Jersey beach smoking ban ridiculous

[Danke]

Three health workers face murder charge over measles deaths

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I expect you will support my legislation that will ban anybody that is unvaccinated from going to the beach as well. Afterall, somebody contaminated with measles is potentially more dangerous than somebody that has a cigarette near you. I hope you got that 2nd shot, and are prepared to show your vaccination record when buying your beach tag.

ref:

Man, you guys really are grasping at straws here. How long did you stalk my post history to find that one? That was like 3-4 years ago, or more. Everyone that has taken the shot would be immune anyway, so it makes no sense to be scared of people who haven't gotten the shot. Of course, logic doesn't follow this thread. To debate that it's against liberty to have a smoking ban is one thing, to make insane and irrelevant comparisons and statements (Such as implying cigarette smoking actually protects your lungs ) is on the crazy wagon. And then, you know, when your arguments hit a wall you could always resort to what everyone does on internet forums when they can't find a good rebuttal, insult the user himself.

This ban should be left up to the communities not the state.

And what if a majority of the communities vote to have their public beaches smoke-free?
Yes I would support that on a community basis, and I'm sure it will have similar results, since public smoking bans are popular.
I think some towns already have had them before the legislation, anyway. 90% of the users in the thread use their selective hearing to not hear the other half of my debate, which bars and restaurants on private property that want to have smoking should. It would actually be BETTER this way, since a lot of smokers do it in public because they can't indoors. Then I can just avoid the smoking establishments.

 

[specsaregood]

ManHow long did you stalk my post history to find that one?

About 15 seconds total, advanced search -> vaccination. I happen to have the memory of an elephant.

Everyone that has taken the shot would be immune anyway, so it makes no sense to be scared of people who haven't gotten the shot.

Not true. vaccinations wear off, in fact there are lot of people running around where MMR has worn off since they got the shot as a kid and are unaware of it. There are also people physically incapable of getting the shots due to allergies or immuno-compromised-- I would probably give an exception to those people with a doctor's note.

Of course, logic doesn't follow this thread. To debate that it's against liberty to have a smoking ban is one thing, to make insane and irrelevant comparisons and statements

No quite, its quite the direct comparison. 1. you don't have to go to the beach. If you don't want to get the vaccination then you shouldn't be going to the beach and potentially put somebody else at risk. Hell, the vaccination requirement sounds like a much more important health issue than the smoking ban. you aren't going to die from being exposed to cigarette smoke for a limited time outside. you might very well die after being exposed to measles for a limited time outside.

why don't you support my vaccination mandate? Don't you love freedom and security?

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

About 15 seconds total, advanced search -> vaccination. I happen to have the memory of an elephant.


Not true. vaccinations wear off, in fact there are lot of people running around where MMR has worn off since they got the shot as a kid and are unaware of it. There are also people physically incapable of getting the shots due to allergies or immuno-compromised-- I would probably give an exception to those people with a doctor's note.


No quite, its quite the direct comparison. 1. you don't have to go to the beach. If you don't want to get the vaccination then you shouldn't be going to the beach and potentially put somebody else at risk. Hell, the vaccination requirement sounds like a much more important health issue than the smoking ban. you aren't going to die from being exposed to cigarette smoke for a limited time outside. you might very well die after being exposed to measles for a limited time outside.

why don't you support my vaccination mandate? Don't you love freedom and security?

You are looking at it from the completely wrong perspective. What if I went spraying in public spraying flu vaccine into people's nose? That's against their rights of bodily integrity. Someone smoking next to me without me wanting them to also violates my bodily integrity. Cigarette smoke is dangerous and toxic, no one debates that (Except Donnay; can't wait for the link where cigarettes are linked to preventing emphysema and throat cancer.) In the last topic I already said I've gotten very sick from secondhand smoke when I was younger. Yeah, as an adult it doesn't affect me as much since I have a fully developed immune system, but saying it doesn't affect me is crap.

To understand how smoking damages your sinuses, you need to know how your nose and sinuses help keep you healthy. The membranes in your nose and sinuses are constantly producing mucus that acts as a protective blanket for your whole respiratory system.

"The lining of the nose and sinuses is the same as the lining in the lung. There are cilia, or tiny hair-like structures, that clean the nose, sinuses, and lungs of airborne particulate matter, bacteria, and mucus,” explains Kathleen L. Yaremchuk, MD, an ENT (ear, nose, and throat) doctor and chairman of the department of otolaryngology at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. “Smoking causes the cilia to stop working, which predisposes the smoker to increased infections of the lungs and sinuses."

The nose and sinuses produce about one to two quarts of mucus every day, according to Samer Fakhri, MD, associate professor of otolaryngology at the University of Texas Medical School in Houston. "Normally, all that mucus travels to the back of your throat and you swallow it. When the cilia are damaged by smoking, the mucus backs up in the sinuses and bacteria start to multiply there. This can lead to a sinus infection.”

As soon as you inhale tobacco smoke, it starts to irritate your whole upper airway. Irritating gases like ammonia and formaldehyde cause your nose and sinuses to produce more mucus. You become more susceptible to colds and allergies and, eventually, to cancer of the throat and lungs.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/ear-nose-throat/sinuses-and-smoking.aspx

And like I said in an earlier post, it's not TOBACCO that is the problem. I could only wish people would start rolling up their own tobacco, or even using those electronic cigarettes, but cigarette companies put in many additives that produce toxins when burned.

One puff of smoke in my face isn't going to kill me, true, but when I work or go to a place constantly that is swarming with smokers, that one puff turns into a dozen puffs a day, and as we all know in America, if it doesn't kill you in a week, the health risks are ignored.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

WF,

Curious to know how your vaccine requirement worked out at college. My impression is that you can just about always being exempt for that stuff.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

WF,

Curious to know how your vaccine requirement worked out at college. My impression is that you can just about always being exempt for that stuff.

Yeah I got an exemption, had to sign a paper where I promised to not go to school if there was ever an outbreak. The ironic thing is, when the swine flu "epidemic" was out, one of my classmates got the vaccine for that, was sick for the next 2 weeks. Ok well maybe that's not ironic considering my exemption, but I still found it hilarious he got sick when the vaccine was supposed to "help" him.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah I got an exemption, had to sign a paper where I promised to not go to school if there was ever an outbreak.

Ah, that sounds simple enough, but I don't like that idea of signing a form. Not that I'm ever going back to "higher" education though. Thanks.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ah, that sounds simple enough, but I don't like that idea of signing a form. Not that I'm ever going back to "higher" education though. Thanks.

When you argue with people who are only smart enough to do their basic job, it's really hard to get anything through their heads. That's honestly all the form really said, other than I can't sue the school if I get sick. Like I'm going to sue the school for getting measles.

And oh yeah, I learned almost nothing I didn't already know, so I don't blame you. I can't even find a job even though I know everything I need to know for it.

 

[dannno]

I used to smoke and still do if I'm drinking around other smokers. (Peer pressure:o) I think cigarettes stink but if someone's smoke is bothering me, I just move away from them. It really is that simple.

I was at the beach a few weeks ago and there were people smoking right next to us, I couldn't smell it at all. My youngest son HATES the smell and he didn't even complain. I really don't see how smoking at the beach could be an issue, it's so windy and if you're worried about toxins, keep in mind, fish die in that water.

Ya this is my experience, I've never ever been bothered by people smoking outside and if I ever had been then all I would ever have to do is move 5 feet.

There's no legitimate medical reason or otherwise to ban smoking outdoors. I guess I'm ok with banning it in public buildings, but private buildings and establishments should be able to do what they want.

 

[DamianTV]

Then it is time for you to choose:

A: Too much freedom, where smokers are annoying
B: Too little freedom, where smokers are in prisons

Get off the fence and pick one.
(not attempting to be insulting or demeaning, so please dont take it as such)

@Warrior_of_Freedom, you never answered this.

Im not trying to be a dick about this particular question, but it was made to prove a point. This post actually isnt all attacks on you either.

Everyone knows our Govt uses as many dirty tactics as possible to get what it wants. The choices you are offered in ANY situation is the Illusion of Choice. This is what creates Thinking Inside The "Box". The limitation of choices is "The Box". And this is a choice that is being gradually and progressively programmed into the minds of the people, not just you. Like I said, not an attempt to be insulting directly toward you. Forget about yourself and smoking for just a sec and think about how many people will choose the first choice. I know you already said you dont want to throw people in jail for smoking in general, but think about how many people WILL choose the first choice. Whats happening is the Limitation of Choices creates a Polarization, which results in a Divide and Conquer strategy. Any group, be it an entire country, or something a bit smaller in scale, like one Forum that supports one Presidential Candidate can not survive if it remains divided against itself. Admittedly, as a Forum divided against itself, we are less influenced by other things that would affect a country, like economy or race, so here, we can omit those influences.

BOTH CHOICES WERE A TRAP

It didnt matter how you would have answered this. BOTH choices would have validated the existence of the State. Throwing people in jail results in bigger Govt. However, the "Freedom" choice is also a TRAP. It is a trap because we again validate the existence of Govt to come in, define what our Rights are, and get involved any time someone elses Rights are infringed on. These are the Choices that are being offered by Govt. Either validate a bigger Govt, or validate bigger Govt. Its not a real choice, again, it is the Illusion of Choice. Now, how many people reading this picked up on BOTH CHOICES BEING A TRAP?

There are many lessons in Public Schools. Very few actually have to do with Education. All those Multiple Choice Tests create a mindset in the student to choose only what is offered to them. Limitation of Choice is one of the real lessons in Schools. Illusion of Authority is another. Any time there is a conflict between students, they are taught to turn to whoever represents the Authority figure to settle their problems for them. Yet, the conflicts that occur between students almost never have anything to do with the subject matter that is taught. That is another lesson. Authority has ALL the answers, is NEVER wrong, NEVER is to blame for causing conflict, and Authority is the ONLY way to resolve conflict. Always surrender your own power to resolve a conflict to someone in Authority. The school subject is so vast that it does deserve its own damn forum here. Yet, the lessons taught by Public Schools still influence the way we think in this very thread. Its the Reinforcement of those School Concepts to perpetuate dependancy on Authority to solve ALL problems, even if we can resolve those problems ourselves. I think this is something we can pretty much agree on.

You got your Chocolate on my Peanut Butter! Bullshit, you got your Peanut Butter all over my Chocolate! Horseshit, you got your Chocolate in my Peanut Butter! Donkeyshit, you got your Peanut Butter all over my Choclate! Giraffe-shit, you got your Chocolate in my Peanut Butter!

GOVT BENEFITS FROM CONFLICT

Any time there is a conflict, Govt can benefit by validating its existence. It doesnt matter the subject, or especially the SCALE. Large scale disagreements obviously benefit Govt by validating its existence to "lay down the Law", however, same thing happens on a SMALL SCALE. As is taught in Public School, ALWAYS seek the figure of Authority to resolve ALL conflicts. Its Brainwashing. Its Programming. There are a ton of psychological factors that come into play with both. Brainwashing has roughly Ten Steps: Assault on Self, Installation of Guilt, Self Betrayal, Breaking Point, Channeling of Guilt, Replacement Solution, Channeling of Guilt, Reinforcement of Solution, Distancing of Self, Rebirth. This is covered in another thread, but as you can see, it plays heavily on both Guilt and replacing ones concept of what Self means. But not all psychological manipulations can qualify as Brainwashing. And these manipulations are often very simple. So simple they are almost always missed and ignored. One example is "Priming". Thats where repeating a phrase comes into play. "The economy is doing just fine". Repeat it often enough and it will displace a persons own conclusions to the point where a person thinks that the expected conclusion is one they created themselves. Once all these manipulations of any persons psyche are in place, Govt steps in to act like the Hero when it resolves the conflict it created. And Smoking is no exception. Govt didnt create Tobacco, but creates and benefits from the Conflicts that result. Apply to ANY conflict-trigger. Religion. Race. Welfare. Wages. Smoking. Drinking and Driving. Sex. Creationism vs Evolution. Feminism. Doesnt matter the subject, Govt steps in to validate its own existence by "laying down the Law". Make no mistake, Govt is the Real Enemy here that pushes only its own agendas while absolving itself of any Real Guilt for escalating the Conflicts it benefits from.

SCOPE OF AUTHORITY

If we are in a conflict, total power over the situation is neither in my hands, nor is it in yours. That total control of the situation however is contained somewhere between the both of us. Introduce a third party, and that control is shared between our collective. But all too often that Third Party that gets involved is Govt, and it places Claim on Authority to resolve the situation, favoring one or the other. I believe I have true Unlimited Authority over myself and only myself. I believe you have Unlimited Authority over yourself and only yourself. Govt believes it has Unlimited Authority over everything. The solution that should be realized is to take back that Authority from Govt and kick it out of involvement in our disagreement. We both share Total Power over any situation, but when Govt comes in, we choose to surrender our Shared Authority to let Govt get involved in the first place. Its the only time we are going to come to a meaningful resolution, as we both know Govt solutions are worthless because they are intended to deprive us of our individual Self Authority.

I dont have any Authority over you, nor should I. I cant tell you how to live your life in any way shape or form. If you have kids and decide to drink alcohol in front of your kids, I have no valid Authority to get involved. My Rights END where yours begin. Thus, you have Valid Authority to say "you can NOT smoke", but that Authority is limited in its Scope of where it is Valid. You can say "No Smoking in my house" and that is Valid. The Conflict that occurs is that Grey Area where our Rights end. It isnt quite as clearly defined as a Property Line, there is a bit of a fuzzy area. So to avoid confusion and fuzzy area conflict I'll cut my own crap and state what should be perfectly clear as a violation of scope of Rights. If I were to force you to Smoke, that would be a clear violation. If I were to force you to get Vaccinated, follow my Religion, have forced sex with who I told you to have sex with, these would all be perfectly clear violations of the Scope of my Authority. Now, when we flip the coin and play Devils Advocate, we dont see the same thing. You dont have a Valid Scope of Authority in your Rights to decree that I do NOT have the Right to Smoke. Remember, keep Govt out of this. Now lets examine the coin in detail. One side, I can force you to smoke. An obvious Rights violation. Flip the coin so on the other side, you can NOT smoke. It is just as much of a Rights Violation.

These Rights and Scope of Authority exist in Public as well as Private. I'll stick with Private for a second. Lets say we are neighbors. I smoke and you dont. I still dont have any Right to force you to smoke, just as you dont have any Right to force me to NOT smoke. And what we are seeing is that many many people are trying to claim that a person does not have any Right to smoke on Property that they own and will attack every vector possible to eliminate that persons unenumerated Right to smoke on their own property. These are obvious violations of a persons Rights. Size of property does not matter. Conditions do not matter. Direction of wind does not matter. Problem is when Govt gets involved, they dont just decrease the Rights of the smoker, they decrease the Rights of the Non Smoker as well, claiming that the Non Smoker also does not have the same Rights based on the attack vectors and arguments they themselves have made to invalidate the Rights of the Smoker. Thus, if you succeed in saying I dont have a Right to smoke on my own property (hypothetical, not that you actually said this), you are also saying that you also do NOT have a Right to Private Property, and that is exceptionally dangerous for both of us. Again, the real choice to my self quote at the start of this wall of text was to choose neither A or B, which means we both need to define our mutual Scope of Authority between ourselves without Govt. And that Scope is the realization of our Limits. I can choose to smoke or not smoke, but get zero say-so in what you do. You can choose to smoke or not smoke, but also get zero say-so in what I do.

SCOPE OF AUTHORITY EXISTS IN PUBLIC

Just as we can clearly define the Limits of our Rights, either with a Property Line, or clearly define what is in that Grey Area, those same Limits exist in Public. For example, Privacy. Privacy exists in Public because those Limits also exist in Public. Its a common misconception for one to think that they have a Right to Privacy (also not enumerated, penumbra) at home, but not in Public. They do. You go to lunch with your boss and discuss work related stuff. Just because you are in Public, it does not mean I have a Right to listen to everything you two say between each other.

Apply to Smoking In Public. I still do not have a Right to force you to Smoke in Public. However, flip the coin, you cant tell me I can not Smoke in Public as it exceeds your Scope of Authority. Im talking about First Hand Smoke, not 2nd Hand Smoke wishy washy baloney excuses. Always examine both sides of the coin and flip it often. Say youre the smoker, and you got offended by inhaling whatever I exhale. Do I have a right to breathe whatever I exhale on you? Its not forcing First Hand Clean Air, but 2nd Hand Clean Air (hypothetical where you were the smoker). To keep things in perspective, First Hand Smoking needs to be compared to First Hand Smoking. Second Hand Smoking (or breathing) needs to be compared to Second Hand Smoking. Lets reiterate. I can not force you to Smoke First Hand in Public, just as you can not force me to Not Smoke First Hand in Public. The End.

PEACEFUL NON-GOVT RESOLUTION

Conflicts need to be resolved without Govt. So lets create a hypothetical conflict and resolve it without Govt. I go to the Beach at the same time as you go to the Beach. I smoke and you dont. I still dont have a Right to force you to First Hand Smoke, and you dont have a Right to tell me Not to Smoke. I light up and youre down wind of me. The only real resolution we can have is to tell Govt to go fuck itself and we fight our own battles. You come up to me and tell me the smoke is bothering you. You might be suprised at my response not being as negative as you would imagine. So I'll offer a comprimise. I'll switch with you and go down wind, or move a bit further away so Im not blowing it right in your face. I may be respectful depending on how I am approached. Ask me and I'll try to comprimise. If you really want to be a Leader, suggest the comprimise that satisfies both of us. You make the suggestion of standing over there instead of demanding I not smoke period. Its that attitude that many people have of "do what the fuck I told you to do or I'll get Govt involved" that escalates most conficts, and again, goal is to Exclude Govt as the Power over the situation is shared between the Two Of Us and we should NEVER surrender our Power of Authority of Self to Govt. Conflicts also occur when people fail to recognize the Scope of their Authority of Self, which is when we see the crowd that doesnt appear to be present here, that demand No Smoking In Your Own Home, or Outlaw Smoking. Define and Defend your Rights in Valid Scope. Choose cooperation and comprimise of a situation without surrendering your Authority of Self to a Third Party. If a valid solution can not be had, re-examine all aspects of the situation. If I come to your home, you do have Valid Authority in Scope to say I can not smoke in your house. But if you come over to my home and I smoke, you dont have Valid Authority to force me to not smoke, however, you can ask me to not smoke around you. If I give you a ride in my car and I smoke in my car, ask me, and I will probably choose to not smoke in my car, because you asked and didnt try to force it. If you offer me a ride in your car and I know you dont smoke, I wont smoke in it. Just because I smoke doesnt mean I want to trample your Rights or offend you at every possible opportunity. I have a feeling youre probably similar in most aspects, and, like me, have more than a few triggers.

This is NOT an advocation of Anarchy. This is the consequence of the inconveniences of Too Much Liberty instead of the Opposite. Govt has its Valid Scope as well, and to keep a Balanced Govt, that Scope needs to be Limited. We both need to cooperate with each other so Govt does not come in and do what it does best, deprive us of BOTH our Rights and every aspect of our Rights. As it stands, we barely have any Rights left when Govt is involved, but, without Govt, we both still have Unlimited Inalienable Rights, with or without Govt, and WE are the ones that need to clearly define between ourselves what those Rights are when there is any form of disagreement.

I do understand that Health Concerns are a valid issue. However, any time we get Govt involved, it most often has the opposite effect of the intended results. Thus, the real "Healthy" choice is that we cooperate with each other and dont allow Govt to get involved at all. Im sure you would much rather deal with the consequences of asking me to move downwind of you than to call the Cops and get a Jackboot Thug that comes along and ends the life of the wrong person. How many times have Cops shown up and killed the person who asked for their help? The Courts defend the Cops, the Lawyers defend the Courts, the Legislators enable the Lawyers, and zero accountability is had for Govt Violence. Govt Solution on this scale to any Conflict is NEVER an option, ever. Never call the Cops. Especially for situations you can resolve yourself in proper Scope. So sure, 2nd Hand Smoke can be dangerous, but so can First Hand, and not everyone is offended by Second Hand Smoke. As a smoker, Im not. Even some non smokers arent offended either. But those are things for each individual to decide. Put side by side, the danger of a Govt that is Too Big to be held accountable far outweighs the danger of 2nd Hand Smoke.

For the record, if you had told me to "Go fuck myself" with those choices that I offered and suggested a Third Option (outside "The Box") for a Peaceful Conclusion, I actually would have +Repped you because you recognized the biggest threat to Rights, period, is Govt's Illusion of Choice, not the topic of Smoking.

 

[DamianTV]

Did I successfully kill this thread?

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Sorry I haven't been on in a few days because I tripped and screwed up my leg in 3 places. Been pretty much crippled in bed/a chair. Just realized slippery rugs are more dangerous than outside smokers.

 

[Paulbot99]

Did I successfully kill this thread?

No, I rather liked what you said.

 

[DamianTV]

Sorry I haven't been on in a few days because I tripped and screwed up my leg in 3 places. Been pretty much crippled in bed/a chair. Just realized slippery rugs are more dangerous than outside smokers.

That sucks. Yeah, we debate, but hope you get better soon.

(should make it illegal to have slippery rugs in peoples homes...)

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Smokers dump their cigarette butts in the sand. Beaches which allow smoking draw smokers like flies, and the entire coastline becomes a giant ashtray. Butts floating in the water, getting eaten by sea life. Supplementing sandcastles. It's a nightmare. A simple law can change the incentives and clean up the beaches. Where I live, our beaches are pretty much pristine. We have people coming from Hawaii to vacation here!

Do you really think we should let beaches be overrun with cigarette butts, broken bottles, and hypodermic needles like they have in LA? These places need to do what they can to change the incentives on the third party cost of bad habits. And furthermore we need to be good custodians of these unique ecosystems and their biodiversity.

 

[tod evans]

Smokers dump their cigarette butts in the sand. Beaches which allow smoking draw smokers like flies, and the entire coastline becomes a giant ashtray. Butts floating in the water, getting eaten by sea life. Supplementing sandcastles. It's a nightmare. A simple law can change the incentives and clean up the beaches. Where I live, our beaches are pretty much pristine. We have people coming from Hawaii to vacation here!

Do you really think we should let beaches be overrun with cigarette butts, broken bottles, and hypodermic needles like they have in LA? These places need to do what they can to change the incentives on the third party cost of bad habits. And furthermore we need to be good custodians of these unique ecosystems and their biodiversity.

Please keep your commiefornia attitudes and laws out there in the land of fruits-n-nuts!

 

[acptulsa]

Smokers dump their cigarette butts in the sand. Beaches which allow smoking draw smokers like flies, and the entire coastline becomes a giant ashtray. Butts floating in the water, getting eaten by sea life. Supplementing sandcastles. It's a nightmare. A simple law can change the incentives and clean up the beaches. Where I live, our beaches are pretty much pristine. We have people coming from Hawaii to vacation here!

Do you really think we should let beaches be overrun with cigarette butts, broken bottles, and hypodermic needles like they have in LA? These places need to do what they can to change the incentives on the third party cost of bad habits. And furthermore we need to be good custodians of these unique ecosystems and their biodiversity.

So, there has to be a one size fits all law? And you're going to write it? I can't toss my unfiltered butts, which are nothing but a bit of rice paper that disappears when wet, and tobacco leaves? It's too much trouble to write the law in such a way that a cop must check to see if I'm part of the problem or if I'm making an effort not to be before he busts me?

And what about those filter smokers who hike out their butts? It's good for tourism to bust them too, because instead of enforcing the laws against littering you feel the need to go all fundamentalist and say, even the careful ones are dirty sinners?

And banning smoking will prevent broken bottles and hypodermic needles? Really? Because only smokers break bottles and shoot up? Because those things aren't already banned?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Please keep your commiefornia attitudes and laws out there in the land of fruits-n-nuts!

There are certain laws which are bad. Like welfare. And there are certain laws which are good. Like addressing third party cost. I'm sure you've heard of the "tragedy of the commons". Unless you want to divide up the beaches and sell them off to private owners, (who will almost surely enforce similar anti smoking rules) you're going to have to find a way to address the pollution. Enforcing this sort of law is one of the few absolutely legitimate functions of a libertarian style government, along with upholding contracts and basic freedoms.

I have been to beaches where it seems like there are more cigarette butts than grains of sand. It is absolutely disgusting. You dig in the sand, and you find 10, 20, 50 butts all buried in there. You walk along the beach and the trash goes on for miles. You just look and butts, butts, butts everywhere. Is this a way to encourage tourism? Do you want your kids playing around on that beach?

I should also mention that the place where I live is heavily populated by wealthy engineers who are right of center on almost all political issues related to economics, while also being anti war. Basically it's a libertarian haven with a bunch of successful people who know how to get sh*t done. Believe it or not the majority of California is pretty conservative. But it has a reputation for liberalism because it's policies are almost entirely being driven by it's major cities; San Francisco, LA, and Sacramento.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I have been to beaches where it seems like there are more cigarette butts than grains of sand. It is absolutely disgusting. You dig in the sand, and you find 10, 20, 50 butts all buried in there. You walk along the beach and the trash goes on for miles. You just look and butts, butts, butts everywhere. Is this a way to encourage tourism? Do you want your kids playing around on that beach?

Someone working in the public sector is still cleaning that up because people still break the law with littering. It you're going to talking about things like genuineness and practicality, then just hire some kids for summer jobs to clean up the beach. You can't practically monitor the beach and "the trash [that] goes on for miles" anyway.

If you going to promote genuineness and practicality, then place more trash cans with cigarette receptacles. These already exist, so go with the straightforward solution of just placing a few more. Sure, jerks will be jerks, but laws don't stop those people anyway. Practical solutions go a long way in meeting people half way. It actually saves a lot of money over passing laws, enforcing laws, promoting laws, and all the other nonsense costs.

People are just so stubborn with this stuff. Americans have adopted the Singaporean mentality. They don't opt for the practical solution because they're so wrapped up with laws and ideas on how to totally beat down everyone who strays one micrometer from their twisted view of human interaction. It's as if these people have the smallest of cocks and this is their way of getting back at society.

 

[DamianTV]

First off, I think DevilsAdvocate may be an alternate profile of one of our other members here, not sure who, they might confirm this.

For practice, playing, as members name implied, Devils Advocate is excellent. Actual application of applied theories however is exceptionally counterproductive. Such an examle would be to ban all hopitials because hypdermic needles end up on beaches where people can step on them and get AIDS. Also to be banned is Legos and Staples because people can step on those and injure themselves as well. Also to be banned would be Diving Boards (California / Insurance for swimming pools), cars without backup cameras, bathtubs as so many people slip and fall there, and furniture because its both a fire hazard and something a person can fall off of and again cause self injury.

Another problem is Socialism. By deferring the costs of ones behavior on to someone else causes the effect of people now believing they have a "Right" to tell other people what they can and can not do. I have to pay for the consequences of someone else falling out of beds without rails, thus, I might claim (falsely) to have a "Right" to tell that person what to do. And as always, Govt absolves itself of creating the problems to begin with. Just look at what Govt has done to Feminism and turned it from "Equal Rights" into "Manbashing". Govt is what takes one persons money and gives it to someone else, thus, creates the problem. They take this persons money and give it to that person to take care of that other person who got injured by doing something stupid. Socialism blurs the lines that define the Limits of Rights. True Liberty comes from clearly defined Rights and Limits to those Rights. When two people interact and cooperate, they are the ones that define where those Limits are. When Govt gets involved, neither person has any Right, and the lines are distorted to benefit bigger Govt. Thus, Socialism is the exact opposite of Freedom. Socialism, again, indirectly, is almost the exact opposite of Cooperation.

Do people have the Right to complain about Smoking? Sure. They also have the Right to complain about everything from the stinkyness of Limburger Cheese to the way Govt works to the way others raise their kids. Do those complainers (we are included in this group to a certain extent) have an actual Right to dictate to others how to live their lives? Not only no, but fuck no. Thats where Govt comes into play. Govt claims to have the "Authority" to dictate to people how to live their lives when the average person does NOT have said Right of Dictation of Obedience. If people do not have a Right, neither does Govt. I dont have a Right to Dictate any Obedience to anyone. Guess what, neither does Govt. Nor do other people. But there are Reasonable Exceptions and Limitations to this, which is where Cooperation, Contracts, and Laws come from, in a round about way. Thus, both sides of what a person can and can not do is defined by what a persons actual Rights are as well as the Limits of those Rights.

What about Smoking on a Beach? Are all the beaches of the world so full of cigarette butts that they are as packed with those butts as a full ashtray is? No. Also guess what, cigarette butts DO break down. Not quite as quickly as toilet paper "dissolves" in toilet water, but neither do they have a half life that exceeds that of plastic. But as always, the biggest problem here is Govt. Govt claims to have Rights that it does not. In fact, ANY Govt claim to have a Right what so ever is invalid because a Govt in and of itself gets its Permissions from the Concent of the Governed. This mostly invalidates Govt Authority as well. And most of the people posting in this thread recognize this as another Abuse of Authority.

This thread really isnt about being Pro Smoker or Anti Smoker, but the thing that does make me happy to see in this thread is that people are very well aware to identify the real problem as Govt overstepping its Authority. It has very little to do with actual smoking, but much more so to do with being Anti Stupid Law (yay) that can not be enforced. (End generalized rant)

The Govt that governs best is the Govt that governs least. That is a self governed society wtihout the need or dependancy on an actual Govt.