The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: bkg on January 15, 2010, 12:53:19 PM
-
What is this? Have you been following the news for the last 20 years or so? Of course the government takes stuff away from us without our consent.
Capitulation and acceptence is no different than consent. You can only govern to the extent that the people ALLOW you to govern.
You say you haven't consented? What have you done to stand against it?
-
Um. I haven't said anything about consent, acceptance, or standing against anything. I'm writing about an idea I had for Nicohol. Mr. Bunny pointed out that someone already had the idea in GTA. I was just interested in hearing from someone with a background in chemistry to explain why this idea would, or wouldn't work.
-
FALSE. They have no power to take away anything you don't give them voluntarily.
Explain to me exactly WHO gave the State of MN the authority to force restaurants and bars to become Non-smoking?? I certainly didn't. (I WAS a MN resident when that happened) Or how about when Pawlenty threw that extra $1.00/ pack "health impact fee" on cigarettes?? Again, nobody I knew gave the State that authority.
-
Um. I haven't said anything about consent, acceptance, or standing against anything. I'm writing about an idea I had for Nicohol. Mr. Bunny pointed out that someone already had the idea in GTA. I was just interested in hearing from someone with a background in chemistry to explain why this idea would, or wouldn't work.
You need to ask clanofirish. He is a Chemistry dude.
-
Um. I haven't said anything about consent, acceptance, or standing against anything. I'm writing about an idea I had for Nicohol. Mr. Bunny pointed out that someone already had the idea in GTA. I was just interested in hearing from someone with a background in chemistry to explain why this idea would, or wouldn't work.
Not a chemist.......but I do know that nicotine is highly toxic at certain levels (a vascular astringent). I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that if a person had a tendency to have a few too many drinks, they shouldn't run the risk of cardiac arrest as a result.........not to mention the liability issues of turning bartenders into pseudo-pharmasists, that have to keep track of their patron's dosage levels.
It would be far easier for someone to put a screeching halt to the anti-smoking Nazis, and allow a bar owner to allow smoking should they choose to do so.
Here where I live, the city passed a smoking ban, but allowed bars, pool halls, private clubs, and bowling alleys to continue to allow smoking if they pay a five-dollar additional annual fee for their licenses, and clearly mark the premises as a "smoking establishment".........seems to be working out well for everyone, as some of the bars also serve food, and it allows smokers someplace to go out for dinner.
YMMV
doc
-
Um. I haven't said anything about consent, acceptance, or standing against anything. I'm writing about an idea I had for Nicohol. Mr. Bunny pointed out that someone already had the idea in GTA. I was just interested in hearing from someone with a background in chemistry to explain why this idea would, or wouldn't work.
It'd have to be a really dilute amount of liquid nicotine. I remember a CSI (Vegas) episode when a woman was killed because the miniature killer placed an amount of liquid nicotine in some old woman's alcoholic beverage. I don't know how much liquid nicotine it would take to kill a person, especially when combined with alcohol. What about the alcoholics?? Could they imbibe so much as to kill themselves??
-
Explain to me exactly WHO gave the State of MN the authority to force restaurants and bars to become Non-smoking?? I certainly didn't. (I WAS a MN resident when that happened) Or how about when Pawlenty threw that extra $1.00/ pack "health impact fee" on cigarettes?? Again, nobody I knew gave the State that authority.
And every single one of the MN residents have accepted it. By accepting it, you give them the authority. Not that difficult of a concept.
-
It would be far easier for someone to put a screeching halt to the anti-smoking Nazis, and allow a barowner to allow smoking should they choose to do so.
Here where I live, the city passed a smoking ban, but allowed bars, pool halls, privateclubs, and bowling alleys to continue to allow smoking if they pay a five-dollar additional annual fee for their licenses, and clearly mark the premises as a "smoking establishment".........seems to be working out well for everyone, as some of the bars also serve food, and it allows smokers someplace to go out for dinner.
YMMV
doc
It appears that we are on the same wavelength, Doc.
I, too, think it's absurd that ANY form of Government can force an owner of any establishment to completely change their patronage or their own rules. If any establishment WANTS to become non-(insert whatever here), that should be their CHOICE. I don't think that the additional fee is quite right even though it is a negligible amount. The fact is that the second hand smoke myth has been debunked, but, like the Global Warming myth, many people won't listen to reason. There are many things that the non-smoker is exposed to that causes cancer. One primary example is exhaust fumes which contain Benzene. Benzene is a KNOWN carcinogen, too.
-
And every single one of the MN residents have accepted it. By accepting it, you give them the authority. Not that difficult of a concept.
And do tell, how were they supposed to fight it?? The Dem contingent in the metro area is far too powerful and face it, the State benefits immensely from that extra $17 MILLION/ mo. Jason Lewis was against it, as were many of my contingents. No way to win. However, there WERE/ ARE ways around it........
-
It appears that we are on the same wavelength, Doc.
I, too, think it's absurd that ANY form of Government can force an owner of any establishment to completely change their patronage or their own rules. If any establishment WANTS to become non-(insert whatever here), that should be their CHOICE. I don't think that the additional fee is quite right even though it is a negligible amount. The fact is that the second hand smoke myth has been debunked, but, like the Global Warming myth, many people won't listen to reason. There are many things that the non-smoker is exposed to that causes cancer. One primary example is exhaust fumes which contain Benzene. Benzene is a KNOWN carcinogen, too.
And eventually, I think someone, or some group, will mount a constitutional challenge to these "Bans" of prefectly legal products otherwise, on the basis that the government has no enumerated power to restrict what happens on private property, when it concerns usage of a perfectly legal substance.........
doc
-
And do tell, how were they supposed to fight it?? The Dem contingent in the metro area is far too powerful and face it, the State benefits immensely from that extra $17 MILLION/ mo. Jason Lewis was against it, as were many of my contingents. No way to win. However, there WERE/ ARE ways around it........
If that's a serious question, why "fight" anything? :whatever:
Easy to fight... incredibly easy to fight... but people are too afraid, so they accept. And accepting is accepting - doesn't matter how you cut it.
-
If that's a serious question, why "fight" anything? :whatever:
Easy to fight... incredibly easy to fight... but people are too afraid, so they accept. And accepting is accepting - doesn't matter how you cut it.
Actually not......smokers are the modern equivalent of black folks during "Jim Crow" times.........they represent roughly 20 -25% of the population, so as a minority, they will never win at the ballot box, especially since Clinton was so successful in "demonizing" the smoking population.
In order to mount an opposition you would have to change the entire public perception of smokers......and that ain't gonna happen........
doc
-
I didn't see you leading any fight when that happened...... If it were so easy, then I'm certain that the fight would have been fought.
Doc, as I understand how it was passed in MN was that the legislature used some OSHA thing to put the ban in place.
The tobacco companies have folded on many issues and I don't even see them leading any fight against our intrusive Governments.
-
I split this out of the nicohol thread as I see a worthy discussion arising out of the OP.
-
I didn't see you leading any fight when that happened...... If it were so easy, then I'm certain that the fight would have been fought.
So don't fight anything because it's too difficult? I don't have a dog in the fight. I think it's fawking hysterical that people bitch and moan about government "taking" things when they never stand up to their own gov't... they just bitch and moan. Government cannot take when you (society) doesn't allow them to take. Is that complicated?
The tobacco companies have folded on many issues and I don't even see them leading any fight against our intrusive Governments.
It's not their fight... it's everyone's fight. Sitting back and saying "the tobacco companies should fight this" is no differen than a lib saying "rich people should pay for this..."
We will not see eye-to-eye.
-
Doc, as I understand how it was passed in MN was that the legislature used some OSHA thing to put the ban in place.
Got it......here it was placed on the ballot, and surprisingly only prevailed by about ten percent of the vote, which surprised me.......I guess that a lot of non smokers thought that it was a bad law as well
The tobacco companies have folded on many issues and I don't even see them leading any fight against our intrusive Governments.
Well.....already the majority of their products are exported, and if it wern't for the revenue that they generate for the government, I suspect that they would have either been sued, or legislated out of business a while ago. Most of them have diversified into other, less controversial areas in order to stay afloat.....
doc
-
If that's a serious question, why "fight" anything? :whatever:
Easy to fight... incredibly easy to fight... but people are too afraid, so they accept. And accepting is accepting - doesn't matter how you cut it.
And how does one oppose duly enacted law...even bad ones?
We can petition, campaign, vote or even run for office and I'm sure many folks who oppose compassion-fascism do just that but once the law is passed it can either be struck down (not applicable in the case of smoking bans) or it can be repealed by legislative process.
Those are your choices.
As a non-smoker I'm appalled by the treatment of smokers. Even though I prefer to not be around smoking while I'm eating I'd never be so presumptuous as to demand they live by my preferences if I were ever at a bar or other such place.
-
And how does one oppose duly enacted law...even bad ones?
We can petition, campaign, vote or even run for office and I'm sure many folks who oppose compassion-fascism do just that but once the law is passed it can either be struck down (not applicable in the case of smoking bans) or it can be repealed by legislative process.
Those are your choices.
Then why complain? No offense, MSB, but I have to ask if some of you all actually listen to what you say: These laws are wrong and gov't is stealing, cheating, it's all their fault there's nothing I can do and I'm tired of the LIBS not taking personal responsibility - I'm tired of them blaming others!
Seems people like to say they believe in the republic and the COTUS... but the moment things go they way they don't like, they BLAME OTHERS. That's the perfect picture of irony, IMHO.
-
Then why complain? No offense, MSB, but I have to ask if some of you all actually listen to what you say: These laws are wrong and gov't is stealing, cheating, it's all their fault there's nothing I can do and I'm tired of the LIBS not taking personal responsibility - I'm tired of them blaming others!
Seems people like to say they believe in the republic and the COTUS... but the moment things go they way they don't like, they BLAME OTHERS. That's the perfect picture of irony, IMHO.
I never said you had no options. Your options are the political and/or judicial processes.
When we're fighting to keep the libs from. Anti-smoking laws aren't going to change unless and until the popular culture rebels against such things. As detestable as LOCAL anti-smoking laws are people have a right to vote for such politicians. YOU/I/WE need to embarrass such people for their intrusive busy-body-ism. Pols wouldn't make the laws if people didn't reward them with re-election.
Right now its all conservatives can do on a national level to keep the commies from seizing healthcare, energy and education. It's not that this nation hasn't overcome worse: abolition, universal suffrage, civil rights. Others have suffered far worse than the deprivation of their civil rights than a mere cigarette.
The political process still works.
The other option is to go McVeigh and those types should be shot on sight.
-
I never said you had no options. Your options are the political and/or judicial processes.
When we're fighting to keep the libs from. Anti-smoking laws aren't going to change unless and until the popular culture rebels against such things. As detestable as LOCAL anti-smoking laws are people have a right to vote for such politicians. YOU/I/WE need to embarrass such people for their intrusive busy-body-ism. Pols wouldn't make the laws if people didn't reward them with re-election.
Right now its all conservatives can do on a national level to keep the commies from seizing healthcare, energy and education. It's not that this nation hasn't overcome worse: abolition, universal suffrage, civil rights. Others have suffered far worse than the deprivation of their civil rights than a mere cigarette.
The political process still works.
The other option is to go McVeigh and those types should be shot on sight.
In my area this ban on smoke is causing a few problems. The expensive restaurants have had to put in take out service for smokers and the waitresses get no tips or return customers from them.
Bars have crowds outside their door smoking and new customers have a problem getting through them into the building.
In the old day the cops would check out a crowd standing outside a bar or restaurant, now some joker will under the cover of others light up a joint. Stampede, everyone moving in that direction to inhale deeply.
The old hang outs we use to visit for a beer after work and perhaps order some food are gone for smokers, then the Lady's, the working girls have lost the pick up line, " Got a light Sailor.?"
Romance is becoming a thing of the past, no more late night closing down the bar dancing to SMOKE GETS IN YOUR EYES , those long slow looks of eye contact while lighting another cigarette. I wonder how many of us would be here if our parents had not met when one pulled out a ZIPPO.
What happens now with the nonsmoking group after sex, do they just roll over and go to sleep. Sometimes that cigarette after sex is the best time to talk to each other.
We are kind of turning on the products that helped America grow. Tobacco and Hemp [no THC ]