NY State Bans Vaping Indoors

NeghVar said:
I believe it is the responsibility of the employer to disclose such info. But it is the responsibility of the employee to choose whether or not he/ she is willing to work in such an environment. At every employer I have had, part of the hiring process is to read through and agree to the employee handbook/ company policies. And if it is disclosed in the handbook that this is an establishment that allows smoking, then it is the choice of the potential employee. If the employee chooses to work there and gets sick from it, then the employer should not have any liability. The employee agreed to work under those conditions. There are plenty of other jobs out there.
Click to expand...
Except that's not how it works. The employer is responsible for all that befalls on the employees while they are working, whether it's getting injured on the job, or getting sick from inhaling toxic fumes while on the job, it is always the employers responsibility. This isn't like the days of coal mining and oops you got black lung disease, well here's a 2 weeks severance package bye. You're not allowed to sign your rights away for a job.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Except that's not how it works. The employer is responsible for all that befalls on the employees while they are working, whether it's getting injured on the job, or getting sick from inhaling toxic fumes while on the job, it is always the employers responsibility. This isn't like the days of coal mining and oops you got black lung disease, well here's a 2 weeks severance package bye. You're not allowed to sign your rights away for a job.
Click to expand...

Where I live and many other states are "right to work" meaning the employer has no right to hire you, and you have no right to get a job somewhere. You don't like the job or conditions, find a different one.
 
rgMekanic said:
That's because I've found that the majority of vapers are not or have not been smokers, therefore they have no etiquette at all.
Click to expand...

A few. Though the ones I'm thinking about were smokers for years. To them it's because "it's just vapor" they don't think it's the same as smoke.

It's vapor, spit, whatever they ate for lunch, and whatever nasty flavor they chose.
 
jfreund said:
I'd expect nothing less from NY than passing knee-jerk legislation based on questionable "science". I'm sure CA either has or will soon do the same.
Click to expand...

Well, the entire North East was right there with New York, and pretty much the entire North East has gone back and now allows bars and restaurants to do what they should have done all along. Now they just have to have smoking areas with great ventilation and people can smoke inside again instead of being treated as lepers.
 
NeghVar said:
Yes, we have all heard of the second hand smoke. But back to the beginning. It is the choice of the consumer. If all bars and taverns followed suit and permitted smoking, tough luck. The world does not revolve around the individual. I am one who would deal with the inconvenience, not go whining to the municipality that things aren't going my way.
Click to expand...

Congrats on your willingness to deal with the inconvenience I suppose. Setting aside personal choice for a moment, what about all of the servers and other people who would have no choice but to deal with it on a near constant basis or become unemployed? You would be demonstrably shortening the lives of individuals who may not have many employment options to appease the selfish addition of a shrinking segment of the population.

In your hypothetical world, where exactly would you draw the line? Would it be only bars and restaurants? What about children who may not have a choice about what restaurant they go to? What about hospitals or planes?

The problem with your contention is that you could use it to justify pretty much any activity.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Congrats on your willingness to deal with the inconvenience I suppose. Setting aside personal choice for a moment, what about all of the servers and other people who would have no choice but to deal with it on a near constant basis or become unemployed? You would be demonstrably shortening the lives of individuals who may not have many employment options to appease the selfish addition of a shrinking segment of the population.

In your hypothetical world, where exactly would you draw the line? Would it be only bars and restaurants? What about children who may not have a choice about what restaurant they go to? What about hospitals or planes?

The problem with your contention is that you could use it to justify pretty much any activity.
Click to expand...
You always have a choice. This is just more justification for more Govt control over individuals.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Congrats on your willingness to deal with the inconvenience I suppose. Setting aside personal choice for a moment, what about all of the servers and other people who would have no choice but to deal with it on a near constant basis or become unemployed? You would be demonstrably shortening the lives of individuals who may not have many employment options to appease the selfish addition of a shrinking segment of the population.

In your hypothetical world, where exactly would you draw the line? Would it be only bars and restaurants? What about children who may not have a choice about what restaurant they go to? What about hospitals or planes?

The problem with your contention is that you could use it to justify pretty much any activity.
Click to expand...

A lot of the non smoking laws came about because of the server issue. The voters (or the people you voted for) decided the my way or the highway line in the sand was there. Yes the server does not have to work at a smoking establishment, or even be a server period. Tough luck only works so far.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Congrats on your willingness to deal with the inconvenience I suppose. Setting aside personal choice for a moment, what about all of the servers and other people who would have no choice but to deal with it on a near constant basis or become unemployed? You would be demonstrably shortening the lives of individuals who may not have many employment options to appease the selfish addition of a shrinking segment of the population.

In your hypothetical world, where exactly would you draw the line? Would it be only bars and restaurants? What about children who may not have a choice about what restaurant they go to? What about hospitals or planes?

The problem with your contention is that you could use it to justify pretty much any activity.
Click to expand...

The local casinos allow smoking. The employees know what they're getting into and they know that those aren't the only places they could work. If I was looking for a job, I would avoid applying to the casino... which is what I did. On the other hand, people who smoke have had no issue working there.
 
Coffeve said:
You always have a choice. This is just more justification for more Govt control over individuals.
Click to expand...

Yez its like OSHA. You can work in a dangerous workplace if you want to. If not enough people take the jobs, the business just goes under.
 
From a person with a lot of vapers running around , Oregon.

The avg vaper uses the device responsibly, but some tamper with them and make huge obnoxious clouds and sometimes do it I doors.

From a health science standpoint it takes a while for longitudinally relevant research to complete and a while to synthesize the results.

We probably won't have definitive results for another few years.

For not I put the cloud makers in the same group that rolls coal.
 
So is New York going to ban all their Taxi cabs from vaping too?
 
lcpiper said:
Well, the entire North East was right there with New York, and pretty much the entire North East has gone back and now allows bars and restaurants to do what they should have done all along. Now they just have to have smoking areas with great ventilation and people can smoke inside again instead of being treated as lepers.
Click to expand...

Here in Virginia when they made the no smoking bans in restaurants they said at that time a restaurant could seal off an area specifically for smokers. However since the law went into effect years ago, I've only been in 1 restaurant that has a sealed off smoking section.

I couldn't have been happier when they made that law. Restaurants that had smoking and non-smoking sections didn't enforce anything. I was at a Hooters sitting in the non-smoking section when an idiot decided to smoke there. He didn't do it long.
 
Hopefully more states/places follow. I went to a few baseball games where there were people vaping all over the place. They are a holes in the first place so when you ask them nicely to stop they respond by being bigger a holes.
 
Funny that people complain about what they can see, but dont complain about what they cant. I imagine if we could see all the car exhaust were sucking in while stuck in traffic everyday, Or the amount of dead skin from other people we inhale regularly there would be a bigger cause for concern.
 
Krenum said:
Funny that people complain about what they can see, but dont complain about what they cant. I imagine if we could see all the car exhaust were sucking in while stuck in traffic everyday, Or the amount of dead skin from other people we inhale regularly there would be a bigger cause for concern.
Click to expand...

The exhaust sucks, but it serves a purpose.

The dead skin might be gross, but it isn't harmful at all.

Smoking is simultaneously harmful, disgusting, and serves no purpose other than to temporary satisfy the addiction of the smoker.
 
rgMekanic said:
Where I live and many other states are "right to work" meaning the employer has no right to hire you, and you have no right to get a job somewhere. You don't like the job or conditions, find a different one.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking right to work, I'm talking you having something happen to you while you are working. And regardless of "right to work" non-sense, you can not sign away your rights to compensation if you get injured in any fashion while performing your job.
 
With the debate going on here, I can't wait until they post on the new law passed in Hawaii today where they can fine you for walking and using your cell phone at the same time :) It is a new distracted walking law, I hope it goes over very well!
 
nysmo said:
How do you not produce a cloud when you exhale? Do you just aim your mouth down into your chest and slowly exhale with your lips pursed to shoot it out in an invisible stream or something?
Click to expand...
Good question. As noted by Jdanser, there are different types of vaping products. Some of them are specifically designed to allow for the creation of the ridiculous vape clouds you see pictures and videos of all over the Internet. Others, such as the pen-type devices you'll see in a 7-11, are designed so that you activate by inhaling. Most of the vapor goes into your lungs and when you exhale, very little (if any) of the vaporized liquid comes back out; if you've ever smoked marijuana, you may have seen people take hits and hold it in long enough that little smoke is exhaled. Vaping is similar but it doesn't cause the same irritation that leads to coughing as smoke and it is absorbed more quickly.

A small vape cartridge of nicotine will last days if the goal is to achieve the same nicotine inhalation as one would get from cigarettes. I've had similar-sized THC cartridges keep me pleasantly high (at appropriate times of course) for literally a week or more. That should give you some perspective on the potential to generate clouds of vapor - the small cartridges wouldn't last so long if they generated so much vapor on a normal hit. Plus, there would be a ton of waste.

The people spewing big clouds of vapor are "stunt vaping." Their express goal is to generate the clouds and getting a dose of an active ingredient is at most a secondary concern.

I'd recommend giving it a try, but nobody should be encouraged to get on nicotine and recreational THC is still illegal in most places.
 
Yeah I'm happy that people can Vape now cause it's supposed to be better than smoking.

What I do not like is people purposely blowing huge clouds of this shit in-doors or around others.

There was a group of about 8 or 9 Juggalos / Juggalettes vaping and making small car sized clouds at a concert a year or so ago maybe 2 and security came up and kicked them all out.

And smoking is purely a social acceptance based habit. People do it to fit in, look cool, feel cool, to be socially accepted, etc. They don't do it for the taste, it's horrible. They don't do it for the smell, it smells horrible and they don't do it for the money, it's an expensive habit.

With all that said, glad people can Vape but it still needs to be regulated and controlled so ass-hats don't go around being ass-clowns vaping.
 
gamerk2 said:
BUSINESS SHOULD NOT AND DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE IF PEOPLE SHOULD GET SICK AND DIE BECAUSE OF OTHER PEOPLES ACTIONS.

Seriously, what's so fing hard to understand here?
Click to expand...

My Aun't had a friend, an older woman that was retired and worked at a VFW behind the bar and on Bingo night. That place was smokey as hell.

Anyways, she got sick after a few years with a horrible cough and weakness and all types of second hand smoke related health issues. So she had to quit. I've heard that story a few times.

Smoking is a disgusting habit. I respect the rights of people that want to do it but you just can't do it around others. Needs to stay in their home, yard, car or businesses that allow it. Around here they don't even let people smoke out in public in front of stores etc. They put them on the side of the building out of view / stink range. Not all but a lot of them do.

They also changed the age for smoking. You have to be 21 in Kansas and Missouri now to stink up.
 
Generally speaking I oppose laws like this and most vapers I can and happily ignore. Unfortunately this is a case of a small percentage of assholes ruining it for everyone.
 
NeoNemesis said:
The exhaust sucks, but it serves a purpose.

The dead skin might be gross, but it isn't harmful at all.

Smoking is simultaneously harmful, disgusting, and serves no purpose other than to temporary satisfy the addiction of the smoker.
Click to expand...

That's thin. I can only imagine that you have never been a smoker.

Would it be safe to say that you are actually ignorant in this regard? You have or have not been a smoker for any really amount of time, is that correct?
 
gamerk2 said:
BUSINESS SHOULD NOT AND DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE IF PEOPLE SHOULD GET SICK AND DIE BECAUSE OF OTHER PEOPLES ACTIONS.

Seriously, what's so fing hard to understand here?
Click to expand...

Hold the fuck up.

The business doesn't decide who is going to put a cig between their lips and lite up. the business doesn't decide who is going to fill out an application for employment.

You have a fucked up view of the world my friend. I think you should re-evaluate.

There is no gad damned good reason a business can't allow smoking, that people can't choose to seek employment based on the businesses decisions, that customers can't choose on their own if they want to frequent that business.

And to top it off, for all those people who do choose to smoke, it would be fucking nice if they could go about there life without being treated as lepers all the damned time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Void
like this
sfsuphysics said:
Except that's not how it works. The employer is responsible for all that befalls on the employees while they are working, whether it's getting injured on the job, or getting sick from inhaling toxic fumes while on the job, it is always the employers responsibility. This isn't like the days of coal mining and oops you got black lung disease, well here's a 2 weeks severance package bye. You're not allowed to sign your rights away for a job.
Click to expand...

(No they aren't. You are not correct.)

EDITED;
I want to restate this. From the way I read your statement, I think your too far to the absolute. There must be cause of some sort. Otherwise a workplace injury lawsuit would be an automatic win. The way your statement is worded you are incorrect. But by experience, I know there is validity in the concept you are driving at.

Maybe the pendulum was allowed to swing too far in that direction anyway and businesses are being held responsible for things that just are not right to put on them.

I think these same attitudes have an effect on other things as well, like why I am virtually harassed at work by safety types who think they have a mission to look out for my safety even when I am away from the work place or this concept that because my decisions effect your insurance rates that insurance companies should be allowed to dig into our lives so they can offer "good drivers" breaks while sticking it to the "bad drivers". Sounds good in theory, sucks when you look at the numbers and realize it's all a scam and they are giving a small minority, very small, a little bitty discount, while they rape the vast majority for far greater sums.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
That's thin. I can only imagine that you have never been a smoker.

Would it be safe to say that you are actually ignorant in this regard? You have or have not been a smoker for any really amount of time, is that correct?
Click to expand...

Point out where I'm ignorant. Would love to hear the reasoning behind the bold statements you made.

As for whether I smoked, no, I just had the pleasure of watching someone I care about die of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking. But please, tell me about my ignorance.
 
NeoNemesis said:
Point out where I'm ignorant. Would love to hear the reasoning behind the bold statements you made.

As for whether I smoked, no, I just had the pleasure of watching someone I care about die of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking. But please, tell me about my ignorance.
Click to expand...

Well I felt that you were the one making bold statements.

So, you don't want to answer a straight question so forgive me for taking it as a "no, you never smoked". Not only are you ignorant of the experience of being a smoker, you are also biased from losing a someone you care about to smoking.

I have no doubt this sounds uncaring and maybe crass, but it is the truth isn't it?

My dad still smokes, he's over 80, his mom smoked and lived to over 90. The absolute truth is that although smoking kills a lot of people, it doesn't kill nearly as many as they try to make everyone believe. All it takes is for people to climb the fuck down off their high-horse and open their eyes to see it for themselves with all the old people running around still smoking.

I smoked from 21 years old until 50. That's 29 or 30 years although I actually don't remember exactly when I quit. I just quit, told myself "I don't smoke anymore", and never touched one again.

I smoked more then two packs a day almost every day. I lit a fresh cigarette with the burning butt of the last cigarette. On nights when I had 24 hour duty, I smoked as much as 5 packs by the time I finished and could shower and sleep. I smoked menthol and non-menthol, filtered and unfiltered, cheap cigarettes made in Korea that Korean soldiers wouldn't smoke and cigarettes I rolled on my own with rolling papers and Prince Albert in a can.

I consider myself an authority on the subject, if not a connoisseur.

Therefore, in comparison, I think you qualify as ignorant on the benefits of smoking. The habit is not a habit for no reason at all. If nothing else, going outside to smoke a cigarette affords a person a moment to reflect or socialize, or discuss business in a relaxed setting. Smokers are rarely without the means of creating fire which as a soldier, can be a handy skill to have at hand. With a Bic lighter I can open a beer bottle. I used to get through South Korean checkpoints easier by trading American cigarettes for Korean ones. Girls that smoke like guys that smoke but they don't like boys that rag on their ass about how they smell or taste. Something about being made to feel dirty dampens the amour.

In truth, there are people that smoke, and people that don't. Non-smokers may not know this but many of them have been doing a great job of creating a divide between themselves and others and it really is mostly a one way thing. Most smokers aren't assholes that run around pushing their habit off on others. Most smokers remain aware and many of them try to minimize the "offensiveness" of their habit to others. For instance, I always tried to position myself so that the wind carried most of the smoke away from me and my cloths, I used my fingertips to hold the cigarette instead of between the knuckles trying no to let the smoke curl around my hand and saturate the hair on my palm ...umm.... back of my hand. I tried to keep some distance between myself and others.

But for all that effort and consideration I saw very little in return. All smokers get are nasty looks and comments, being harassed and accused and charged ridiculously criminal rates of taxation, come on, nothing should ever be taxed six times the actual sale value of the product. I take comfort in knowing that the same thing is going to happen to others and then maybe they will figure out how wrong it is to use taxation as a means to enforce change on others.

Now I don't really want to sound so lacking in compassion for someone who has had loss in their life. People die, we all die, it's saddest when no one cares about the dead but that doesn't make it easier for the family of those that die badly.

Still, people chose this for themselves, and if they quit, again, they chose that as well. No one ever quits until they want to for themselves. Everything other people do to try and "encourage" them to quit, those are just people who do not realize what assholes they are being. Ask any smoker, the biggest assholes are the ex-smokers that think they have to save others from the habit. But these days there are a lot of other people shooting for the title.

So there it all is, from an ex-smoker. As honest as I can be. If I sound mean then I apologize, I don't intent to be mean. If *I sound angry, maybe I have some right to be but I don't let this out very often and I do feel a little provoked, I hope you can understand. If there is a smoker out there that makes a good decision from all this, cool. I'm not trying to preach, I know the truth, no one quits until they themselves are really ready to quit and all that other is just bullshit.

This is how I see it from my experience.
 
Babbster said:
I'd recommend giving it a try, but nobody should be encouraged to get on nicotine and recreational THC is still illegal in most places.
Click to expand...

Actually THC is illegal in pretty much all places in the U.S. by Federal Law. States that have legalized it just don't enforce the Federal law, but the DEA could come in at any time and bust every marijuana shop in Colorado if they chose to(just as an example).
 
SixFootDuo said:
My Aun't had a friend, an older woman that was retired and worked at a VFW behind the bar and on Bingo night. That place was smokey as hell.

Anyways, she got sick after a few years with a horrible cough and weakness and all types of second hand smoke related health issues. So she had to quit. I've heard that story a few times.

Smoking is a disgusting habit. I respect the rights of people that want to do it but you just can't do it around others. Needs to stay in their home, yard, car or businesses that allow it. Around here they don't even let people smoke out in public in front of stores etc. They put them on the side of the building out of view / stink range. Not all but a lot of them do.

They also changed the age for smoking. You have to be 21 in Kansas and Missouri now to stink up.
Click to expand...
I suffer from cluster headaches, luckily it's only during early fall. What I've read in a few places is that smokers are highly likely to suffer from these types of headaches (if you can really call them that). I wasn't a smoker but it was everywhere growing up, and I enjoyed arcades when I was younger, and in my twenties I enjoyed billiards -- I played every night for at least a couple of hours. Forget about everything in between. Hell, even on the handball courts people were smoking. I'm pretty sure all that exposure over the first 30 years of my life contributed or outright caused my issues.
 
jedijeb13 said:
Actually THC is illegal in pretty much all places in the U.S. by Federal Law. States that have legalized it just don't enforce the Federal law, but the DEA could come in at any time and bust every marijuana shop in Colorado if they chose to(just as an example).
Click to expand...
No, they couldn't. Even if they diverted every agent to the cause, they wouldn't have enough to do it, and they'd have to divert untold resources to make the prosecutions stick.

The ship has sailed and the feds can go fuck themselves. Trying anything like you suggest would make them look worse than they already do. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts...even Washington, DC has legalized growing and possession. That of course doesn't count the many states that have decriminalized personal use/possession. It's just a matter of time before the DEA will be the only LEOs looking to bust people for pot.

ETA: Additional perspective: About 59.5 million people live in states that have legalized recreational marijuana use. through popular votes That's 18.4% of the population and, again, it doesn't count all the places marijuana has been decriminalized. Let the 11,000 employees of the DEA (which number, of course, includes people who don't carry guns and go on the streets to fight the pointless drug war) come. They'll quickly find out it's too late.
 
Last edited:
Babbster said:
No, they couldn't. Even if they diverted every agent to the cause, they wouldn't have enough to do it, and they'd have to divert untold resources to make the prosecutions stick.

The ship has sailed and the feds can go fuck themselves. Trying anything like you suggest would make them look worse than they already do. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts...even Washington, DC has legalized growing and possession. That of course doesn't count the many states that have decriminalized personal use/possession. It's just a matter of time before the DEA will be the only LEOs looking to bust people for pot.

ETA: Additional perspective: About 59.5 million people live in states that have legalized recreational marijuana use. through popular votes That's 18.4% of the population and, again, it doesn't count all the places marijuana has been decriminalized. Let the 11,000 employees of the DEA (which number, of course, includes people who don't carry guns and go on the streets to fight the pointless drug war) come. They'll quickly find out it's too late.
Click to expand...

They may not have the numbers to bust every place that sells, but if they bust only a few, it sends a message, then if that goes to the Supreme Court and gets ruled in favor of the Federal law, it would invalidate all of the State laws and decriminalization.

There are currently some rumblings in the Justice Department over medical use cannabis. When it is all said and done it could possibly end up with only plants that have high Cannibidiol and very low THC that becomes legal. People can smoke that all day and feel relief of pain but never get high, which would relegate it to use only by those needing the medical benefits.

Of course the laws are pretty much made by lobbyist now so the government may or may not do the right thing going forward.
 
jedijeb13 said:
They may not have the numbers to bust every place that sells, but if they bust only a few, it sends a message, then if that goes to the Supreme Court and gets ruled in favor of the Federal law, it would invalidate all of the State laws and decriminalization.

There are currently some rumblings in the Justice Department over medical use cannabis. When it is all said and done it could possibly end up with only plants that have high Cannibidiol and very low THC that becomes legal. People can smoke that all day and feel relief of pain but never get high, which would relegate it to use only by those needing the medical benefits.

Of course the laws are pretty much made by lobbyist now so the government may or may not do the right thing going forward.
Click to expand...
The DEA tried going after medical marijuana years ago. Their busts resulted in absolutely no reduction in medical marijuana production or use. In fact, laws permitting medical marijuana continued to expand.

Eight years with President Obama pretty much froze the DEA in this regard, and it allowed legal marijuana to flourish. Again, it's too late, and I doubt even more conservative judges on the Supreme Court would help turn back the clock on legalization. There's no scientific justification for marijuana being classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, and I'm sure the federal lawyers know that if they're forced to defend its categorization as such in court, they'll fail, and that'll seal the deal even in the states where marijuana remains [almost] completely illegal.

Frankly, even defending the overall "war on drugs" is impossible without resorting to naked emotionalism. While there are very dangerous recreational drugs out there, the DEA doesn't even make a real dent in the problem of drug abuse. It's a political game.
 
Babbster said:
No, they couldn't. Even if they diverted every agent to the cause, they wouldn't have enough to do it, and they'd have to divert untold resources to make the prosecutions stick.

The ship has sailed and the feds can go fuck themselves. Trying anything like you suggest would make them look worse than they already do. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts...even Washington, DC has legalized growing and possession. That of course doesn't count the many states that have decriminalized personal use/possession. It's just a matter of time before the DEA will be the only LEOs looking to bust people for pot.

ETA: Additional perspective: About 59.5 million people live in states that have legalized recreational marijuana use. through popular votes That's 18.4% of the population and, again, it doesn't count all the places marijuana has been decriminalized. Let the 11,000 employees of the DEA (which number, of course, includes people who don't carry guns and go on the streets to fight the pointless drug war) come. They'll quickly find out it's too late.
Click to expand...


Ohhh but I bet it would be much easier and more efficient to just seize their banking accounts (y)

"The ship has sailed", I wonder, when prohibition started were people saying "the ship has sailed" on that one as well?

I was reading comments to a news article about a drunk driving traffic accident happened in Lubbock, TX. Woman was complaining about how the drunk driving accidents are what you get when you make it legal to buy liquor inside the city limits of a formorly dry city. See, it was only a few years ago that they started allowing stores to sell alcohol inside the city limits. See, this picture doesn't look like that picture, and the world isn't actually the same everywhere you go, not even in the US.

Over 59 million people might live in those states but it doesn't mean all those people are happy with the new situation. Maybe you are, maybe many are, but I also know many are not.
 
lcpiper said:
"The ship has sailed", I wonder, when prohibition started were people saying "the ship has sailed" on that one as well?
Click to expand...
What I wonder is if we've learned the fundamental lesson of Prohibition...which is that it didn't work.
I was reading comments to a news article about a drunk driving traffic accident happened in Lubbock, TX. Woman was complaining about how the drunk driving accidents are what you get when you make it legal to buy liquor inside the city limits of a formorly dry city. See, it was only a few years ago that they started allowing stores to sell alcohol inside the city limits. See, this picture doesn't look like that picture, and the world isn't actually the same everywhere you go, not even in the US.
Click to expand...
Sure. Some people are stupid, which clearly is the case for the woman in your anecdote. We do a lot better when we don't bend to the whims of the dumb.
Over 59 million people might live in those states but it doesn't mean all those people are happy with the new situation. Maybe you are, maybe many are, but I also know many are not.
Click to expand...
Every one of them had a chance to vote on the possibility of legalizing marijuana. Do we like democracy or not? I ask, because if the DEA goes after people who are engaging in a business sanctioned by their state, that would be a fundamentally anti-democratic action. Do you think your Lubbockian fool would prefer that the federal government dictated to her city where alcohol can be sold?

As long as we're going to have this stupid system of laws varying by state, sometimes the Texans aren't going to approve of what the Oregonians are doing, and vice versa.
 
Babbster said:
What I wonder is if we've learned the fundamental lesson of Prohibition...which is that it didn't work.

Sure. Some people are stupid, which clearly is the case for the woman in your anecdote. We do a lot better when we don't bend to the whims of the dumb.

Every one of them had a chance to vote on the possibility of legalizing marijuana. Do we like democracy or not? I ask, because if the DEA goes after people who are engaging in a business sanctioned by their state, that would be a fundamentally anti-democratic action. Do you think your Lubbockian fool would prefer that the federal government dictated to her city where alcohol can be sold?

As long as we're going to have this stupid system of laws varying by state, sometimes the Texans aren't going to approve of what the Oregonians are doing, and vice versa.
Click to expand...


There is no fundamental lesson provided by prohibition other than such things fail without popular support of the population. Other prohibitory laws work pretty good as long as there isn't a large segment of the population that is willing to defy it.

And you are a perfect example of what I was pointing out with my story. The woman isn't dumb, she's typical of people in that part of the country. It's just that people like you from other parts of the country think she is dumb when the truth is that you just have a different set of views. You don't live in the Bible Belt right? So you don't get it because it's foreign to you.

Arizona voted on recreational pot last election, I voted against it. I voted against it because it's still illegal Federally and me, being a worker who needs a government security clearance, understands that and I don't like the idea of setting a bunch of young people up to so that they adapt lifestyles that will make such employment impossible.

And that highlights my response to your last point, which, I am not sure I understood clearly so if I got you wrong on this, forgive me. I like the differences in laws by State, I support them, and I find the Federal Government getting into such things a problem. Take this subject for instance, if the Feds didn't have a law about pot, then my reason for opposing legalization in Arizona would be moot. Its the disparity that has me opting to go against because I recognize how it can mess people up. BTW, you need to check out how many jobs are available and how well they are paying in Colorado right now, because they can't get enough cleared workers. Problem is, people with clearance have no desire to move to the land of weed, too much fucked up shit going on. Of course those that do smoke certainly don't see it.

So I have no problem with Oregon being different than Texas, it gives every state a chance to see other ways of doing things and it prevents the Federal Government from fucking everyone up at the same time. There were reasons for the 10th Amendment. Arizona has extremely relaxed gun laws and over the next few years we will get a chance to see the difference between how those laws, and the anti-gun state laws, all effect crime rates and violent death rates. Without the current system of differing laws we could never see such differences within our own nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top