User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.8193 seconds
42 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
A KID RATTED THE GUY OUT? What the hell?
So the lifer who sits at the bar for hours at a time gteting blottoed every single day doesn't have to worry about smoking related death now? Great Mission Accomplished! AT best you have employees free from smoke and you still haven't proven that these people actually exist in any great number. How many people wanted a smoke free environment? How many employees actually smoke? Hey I want my job to be a work free environment that pays $500,000 a year. Doing so will increase the likelihood that I live a healthy life until I am 80 or 90. Is it my right to have that? Is it my right to work in my industry and not have it be difficult at times? Work is stressful and that stress is eventually going to kill me, so is it my right to demand that my workplace be stress free to me for the sake of my health?
So, DMN, where do I sign up?
I have a personal boycott on foie gras as well (though I don't favor a corporate boycott). Yeah, all the meat comes from animals that were slaughtered, but the treatment for foie gras sounds almost gratuitously cruel.
Banning poor people from going outside?
Welcome to Beijing's Olympic 2008 strategy.
I think it is pretty easy to see the bottom of the hill and the bottom of the hill isn't foie gras. The bottom of the hill is going to be the massive alterations to what most of us consider to be our normal lifestyle and choices we make in that life.
Want bacon? Ooh sorry too fatty, here have some turkey. Want a milkshake? Ooh sorry not good for you, try some Tofrutti. Want a doughnut, and hey you want some coffee with that? Ooh sorry no can do. Here have some lemongrass tea and a soy loaf.
Everything that is happening now isn't the endgame it is the beginning of the slope.
Certainly there was: don't go into bars.
I know of plenty of bars that didn't "force" its patrons to go into the bar. Like, all of them.
Um, "try" being the operative word. Some people -- the people who really want to quit -- do. My dad smoked for 20 years and one day when he was 35 decided to quit; he quit that day and hasn't picked up a cigarette in the 30 years since.
As people have explained to you repeatedly, the parties affected are the businesses who want to use transfats, and the consumers who want to eat food cooked with them.
You know, the cigarette ban has improved my life -- since I don't smoke. I still oppose the ban nevertheless. Sometimes being mature (and dare I say unselfish) means not forcing change on other people simply because it's good for you. And it's the height of arrogance to pretend you know better what's best for a person than they do.
Yes I read it but that doesn't mean I have to support everything you say.
Hear, hear McCoy. Stress should be ended forever. Poor people not only have more stress, they're also poorly educated at the effects of stress on the body. Business owners should have to pay a stress tax in order to offset the additional health risks their stressed employees take with the stress taxes put in a special stress fund that the government promises will not be put to some other use, like building a bridge for connected Alaskan politicians.
And you chucklefucks better smart smoking immediately. With SCHIP funding tied to cigarette taxes, by reducing your smoking, you're cutting funding and thus, are a bunch of CHILD MURDERERS!
Your real problem appears to be with the soybean industry.
Well then why eat chicken, duck, or cow? Or really any animal or farm raised fish at all? There is nothing pleasant about a chickens life. Check out how veal is made.
But you acknowledge the point and then went off on asking me about the justifications for a ban which I believe lacks justification.
It's the "so far" and "huge success" I have an objection to, like people were dropping like flies and suddenly they're living instead. It's a gross overstatement used to justify the elimination of rights.
As it turns out, I am pretty close to the fence re: the smoking bans, but still on the against side. You will not see me crusading strongly against them. I recognize potential health issues but do not think this in particular rises to the degree of dangerous work conditions to merit a complete ban. I think there is a more reasonable middle ground, and I'm fine with banning smoking in environments where a person can't conveniently get away (airplanes, courthouses, police stations, etc.).
We have a fundamental right to travel, but not one to eat in a particular restaurant or bar.
The ban in question is a labor issue.
Bartenders that didn't want to work in a smoke environment didn't have to be bartenders. There are lots of dangerous jobs in this world and nobody forces you take those jobs. To me it's like working on a off-shore oil rig and demanding that it shouldn't be an off-shore oil rig.
I spend an inordinate amount of time in bars, and I'll tell you I know a lot of bartenders who used the ban as an excuse to quit. It made it easy for them to do so. A lot of people start working in bars when they're young and don't really care much about their bodies. As they get older, they may not want to switch jobs, but that doesn't mean they want cancer. That's like saying if someone wants to be a prostitute they should expect to be raped because that's just the way it is. Working on an oil rig doesn't mean your work environment should expose you to unnecessary dangers. Secondhand smoke is an unnecessary danger. If you go to work in one of the city's few cigar bars, you don't have a gripe, b/c the purpose of the said establishment is to allow people to smoke. You could've made the same pro-smoking argument in the 1970s about malls or airports. Should we bring back smoking at those places?
As for the choice why is it somebodies right to go into a smoke free bar? Or I should say why should it be forced that every single person now must choose a smoke free bar? Why couldn't we simply let the market dictate what we actually want? If there was a market for a smoke free bar then guess what we would have smoke free bars naturally.
It's a regulated industry. That means there's no such thing as natural. The non-smokers feel like they can stay longer at bars and are more likely to go to them b/c they aren't forced to smoke when they drink/socialize. This regulation may have been a net positive for these businesses. As I said, there are hundreds (thousands) of bars in NYC, and I don't know of any that were nonsmoking before the ban. Post-ban, there's still a lot of places that skirt the regulations, which is a calculated risk on their part that they're free to engage in.
Courts can already intervene to prohibit people from smoking around their children. My sister dealt with this- her baby daddy doesn't believe second hand smoke is bad, and has said openly in court that he'll continue to smoke as much as he wants when their daughter is visiting his tiny apartment. This is apparently an issue that's pretty common in custody battles. The court routinely tells people they will jeopardize visitation if they smoke around the child because the child shouldn't suffer deleterious health effects because of her father's poor decisions and indifference to their child's health.
I also find this line interesting: The problem with poor people isn't that they can't afford basic food/produce it is that they don't want to buy that food. Either because of time restraints, laziness, or lack of education/knowledge on how to prepare it.
That sounds like you're saying that poor people are either impatient, lazy or ignorant. All I can say is that I hope that over time you develop a more generous view of people.
As opposed to the view that they are 5-year-old children that can't be trusted to make Big Important Decisions for themselves, such as what to eat for lunch?
Seriously guys, White people should stop messing around with Tofu and Soy products in general. Just stop it, you're embarassing yourselves.
Tofu is a manly food made with grease, chilli peppers, garlic, green onions, and ground pork, and stir fried in a hot wok, and NOT the food of girly hippies.
People, tofuburgers are the food of the devil. Or idiots who have no tastebuds.
You're speaking for a lot of us here.
I can see the smoking and trans fat bans as a public health issue, but at some point you simply have to draw the line and say that with all the information that's now been put out there (and more to come, I'm sure), it's not up to the government to tell people what to do on the consumer level.
As a practical compromise, I'd support a requirement for a separate and well-protected space for non-smokers---which used to be the law in many areas that now have a complete ban---but that's not the same thing as a 100% ban itself. That not only allows a true choice for patrons, but it lets the restaurant and bar owners get a true sense of what percentage of their customers really care about the issue.
As for trans fats, I'm pretty sure that the amount of publicity given to the subject will eventually result in a much lower use of it anyway. I already notice that many products advertise "NO TRANS FATS," and even if most of them never had any to begin with---I'm sure that we'll be seeing such boasts on bottled water before long---there's still an obvious trend away from their use. I don't see any need to ban them; just make the restaurants and product manufacturers tell you when they're using them and let you make up your own mind.
Yet this can't be applied to all bars? Bars allowed smoking, if you didn't want to be around smoke then guess what don't work at a bar.
Again if non-smokers want to go to a bar and have it smoke free then create smoke free bars. Something any individual could do, but don't force every single human being to make the choice you would make.
As for courts again the issue isn't whether or not the government is doing it but whether or not the government should do it. I'm no libertarian but I don't think we should making our government our Lord Protector. I don't think the government should be deciding how I live my life.
I spend an inordinate amount of time in bars, and I'll tell you I know a lot of bartenders who used the ban as an excuse to quit.
Guess what so do I and I can say that lent or new years eve or some book or whatever was used as an excuse to quit too. Doesn't mean my rights should be taken away just so somebody else can use it as an excuse to quit.
Am I saying that all poor people are what I said? No, just the ones who make the poor decisions, which goes for middle class people who make the same stupid choices, and rich people who make the same choices. Again if you are some fool who decides to overload on fatty, unhealthy processed food that is your fault. But just because you do it doesn't mean I can't make a better choice on the amount of that food I eat. I shouldn't have my right taken away completely simply because someone somewhere won't make the choice you like.
Andy this was a good solution and it worked but the non-smoking fanatics didn't want to stop there. They couldn't accept that some people were smoking, didn't they know they were killing themselves, I've got to help them by taking away their ability to make choices. But I do agree that smoking shouldn't be allowed everywhere. I do agree that in places where a human cannot make a choice on whether or not to be there should either have areas for both or not allow it.
Oh and by the way people I don't smoke. I've never smoked a day in my life.
I don't think not having the pots and pans is the issue. It's that a number, but not all, of the reasons poor people don't eat healthier food is that the restrictions you speak of disproportionally affect them more than wealthier individuals. Many poor people work two jobs or hope to work as many hours/days a week as they can purely as a matter of economic survival (paying for rent, clothing, etc...). Time restraints are more of a factor to someone working 10hr days or 6 days a week than they are to someone working a white collar 9-5 job, for example.
Single mothers are also often poor. Again, time restraints are a factor there, as the mother is often trying to not only provide for her child(ren) not only monetarily, but also in terms of educational and extra-curricular support. If a mother gets home at 6pm and wants to take her daughter to ballet class or son to a soccer game at 6:30 or 7:00, she is limited in the choice of food she can prepare, especially since she'll likely have or want to supervise the child and there is no husband there to prepare a meal for 8:30 in the evening. These sorts of situations that lead to poor people cooking microwavable foods or buying fast food far more often than they should.
Sometimes its laziness, but often it's either a result of socioeconomic circumstances or a lack of knowledge as to why people eat unhealthier than they should. Poor people may not make "pennies a day," but living on minimum wage with dependents isn't a bloody picnic either.
I never said or implied that. <u>I am not a supporter of the ban on trans fats.</u> I was never arguing in favor of banning trans fats. My main points have been: 1. Many poor neighborhoods lack supermarkets or other stores that sell good produce; 2. Many fast foods, even low-fat and no-fat ones, offer more calories for less expense than healthier foods; 3. I specifically said that sometimes people should know better -- e.g., they often make bad choices.
I'd like to think the grocery industry will address the first point, but it hasn't so far. I have some faith in the power of the free market, but not complete faith, as a good chunk of the free market is run people who are just as dumb and as likely to make bad choices as the rest of us.
When these bans were first proposed, the room owners were nearly hysterical and the players who smoked were upset. Most of these places nowadays have bars attached to them, and so you had a twin worry of losing both drinkers and pool players. Many of my smoking friends (at that point about half of the players I knew) swore that they'd quit the game or just play at home.
When the ban was finally passed into law, there was a brief period where some of the players actually did stop coming in. I'm not really sure whether it was because they didn't like having to walk outside to smoke or whether or not they just saw it as a matter of principle; the two reasons were often hard to separate in the eyes of a nonsmoker like myself.
But today, several years later, the only smokers I knew who haven't returned to the pool room are the ones who moved out of the area---and the one who's since died of lung cancer. Bill Elliott RIP.
The biggest effect now of the ban is that smokers often use their smoking breaks as a way of breaking the rhythm of a match when their opponents are in dead stroke. Which may be one reason I'm against the ban, since I get that move pulled on me at least two or three times a night. It's the smokers' revenge.
You can frame it however you want -- workplace issue, public health issue -- it's the same thing. The Queens city council member is certainly not saying that smoking in one's own car is a labor issue; he's found another mechanism (public health, The Children!) to infringe other people's privacy rights.
The transfats ban certainly is not a workplace issue.
The way the insurance industry is set up, they don't even need that excuse to ban things that are bad for you. The insurance industry made wearing one's seatbelt (a choice that has no direct affect on anyone but the person making the choice) mandatory because it affects insurance rates.
If I go to Mcdonald's and buy everything off the dollar menu it still comes out to 8 bucks for 4 people, and I am giving you more food.
Well no the insurance industry said that if you want us to pay for your damages then you have to do something to mitigate the damages. You were not forced to have insurance (well I guess a lot of people are now), the seat belt was a deal between the individual and the company in order to be covered.
Disclaimer: Smoker from age 15-25; quit cold turkey and haven't had a cigarette in 30+ years. I now hate smoke. I do chew the edges of my cuticles though; I think that is healtier than smoking. I do not support a ban on cuticle/nail biting.
I miss blowing smoke rings; I was PD good at that. I still blow smoke rings with my breath when it's cold enough outside.
I have never HAD veal. Don't they like trap cows in a cage or something to grow it?
If that is the case, a seatbelt law would be wholly unnecessary. A person could simply not wear the seatbelt and accept the consequences of not having his medical bills covered. It could be detailed in his insurance policy. (This might present a problem in states where liability insurance is not required.)
The seatbelt laws primarily serve two extra purposes:
1) Generate income for the municipality.
2) Provide justification for otherwise suspicionless stops.
Veal. It's not just us.
Except it didn't work all that well. Many restaurants simply designated one area of an open room as smoking and the other as non-smoking. The non-smoking area was typically fine at the far side of the area but if you were next to the imaginary wall you might as well have been the Marlboro Man himself.
I can only claim knowledge of the places I went to, but that wasn't true of the one I went to twice a week. The tournament room was designated non-smoking and I couldn't smell a thing. But the crucial point in divided restaurants often is in the quality of the ventilation system even more than in any physical barrier, and this place had a good ventilation system.
And I do notice that ex-smokers that I know, for whatever reason, are often way more sensitive to secondhand smoke than people like myself who never smoked. My former bookstore manager quit his 4-pack a day (he says) habit in 1984, and I've known him since 1985. I swear to God that this guy would complain about smokers who were standing outside with the door closed, and if the door were open for five seconds he could smell the smoke (he said) from three doors away. The melodrama in his voice was often quite intense.
- Legalization of marijuana: Support
- Ban on smoking in restaurants: Support
- Ban on transfats: Haven't formed an opinion
- Ban on foie gras: Oppose (although I personally wouldn't eat it for ethical reasons)
- Legalization of marijuana: Agin'
- Ban on smoking in restaurants: Agin'
- Ban on transfats: Agin'
- Ban on foie gras: Agin'(although I wouldn't eat it for taste reasons)
- Veal: For it!!! (I'm personally for anything resembling a peasant's diet: veal, pig (suckling or otherwise), duck, rabbit, innards, outerds, upperds, and so on.)
- Legalization of marijuana: YAY
- Ban on smoking in restaurants: YAY
- Ban on transfats: What are you, retahded?
- Ban on foie gras: It's innards, which I support, but it's also French, which I'm against, so torn on this one.
I'll bet that a lot of these people who claim that the poor don't have enough access to affordable produce are probably the exact same people who go ballistic when a Sam's Club wholesale warehouse tries to open a store in these kinds of neighborhoods.
- Legalization of marijuana: Sure, but no advertising or branding whatever. We don't need to have an R.J. Reynolds of weed. Keep the megaprofits out of it and keep the production homegrown, or at least not controlled by cartels.
- Ban on smoking in restaurants: No, just a nonsmoking section. I'd treat cigarettes and marijuana exactly in the same way, regulated by the FDA but not prohibited.
- Ban on transfats: No, just truth in labeling
- Ban on foie gras: It's a delicious but disgusting product, like the end result of dogfighting might be in Korea if they ate the losers. Can't see a ban, though.
I agree about treating cigarettes and marijuana exactly in the same way, but I have no problem with banning both from restaurants.
That would be me. When you are at a non-smoking bar, and go out to smoke, who else is outside puffing away? Good-looking women away from their entourage. If you are ever in a slump with the ladies, take up smoking and head to the bar. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Live music above 100 dB: Banned in Sweden.
Our politicians are very suspicious of this dangerous foreign concept called "fun"...
I have a fundamental right to air travel? Then I should fly for FREEE!!!!!!!!111one
That amazes me. I've never been to Sweden, but I always thought that it was known as a fun loving, free wheeling, libertarian leaning type of country.
And what's the upside here? Scoring with a chick who's mouth tastes like an ashtray, and who's hair, clothes, and apartment reek of smoke? No thanks.
If I could blow smoke rings, I'd take up smoking.
That's the thing, we love to party, and the way to win our votes is to be a hardliner against drugs, alcohol and tobacco so they can enact laws we have to weasel our way around...
In Swedish law there is no distinction at all between soft and hard drugs. Heroin or marijuana? Same thing. And something like 95% of the population supports the hard line on drugs.
Make sure she is hot. Buy lots of altoids.
Sounds like Amerika.
Laziness is my reason, and I'm far from poor.
Think Utah, except for the "love to party" part.
Similarly, I've always said that I would have picked up smoking if I could have kept a cigarette dangling from my lower lip during the middle of a football game, as the pre-80s Andy Capp could do.
To be fair, the man does make some fine hot fries. He's a true renaissance man among unemployed, violent alcoholics.
With regards to sections, most indoor buildings do not have a good enough air system to clear the air.
Finally, smoking bans have been very effective in reducing the number and amount of cigarette consumption. This will eventually lead to better health.
No, that's not inconsistent - they're saying it should be the choice of the person who owns the property. I don't think any libertarian would object to a restaurant deciding for themselves that they want to be smoke-free. Libertarians aren't pro- or anti- smoking here, they're pro-choice and libertarians would object just as much to a law forcing restaurants to institute a non-smoking ban.
but why did this never happen in practice? that's the disconnect.
Stan Musial could beat that. He used to be able to glue a cigarette to his teeth.
P.S. It helps to click on the ad and get the bigger version.
The problem with that is the free riding problem. Much like in taxes, everyone wants the benefit. Nobody wants to pay for it.
Most bar owners probably prefer a smoke free enviroment. It is easier to keep clean. They and their employees are healthier. If there wasn't a ban, most bars would be forced to allow smoking to keep the customers.
but why did this never happen in practice? that's the disconnect.
Where's the evidence that this never happened in practice? I know from personal experience that there were quite a few non-smoking restaurants in suburban Baltimore (Towson->Cockeysville corridor) long before smoking bans were even a twinkle in a fascist's eye.
Just a quick check of the web reveals a lot of voluntary smoke-free restaurants. Just for example, the State of Mississippi keeps an online database of restaurants that are voluntarily smoke-free - I found like 100 in the Jackson, MS area in like 30 seconds.
Uhhhh....yes. That's the upside.
So when you go to a bar, what is your 'upside'?
[Edited because I keep reading "bar" as "restaurant" like a doofus]
I would argue that getting into the bar business and wanting a smoke-free environment is a bit like getting into the medial business and wanting a contagious illness-free environment.
Good catch - I was lumping them together.
You're missing the point; the issue is who decides, not what the decision is.
Finally, smoking bans have been very effective in reducing the number and amount of cigarette consumption. This will eventually lead to better health.
And for the umpteenth time, some people want to trade health for smoking. I love how smokers are looked upon as dumb people who simply lack will power. Lots of things are inherently dangerous -- driving, skiing, riding motorcycles -- but people do those things all the time. There's nothing special about smoking.
Evidence? There are a ton of restaurants that voluntarily ban smoking.
The airlines. Most of them wanted smoking banned but couldn't do it on their own. Only when a general ban was passed could they do it.
I know that Foxwoods designated a massive non-smoking area for gambling long before any legislation mandating it. The Bellagio had a nonsmoking poker room before all of them went smoke-free.
Last time I was in Vegas, you could smoke at the tables, but nowhere else in the hotel. I think that's a law though.
Actually, I'm in favor of smoking bans on airplanes - it becomes a public safety issue because small fires that would be nothing in a normal situation become very serious on a plane.
But again, property owners have the right to do what they want with their property. They don't have a right to be profitable, however.
There are things I want banned if it potentially effects my health if I don't choose to do it
1) Racing on the public highways.
2) Riding a bicycle on the sidewalk
3) Smoking.
If you choose to ride a donorcycle (which I did when young), or rock climb (which I have), it does not effect my health. Your smoking in my presence does. Plus it is annoying.
I should note that I'm in favor of smoking bans in places that are actually publicly-owned. It's the bans in privately-owned places I have a problem with. You should have a right to walk in a publicly-owned park without secondhand smoke, but you have no right to visit Joe's Bar for a drink if Joe says smokers can smoke.
Being a suburban boy all my life is pretty much why I think of restaurants and bars as being the same thing - I can't think of the last time I was in a bar in a non-city situation in which it wasn't also a food-serving place.
Putting aside the point that you don't have to be there, no, it doesn't. Do you realize how low the exposure levels are from the occasional secondhand smoke?
But we limit what can go on in Joe's all the time.
What if Joe likes to blast music so loud it hurts eardrums.
What if Joe likes dog fighting
Or serving absinthe
Or serving 19 year olds.
Why couldn't they?
Most bar owners probably prefer a smoke free enviroment. It is easier to keep clean. They and their employees are healthier. Now that is funny, a bar cleaning.
If there wasn't a ban, most bars would be forced to allow smoking to keep the customers.
Most bars want smoking. If tomorrow the states decided to allow cigarette bars and it cost $500 a year to get a cigarette license I'm willing to bet something like 90% of the bars in that state would apply for that license.
And for the umpteenth time, some people want to trade health for smoking.
For whatever this is the point that most people against smoking or against anything keep missing. Why some are bringing up that bars are doing fine is beyond me. What I don't understand is why we are not given option. Why can't we have cigarette bars? Why can't we have a place that is for smoking? Why is it not allowed period?
i'm not necessarily talking about places that don't serve food (although they do exist), but there is a difference. you were talking about restaurants that voluntarily banned smoking ... that wouldn't happen if the place's primary function is as a bar--in my experience it just didn't happen around here.
What if Joe likes to blast music so loud it hurts eardrums.
What if Joe likes dog fighting
Or serving absinthe
Or serving 19 year olds.
Joe's is a really cool place. Have to go there sometime.
But why do you have to be there smoking. Why am I force to live like a monk? You can still smoke. Go outside for a minute, come back in.
Leaving the health considerations aside (which if I am only occasionally in the presence of a smoker are reasonably small) how about the smell? Who is going to pay for my dry cleaning to rid the smoke smell.
What if Joe likes to blast music so loud it hurts eardrums.
What if Joe likes dog fighting
Or serving absinthe
Or serving 19 year olds.
And again the point isn't whether or not the government is doing something but whether or not they should be doing something. For instance 19 year old should be able to drink. Guess what folks in the state of Wisconsin if you are married or with your legal guardian you can drink at any age you want as long as your legal guardian is present and consents or your spouse does the same. I've served 15 year olds and the world didn't end.
Why don't you go outside?
Because I want to be (well, not me, since I don't smoke) and because it -- used to be -- allowed.
Why am I force to live like a monk? You can still smoke. Go outside for a minute, come back in.
You're not "forced" to do anything. You're forcing _other people_ to do something.
Leaving the health considerations aside (which if I am only occasionally in the presence of a smoker are reasonably small) how about the smell? Who is going to pay for my dry cleaning to rid the smoke smell.
You are, of course, since you decided to go into a place where people were smoking. See how simple this is?
Blasting music affects multiple people, and regulating it is probably ok.
Dog fighting hurts dogs, and is an issue of animal cruelty, and should be prohibited.
What's wrong with absinthe? If people want to drink it, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Why shouldn't 19 year olds be able to drink? They can serve in the military and vote, and thus are expected to make choices, but they can't choose to drink?
What if Joe likes to blast music so loud it hurts eardrums.
What if Joe likes dog fighting
Or serving absinthe
Or serving 19 year olds.
And most of other limits on Joe's are just as wrong as a smoking ban. There's no reason 19-year-olds shouldn't be drinking absinthe in Joe's Bar if they choose to as they are adult citizens, not subjects of, property of, or wards of the State.
The first one, if the blast music is so loud that it affects the property of others that didn't make the conscious decision to enter Joe's Bar, then it shouldn't be allowed, because it's directly infringing on the rights of Mindy's Flower Shop or Gean's Transgendermatorium.
I can't answer the second one - how animals fit into the big picture is something I'm quite torn on.
That would probably be a huge nuisance for Joe's neighbors. If he can properly soundproof his bar so as not to be a public nuisance, then let him.
In fact, he's allowed to.
What if Joe likes dog fighting
I consider animal cruelty to fall under "disallow behavior that is harmful to others who do not or cannot consent."
Or serving absinthe
Absinthe should be legal.
Or serving 19 year olds.
19 year olds should be able to legally drink.
You seem to be missing the point. Our government limits (reasonably) our ability to engage in behavior that harms those who do not consent or are mentally incapable of giving consent. Our government limits (unreasonably) our ability to engage in behavior that harms only ourselves and those who consent to be harmed.
that's not true. we are PREVENTING other people from smoking inside. we are forcing people to NOT do something.
And that's two cokes to me....
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main