bubo bubo)
Same for LBJ, which I had not read before posting the above.
I don’t allow neighbors to hunt any critter that they don’t eat—or doesn’t do clear and present damage to their crops. Not a law—my land, my rules. People who smoke or don’t use motorcycle helmets or seatbelts don’t harm me. These Darwin Award nominees lower my taxes & premiums by dying early.
Posted by Oink
02/15/2006 at 03:53 PM
Why the F^&k don’t they just make smoking tobacco illegal? HUH?
If they are going to regulate it to such a point where you can’t do it, then OUTLAW it you bunch of cowards.
But then all that tax revenue would dry up, now wouldn’t it?
Bunch of hypocrites as far as I am concerned.
Do you mean ”Sanity Clause?”
“You ain’t foolin’ me, there ain’t no Sanity Clause!”(wiggling his eyebrows and cigar simultaneously)Posted by Oink
02/15/2006 at 06:05 PM
I dunno, OCM; I agree with your plan about 1/2. part 2) Personally, I have no problem legalizing pot, but it ain’t happening cause who ya gonna sue?
Part one of the OCM Plan: Imagine the increase in tobacco related crimes though if it were illegal. How would the situation differ where tobacco is illegal and pot is legal (other than you being on the “right” side of the law, for a change
) from the current state of affairs? Other than having millions of pre-qualified addicts. I read a book about the tobacco companies “voluntary” taking their product off the market...Smoke Screen?
Posted by yatalli
02/15/2006 at 06:58 PM
Now, Jag, you know that all that money that the Attorney Generals extorted out of Evil Big Tobacco, is going to be used to fund stop smoking programs. They said so!
Posted by yatalli
02/15/2006 at 07:01 PM
You realize that by quitting you probably deprived some californicators celebrity bastard child of a better education, you are heartless!
Posted by yatalli
02/15/2006 at 08:11 PM
Oink why am I not surprised that you’re a Marx Bros. fan?
LBJ: Courtoom scene
“Whatsa big gray animal with a trunk?”
“That’s irrelevant!”
“Thatsa right!”Bada-Bing!
Posted by Oink
02/16/2006 at 11:24 AM
Chico: Where you going with that big gun?
Groucho: Elephant hunting in Alabama.
Chico: Why Alabama?
Groucho: Because the Tuscaloosa!-- rim shot
02/15/2006 at 03:40 PM
