Drug Testing for Welfare recipents

[Spiderman]

EricBess: I agree with your sentiments about smoking and whatnot in your post #94. The only issue I have is your last paragraph, where you say

So, when you talk about the "back of the bus" or "separate drinking fountains", most people think how awful everyone was, but it really was just a few idiots that caused the "Jim Crow" laws to be put into place.

I wasn't around back then so I can't say how bad it really was, but I suspect that if you talk to any remaining survivors from that time, it was bad. And here's the thing: Why did it take so long for the Jim Crow laws to get repealed? Obviously the people who might have wanted them to get repealed weren't put into positions of power yet. Why not? Well, either the ones who did want to keep them were extraordinally powerful and/or the voters were apathetic enough not to kick them out, which infers to me that they weren't THAT okay with intermingling.

most establishments had seperate areas for smoking

As turgy22 and EricBess noted, that rarely worked. It's like saying Brown vs the Board of Education worked; sure, it was on the books and "legal", but it wasn't fair in practice.

And sure, I can choose not to go to that establishment, but then it becomes ALL establishments.

And since I believe smokers are in the minority, it seems kind of strange to cater to the wishes of the minority rather than that of the majority

 

[EricBess]

DF - I'm with turgy on this one. I am not offended by people smoking. Rather, it is physically difficult to be around. I don't know if it just an allergy or some sort of asthma.

There are fancy restaurants where people simply don't bring children because it is sort of an unspoken rule that they are not allowed. If you go to Denny's, for example, than I think you should go with the understanding that there will be loud children. If you go to a restaurant like "Red Robin", "Islands", or "TGI Friday's", than I think it is less clear. Those restaurants cater to families still, but I think most people realize that they are expected to try to keep their children in check. My point here is that I understand what you are saying with loud conversations in restaurants, but the market forces have sort of worked here. If you want to avoid that, there are certain types of restaurants you can go to.

Likewise, I agree that certain types of restaurants would make sense to allow smoking and it should probably be left up to the individual restaurants to decide. I would avoid going to restaurants where smoking were allowed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't restaurants previously required by law to have a smoking section and a non-smoking section?

As for smoking anywhere outside, I have to respectfully disagree. Outside is still a public place. It really bothers me when a place of business doesn't allow indoor smoking, but the place they provide outside for smoking is right at the main entrance that everyone must pass by.

Spidey - yes, I understand what you are saying and I completely agree that there were a lot of problems. I'm just saying that many of those problems were brought on because the government tried to be too involved. People call for government to "fix" problems and eventually that happened, but before the government "fixed" the problem of segregation, they made it worse. Had they stayed completely out of it, we probably would have taken longer in certain states to get things right, but other states would have been shining examples sooner of how things should be.

 

[Spiderman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't restaurants previously required by law to have a smoking section and a non-smoking section?

Well yeah, but it was proven that didn't work.

I think there are some issues where the government has to step in because the states don't do it right. Case again: Brown vs the Board of Education. The state's Board of Education thought it was enough to keep the "separate but equal" when in actuality it wasn't doing that.

Now, a case today seems to be legalizing gay marriage. Right now, it seems to be up to the states and the federal government seems to be keeping out of it.

 

[DarthFerret]

Well, I can tell right now that we are just merely gonna disagree on smoking. Do I think smoking is a healthy choice? Obviously not. I cannot think of a single smoker who does. However it is an ADDICTION. That means that merely saying, "oh they can just refrain from smoking" is kinda flawed. If we could refrain from smoking, we would. Please, the cost is going up all the time, it makes your clothing stink, it causes certain people to treat you disrespectfully. Of course we would all quit if we could. (However, if everyone in America stopped smoking at the same time, 3 weeks later a large majority of childrens hospitals would have to be closed as thier funding would be gone.) So I would reply that anyone thinking that our smoking is a choice, is dead wrong. Yes, the fact that we started was our choice, but the fact that we continue is only partially by choice. I have atempted to quit several times (think about it almost once a week), but the difficulty lies in the actual quitting. I have seen what I become like when I am deprived of nicotine for a time (such as when I had to do training classes in chemical plants where smoking was too hazardous). I am not a pleasant person then. My wife hates the fact that I smoke, yet, she hates what I am like if I forgot to purchase cigarettes and stew at home for a few hours without them.

As for smoking in restaurants, I tell ya what. Why dont we pull the government out of it and let the restaurant owners decide. They are the ones that will suffer the loss of business (either loss of the smokers or the non smokers). Hmm....or even, let a restaurant have two different buildings: one for smokers and one for non. Probably not economical when you think about it, but then realize that the smoking restaurant would make a lot more money (especially from its bar sales). Sorry, proven fact, that when people drink, even if they are not a typical smoker, a lot of them light up casually.

Any way, that is just me ranting a bit. No need to respond because 90% of you will just disagree with me on principle because smokers and non-smokers have different opinions.

 

[Spiderman]

However it is an ADDICTION.

Kind of off-tangent, but why are you adamant about your stance about illegal drug use yet think smoking's okay? Both are drugs that cause addiction. One set is illegal (on the books) yet one is not. Is that why? One's on one side of the law and the other isn't?

 

[DarthFerret]

The law is the law. Sorry but it is that simple. Legal is legal, Illegal is illgeal. Thus my stance on smoking, drug use, immigration, etc... My opinion has always been, if you don't like the laws then either make some kind of attempt to change them (legally) or move out of the country. I guess it is a bit cold, but too bad. Millions of immigrants (not just Mexicans) move here illegally then have the gall to complain about our laws (or better yet, have the gall to break them). Why move HERE if you dont like the laws. I understand they are escaping a worse situation, but aren't there other places to go?

If you make smoking illegal (doubt that it will happen as that would end tabacco taxes and would be extreemly bad if you made that many people quit cold turkey), then I would stop smoking (or go crazy). I would then support the smoking bans. But UNTIL it is illegal, stop making morality laws. Make a final decision once and for all. Legal or illegal. If legal, leave us alone. If illegal, pass the darn law already.

Addendum: you could make it a State decision (as EB pointed out on gay marriage) and then watch the smokers flock to smoke friendly states and see the non-smokers go to non-smoking states. Then everyone is happy, however, there is sure to be some logistics problems with this (including bootlegging).

 

[Spiderman]

Okay, just checking and verifying that it's that black and white for you. Thanks.

 

[Mooseman]

Businesses were never required to have smoking area inside, but were required to have non-smoking..... then they just made that the standard.

I can understand work places and public building be smoke-free, and restaurants to some degree, but bars should be allowed to decide for themselves.
A lot of states and counties used the logic that bars are work places and the staff was subjected to second hand smoke, so they had to be smoke-free...... I find that to bad logic. Using that, governments could ban any kind of loud music in bars, since the staff is subjected to potential hearing loss or lighting should be regulated so staff doesn't get eye strain.

 

[turgy22]

I can understand work places and public building be smoke-free, and restaurants to some degree, but bars should be allowed to decide for themselves.

This is exactly how I feel about the situation. You're in a frickin bar. It's not exactly meant to be a bastion of moderation and good health. There shouldn't be any kids there and that's who these laws should really be trying to protect, because they don't have a choice about the air they're breathing. If some upscale bar wants to start catering to families, they can ban smoking and that should be their choice, but the government shouldn't be making that decision for them.

 

[EricBess]

Not all restaurants have bar areas, DF. Honestly, I could see that the most profitable restaurants would have a separate room where the bar was located and a door to keep the smoke relatively contained. But I think that most family-oriented restaurants would do better if they didn't allow smoking. It seems like the one thing we all do agree on is that the government shouldn't be the ones making the decisions.

BTW - I understand smoking as an addiction, but I don't know exactly what part of what I said you disagree with. I don't believe smoking should be allowed in public areas. Addiction or no, choice or no, someone else's smoking still affects me and while I fully support your right to have areas where you can smoke (given that it is legal, as you said), I appreciate when those areas are designated where I don't need to be. You may need to smoke, but you have a choice of where and when to do so. If you are smoking in a public area that I need to get through, I may not have a choice that allows me to avoid being inconvenienced. Now, I'm not one to say that no one in the world should ever be inconvenienced, but I do think that for things like this, we should try to inconvenience less the people who are not involved in the behavior. In other words, if the smoker can be marginally inconvenienced to avoid inconveniencing the non-smoker, than why shouldn't they be? As you said yourself, you were the one that originally made the choice to start smoking.

And I'm not talking extreams here. I do believe that a lot of private companies would be served well by providing for smokers. I'm just saying things like put the smoking area at the back door instead of the front, for example. Make it as easy as possible for the smoker as you can without causing problems for the non-smoker.

 

[Oversoul]

The issue of banning smoking in restaurants and such is interesting to me because about five years ago, we had this on the ballot where I live. I forget the details, although the ban did pass. I didn't vote on it either way, but my father and my sister voted against each other on it, which is kind of unusual, because on political issues, the two of them tend to agree with each other. My father's rationale was that the government is infringing on the liberty of business owners. He preferred non-smoking facilities himself, but he didn't want that enforced on business owners by the state. My sister, on the other hand, is highly sensitive to cigarette smoke. I don't know how common this is, but I've met plenty of others who are physically affected by the smoke. She must have a particularly severe case of it, though. I've seen her, outdoors, suddenly turn red and get sick before anyone even smelled the smoke from the person smoking fifteen feet behind her. Now, I do appreciate the perspective that my father argued from on this and personally, cigarette smoke doesn't seem to affect me. I dislike the smell, but there are plenty of other things that smell worse to me. However, I'd rather have it so that people like my sister can walk into a building without having to wonder whether it's going to make them throw up.

The law is the law. Sorry but it is that simple. Legal is legal, Illegal is illgeal. Thus my stance on smoking, drug use, immigration, etc... My opinion has always been, if you don't like the laws then either make some kind of attempt to change them (legally) or move out of the country. I guess it is a bit cold, but too bad. Millions of immigrants (not just Mexicans) move here illegally then have the gall to complain about our laws (or better yet, have the gall to break them). Why move HERE if you dont like the laws. I understand they are escaping a worse situation, but aren't there other places to go?

If you make smoking illegal (doubt that it will happen as that would end tabacco taxes and would be extreemly bad if you made that many people quit cold turkey), then I would stop smoking (or go crazy). I would then support the smoking bans. But UNTIL it is illegal, stop making morality laws. Make a final decision once and for all. Legal or illegal. If legal, leave us alone. If illegal, pass the darn law already.

Addendum: you could make it a State decision (as EB pointed out on gay marriage) and then watch the smokers flock to smoke friendly states and see the non-smokers go to non-smoking states. Then everyone is happy, however, there is sure to be some logistics problems with this (including bootlegging).

Simplicity when possible is typically a good thing, but what you're asking for is just plain unrealistic. Especially when it comes to immigration. These are actual issues with nuances and all that stuff.

 

[DarthFerret]

I guess I will still just stick by what I said previously. If you want smoking banned, then make it illegal. As long as it is legal, stop making regulations on it.

And apparently I was reading through this thread as Oversoul was posting, as I did not see the last until after I posted my previous statement. I do not see where the simple thing is unrealistic, in smoking or in immigration. What nuances are there? You broke the law, you pay the consequences. Same as if I light up a ciagarette in a place that is "banned" I pay the fine. Plain and simple. Run a red light, pay the ticket. Forget to cross your t's and dot your i's, get counted off on an essay paper. Why do we have to try to confuse the topic by pretending that there are ALWAYS exceptions. Illegal is illegal. If I were to shoot someone dead, I would be a murderer. If I break into your house and steal something, that is theft. Should I get off with no penalty because you own more than me?

Anyways, this has been one heck of a rabbit trail off the main topic at the start of the post..

 

[Oversoul]

I guess I will still just stick by what I said previously. If you want smoking banned, then make it illegal. As long as it is legal, stop making regulations on it.

So on the one hand, what matters for you is what the letter of the law happens to be. It's binding on all of us, no ifs, ands, or buts. And on the other hand, you want smoking to either be legal everywhere with no stipulations or illegal everywhere with allowances. Yet, the letter of the law (where I live, that is) actually does include regulations on the matter. Several, in fact. You can't have it both ways. You can't impose "that's the law so that's the last word on the matter" for everyone and simultaneously have one of two situations, neither of which reflect the law as it is.

And really, society is complicated. Sometimes laws have to be as well. I thought this was pretty much universally understood.

Edit: I'm actually not sure how inaccurate my original statement was. A cursory look through Google shows multiple sites explicitly stating "Secondhand smoke causes cancer." I tried to avoid blatantly anti-smoking sites and campaigns (like truth.com), so the results aren't terribly biased. The American Cancer Society, Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and WebMD all seem to agree that secondhand smoke is really bad for you and causes lung cancer. Maybe someone else can find a more reputable site to discredit these claims.

I wasn't going to address this earlier because of the time it would involve to do so comprehensively, but well, why not? Not knowing for sure what DF was getting at, I can say there are a lot of technical details to consider when it comes to whether something "causes" cancer. There are some things that are pretty much guaranteed to give one cancer, but most things aren't like that. A chemical can, for instance, mess with the mechanisms by which cells self-destruct (inhibiting apoptosis). That doesn't mean someone exposed to the chemical gets cancer, but it can make the development of cancer more likely. There are so many different types of carcinogens and mechanisms by which cancer can occur that perhaps the difference between something "increasing the risk of cancer" and "causing cancer" is a total mess.

 

[DarthFerret]

My point there, which I was not going to belabor, was that smoking (and second hand smoke) does not CAUSE cancer. It will (and does) increase your risk to acquire said cancer, but it is not the cause of it. A lot of things increase risks (asbestos comes to mind). However, I was not going to go off on this tangent as it would seem I am merely nitpicking the words (although to me a risk is much different than a known fact).

 

[Spiderman]

So... in your view, what *does* cause cancer?

 

[EricBess]

For that matter, by that view, does anyone even know what "causes" cancer. I know what you are saying DF - there are many things that "increase the risk", but no one is guarenteed to get cancer from smoking. I don't think that you can say smoking does not "cause" cancer, though. The fact that it increases your risk dramatically should be sufficient.

I think the problem with the laws is that people say they want freedom to choose, but then there are going to be people complaining and demanding. For example, suppose there were not ban on smoking in restaurants and it were left to each individual restaurant owner (a view we all seem to agree on here). Someone trying to make a point would light up, get asked to leave, and then complain that the were being descriminated against. Our society is way too letigious. In addition to letting people decide for themselves, we need to change our attitude as a society and just accept that some people may choose to be "offended" by other people's actions and that does NOT give them the right to sue. We need to collectively grow some thicker skin and stop being offended just because people don't share the same views. Until that happens, I think the laws are the lesser of two evils.

 

[Spiderman]

On that note, we probably shouldn't be letting the minority "dictate" what the laws should be, barring protection-type laws. So if the majority wants to have smoking bans, so be it.

 

[turgy22]

On that note, we probably shouldn't be letting the minority "dictate" what the laws should be, barring protection-type laws. So if the majority wants to have smoking bans, so be it.

Watch what you say there. Laws shouldn't be made based on the whims of the majority any more than they should be made based on what minorities want. Laws should be enacted to preserve the rights of the people (all the people) and maintain the tenets of the constitution. The majority of Americans might want the US to adopt an official religion or national language, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 

[Spiderman]

Laws should be enacted to preserve the rights of the people (all the people) and maintain the tenets of the constitution

barring protection-type laws

Perhaps I was unclear, but that was I was referring to.

 

[train]

Watch what you say there. Laws shouldn't be made based on the whims of the majority any more than they should be made based on what minorities want. Laws should be enacted to preserve the rights of the people (all the people) and maintain the tenets of the constitution. The majority of Americans might want the US to adopt an official religion or national language, but that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y... It doesn't always produce the right result. But unless we base our nation on something else - sometimes we will be right, other times we will not.