Libs In CA Ban You From Smoking In Your Own Condo

[Edward]

Actually, it is your problem because the medium is the message. If you swear at people and tell them how stupid they are because they don't agree with you, people will think you're an arrogant jackass and stop listening to what you have to say. Its not hard to figure out.

You are right that the medium is the message but you are wrong about the perception others have of you. You feign being upset when others call you names or swear at you but don't seem to have a problem with casting a vote that is offensive to others and to their families. What people think of me has little to do with what I think of them. That someone thinks I am an arrogant jackass for swearing at them while they cast their votes in such a way that it affects me and my family without giving any consideration to the fact that their votes have a negative impact on others does not bother and the reason is obvious. I think they are arrogant jackasses for casting a vote without meeting everyone involved personally. If you have not met all the candidates personally and every person they will represent personally than you are an arrogant jackass for casting your vote and for supporting a system that allows for such asinine behavior to occur. This isn't hard to accept and if it offends your fucking ass or if it offends you that others would have the courage to call you names than go right ahead and consider those of us who are willing to call arrogant jackasses names and to swear at them. Because it is quite obvious that these people have no problem casting a vote for a person they haven't met to make laws that affect people they have not met.

What this comes down to is that there is a system of government where everyone could have an equal say and where civic dialogue could occur but that system will not be instituted so long as people think that the current system doesn't offend anyone and its elimination will only occur if people begin to realize how upset some people are at being denied representation and a voice in their government the only way that is going to happen is if enough people begin to call people names and to tell people exactly what they think because when you grow up in a system based on tryanny it is only natural that you don't want to consider a different system when the system you live in allows you to take part in the tryanny.

 

[Shattered]

I'm all for banning smoking in public places. I'm a non-smoker and I despise breathing in the wretched excretion of another's disgusting habit.

I'm not convinced about condos and apartments though. Seems like if they're not harming anyone, they should be able to do what they want. Tobacco is, after all, not illegal.

Howz'about you just frequent those places that choose not to allow smoking, rather than calling for a banning in all public places, whether you tend to frequent them or not?

I'd much prefer banning the wearing of too much obnoxious perfume in public places - that smells worse than smoke a lot of the time.

 

[Toro]

Man, chill out.

Democracy is messy, and decisions made are on imperfect knowledge.

But I have never met anyone who changed their opinion because they were talked down to. Swearing and condescending to people hurts, not helps your cause.

I'm no supporter of Bush, but this is something many of the rabid anti-Bush types don't seem to understand.

 

[Toro]

Howz'about you just frequent those places that choose not to allow smoking, rather than calling for a banning in all public places, whether you tend to frequent them or not?

I'd much prefer banning the wearing of too much obnoxious perfume in public places - that smells worse than smoke a lot of the time.

Some places do ban obnoxious perfume. But it can't kill you.

So you won't mind when I bring in cop-killer rap music and play it at 100 decibels when I sit down next to you at a restaurant then?

I do not frequent such places. I thought that banning smoking in bars was going overboard. And I have no objection to segregating smokers as compromise.

 

[Edward]

I'm all for banning smoking in public places. I'm a non-smoker and I despise breathing in the wretched excretion of another's disgusting habit.

I'm not convinced about condos and apartments though. Seems like if they're not harming anyone, they should be able to do what they want. Tobacco is, after all, not illegal.

Agreed. The key has to be that they are "harming someone." That is what this ordinance is based upon. It is based upon harm. To ban smoking in apartment condo's even though it harms no one would be outrageous and would be a violation fo the rights of people who do smoke. The law must have a basis in protecting the rights of neighbors and others who are affected. This is an issue that people need to understand because this ordinance does not make smoking in your apartment or condo illegal instead it makes it illegal under certain conditions which affect others who live in the same apartment or condo complex. Anyone who would advocate making smoking illegal or who would advocate prohibiting people from smoking under any conditions within their home are truly ignorant and are violating the rights of smokers. It is only when people begin to be affected by others smoking that we must balance their rights against that of smokers.

 

[Shattered]

Some places do ban obnoxious perfume. But it can't kill you.

So you won't mind when I bring in cop-killer rap music and play it at 100 decibels when I sit down next to you at a restaurant then?

I do not frequent such places. I thought that banning smoking in bars was going overboard. And I have no objection to segregating smokers as compromise.

Like hell it can't.

 

[Edward]

Man, chill out.

Therein is the problem. Had our Founding Fathers who revolted against Britain chilled out instead of doing something about the problem than we would still be under British rule.

Democracy is messy, and decisions made are on imperfect knowledge.

This is true in any form of government but the form of government that we have allows people to make decisions without consulting everyone involved. When a person decides to cast their vote without having taken the time to sit down in the same room with their neighbors, friends, and family they are in fact violating the rights of others when their vote is for a representative that people did not even have the opportunity to discuss and to debate. This is something that Thomas Jefferson among others understood and why they sought to institute a form of government where people would be forced to discuss with one another who their representative would be. Naturally, at the end of the day the majority would have the final say but at least those who are affected would have talked with everyone who was involved with the decision as to who would represent them, and it would even be better if 2/3rds of those who vote is required before any person could be chosen to represent that group of people (i.e., 100 people). So you would have to have 66 people vote for someone who they personally know and have met before that person could represent them. Of course, these people would know each other fairly well because they would have been meeting regularly to conduct the affairs of government that affect them personally and would be neighbors and family.

But I have never met anyone who changed their opinion because they were talked down to. Swearing and condescending to people hurts, not helps your cause.

You are wrong about that because the truth is that talking to people who have grown used to not having to listen before they vote is not going to work if you play nice. The only way they will hear what you have to say is if you offend them enough for them to be forced to listen to you. Growing up in a system where people don't have to take part in an actual face to face discussion with their neighbors about every issue of government including who will represent them allows people to get away with making decisions that affect others without knowing them. These people don't know me and are are quite willing to make decisions that affect me so why do you think it would matter to them what I have to say in a forum such as this one unless I am so offensive that they will be forced to listen. When you are trying to change someone's opinion the only way you are going to do that is if you offend them into changing their opinion. Persuasion only works when you know a person personally.

I'm no supporter of Bush, but this is something many of the rabid anti-Bush types don't seem to understand.

This isn't the first time Bush has been brought up when he has nothing to do with the matter at hand but this is the real problem. To many people give a shit about Bush when the problem isn't Bush. The problem is our system of government. It isn't that people disagree with Bush or his decisions but that they didn't have a say in him being elected President unless they voted for him. They didn't get to talk about the issue, and discuss who would be the President instead they were forced to accept the decision of people they have never met that some man whom they have never met who is from a town they have never been to and from a state they have never visited. This is the idea of representation, and people who are rabid anti-Bush are deep down upset more about a lack of representation than they are about the decisions of Bush. The same goes for those who are against the Iraq war. They aren't as upset that we went to war as they didn't have a say in whether we went to war unless they happened to have a member of Congress who they voted for.

 

[red states rule]

I'm all for banning smoking in public places. I'm a non-smoker and I despise breathing in the wretched excretion of another's disgusting habit.

I'm not convinced about condos and apartments though. Seems like if they're not harming anyone, they should be able to do what they want. Tobacco is, after all, not illegal.

Then stay away from the smokers