And my point is exactly what I said. You don’t know what common sense, courtesy and personal responsibility is?
I understand it perfectly well, and my point is the same–if the people of california support such bans and find them reasonable, then they must be common sense by your definition.
“common sense” is not some universal truth that reveals itself. It’s a set of practices and beliefs. In Japan, it’s common sense to eat raw fish. In the US, it’s not for most people. In some muslim countries, it’s common sense that women should wear veils. In some places it’s common sense to eat insects and slugs. In the US, it’s repulsive.
You want to imagine some universal and invariable standard for “common sense” as the guide. But there’s nothing “common sense” about a ban on contraceptives. There was a long historical debate about contraceptives and their legitimacy. If the subject of contraceptives was a matter of “common sense” then there would be no need for endless theological debate about the legitimacy of various devices. I would argue that if 13 year olds are having sex–whether I approve of it or not–common sense dictates that they should be allowed to buy condoms. Others would find that deeply disturbing and lacking in common sense.
mike omalley said:Richard Smith said:That's me--typical leftie, out breaking the law all the time!
What's even "funnier" in San Francisco is that while they'll happily ban the sale of tobacco products and smoking in general they want easy access for pot smokers. I guess the only way for the average schmuck to get justice is to take a page from the lefties and refuse to obey the law. Seems to work for porn, prostitution, illegal immigration and pot.Meanwhile, conservative nutjob shoots up Unitarian church because of it’s “liberal views”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_re_us/church_shooting
Which laws were the lefties in that church breaking?
Nothing like reasoned discussion to start the day off right. Wonder where i can find some?
Not in your “church”. That’s for sure. BTW, you’re the one that put yourself in the pot with the SF nut jobs. Not me.
mike omalley said:Well, folks, you heard it here, first! Officer, take him away. He is a self admitted scoff-law.
That's me--typical leftie, out breaking the law all the time!
:lol:
Mike O’Malley quote: “Banning cigarettes–my feelings are a little more mixed. Here again the public costs to me, who does not smoke–are extremely high. I pay for the smoker’s lung problems in terms of increased general costs for health insurance. That’s just a fact. Why should I have to pay for someone else’s bad choices? I’m happy to discourage smoking. But then, I’d support the legalization of marijuana, so I’m not sure I can justify a ban.”
Isn’t this just a bit hypocritical? Seems more like I’ll leave your “sin” alone if you leave mine alone. If there were no such thing as marijuana would you still be as willing to live and let live with smoking?
As to paying for other people…lets see.
My tax dollars go to pay the salary of many teachers and professors that belittle everything that I believe in and teach this mantra to their students. Why should I have to pay for that?
My tax dollars pay the same bunch to teach only the negatives about this country without any inclination to balance with its virtues for a truer more honest view. Why should I pay for that?
No matter who you are or what your political bent you can always find something you “shouldn’t have to pay for”. But government is supposed to be for all the people (hopefully with as little intrusion as possible) which means that I pay for you and you pay for me. To exclude anyone because of their personal choices or because they’re obese, sick or just lack good judgement is not only ridiculous it’s unfair. Certainly your use of marijuana (if you use it) is of no good use to me and could contribute to serious injury to yourself or others should you drive under the influence (more cost to me eh?) and lead to a lack of good judgement as well. Still I’d have to pay for it in my medical insurance and taxes.
Additionally no one can condone someone deliberately running down pedestrians with a car or robbing a bank but we have laws against that. We shouldn’t have laws that inhibit ot penalize individual choice as long as it doesn’t harm someone else or have great potential to do so. This falls under “common sense” as already discussed.
:lol: :lol: 
Just imagine one week without the government acting on anything i.e. shut everything down that’s run by government at all levels.
Ui ui ui what a sight that would be! One could call it modern population control
Some bastard cut you off on the freeway - that is if traffic is moving at all - shoot him!
Watermain problem - let it flow.
Lightning strikes and starts wild fires - let her rip, we can do with a bit of clearing.
Etc. etc. etc.
Hans, you’ve done it again. Great idea!! 
I’ll be exceedingly careful not to cut you off in traffic though.
One fact: whenever Congress is in recess things DO run a lot smoother!
My old girlfriend used to work for Congresswoman Lynn Martin, a republican from Illinois. She was later Bush I’s sec. of labor. She was a great admirer of Martin, but even she used to say Congress was at its best when it was on leave.
Richard Smith said:
Mike O'Malley quote: [i]"Banning cigarettes--my feelings are a little more mixed. Here again the public costs to me, who does not smoke--are extremely high. I pay for the smoker's lung problems in terms of increased general costs for health insurance. That's just a fact. Why should I have to pay for someone else's bad choices? I'm happy to discourage smoking. But then, I'd support the legalization of marijuana, so I'm not sure I can justify a ban."[/i]Isn’t this just a bit hypocritical? Seems more like I’ll leave your “sin” alone if you leave mine alone. If there were no such thing as marijuana would you still be as willing to live and let live with smoking?
As to paying for other people…lets see.
My tax dollars go to pay the salary of many teachers and professors that belittle everything that I believe in and teach this mantra to their students. Why should I have to pay for that?My tax dollars pay the same bunch to teach only the negatives about this country without any inclination to balance with its virtues for a truer more honest view. Why should I pay for that?
No matter who you are or what your political bent you can always find something you “shouldn’t have to pay for”. But government is supposed to be for all the people (hopefully with as little intrusion as possible) which means that I pay for you and you pay for me. To exclude anyone because of their personal choices or because they’re obese, sick or just lack good judgement is not only ridiculous it’s unfair. Certainly your use of marijuana (if you use it) is of no good use to me and could contribute to serious injury to yourself or others should you drive under the influence (more cost to me eh?) and lead to a lack of good judgement as well. Still I’d have to pay for it in my medical insurance and taxes.
Additionally no one can condone someone deliberately running down pedestrians with a car or robbing a bank but we have laws against that. We shouldn’t have laws that inhibit ot penalize individual choice as long as it doesn’t harm someone else or have great potential to do so. This falls under “common sense” as already discussed.
I actually don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here–and I think you’re making an excellent argument for why the California laws in the original post are in fact reasonable and legitimate exercises of state power. That was my original point–that like them or not, they are legitimate uses of state power and not some extremist exception.
Now I have to get back to breaking the law, like all the other lefties. let’s see…I think I’m going to go tear the tags off all the mattresses in my house! Yeah baby!
It all boils down to “Personal Accountability”. You can dance and intellectualize around it all you want. Do YOU want to be responsible for yourself or do you want the government to be? Do you want to point fingers at everything you think is to blame for your troubles or stand up and say “It’s my fault. I did it. I 'll take the consequences.”
All this other crap is “touchy-feely, feel good” laws that don’t change a thing anyway except punish perfectly legitimate law abiding businesses.
mike,
First of all, “manager” and “management” seem irrelevent. Are they the actual words? It should be the owner(s) that count(s). I would think (common sense?) that an owner would have 3 options to choose from:
1.) Every employee must dispense, regardless of conscience.
2.) A mix of employees may co-exist, consciencious handing off to others to dispense, each side smiling while agreeing to disagree. (Actually hard to maintain, human nature as it is.)
3.) Employees all dispense according to the owner’s consciencious wishes (or one could say “lack of stock” on the shelf).
A consciencious pharmacy owner would just put a sign on his door “Not a Full Service Pharmacy - Owner chooses not to dispense contraceptives” or “chooses not to dispense Plan B abortifacient drugs”, etc. Those that want contraceptives can go to a competing drugstore, Stuff-Mart or gas station bathroom dispenser (Daddy, what are those for?) a few blocks away.
Oh, by the way, do Jews “have a problem with” eating pork, do Amish “have a problem with” bright colors, do Hindus “have a problem with” eating meat? Why are Catholics and other religions with beliefs on so called “birth control” the only ones that seem to “have problems”?.. do you see the propaganda tactics you are foisting on us here?
The real “problem” of those “inconvenieced enought to sue” the less than full service pharmacy isn’t that they had to travel another block… that’s just a smoke screen. They just don’t want their own consciences activated (pricked?) by someone else’s words or actions (= demonstration?). If you think about it, that kind of suit would be a form of censorship, gladly embraced I’m sure, by the “Freedom of (only their) Speech” loving liberals.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Ken Brunt said:
It all boils down to "Personal Accountability". You can dance and intellectualize around it all you want. Do YOU want to be responsible for yourself or do you want the government to be? Do you want to point fingers at everything you think is to blame for your troubles or stand up and say "It's my fault. I did it. I 'll take the consequences."All this other crap is “touchy-feely, feel good” laws that don’t change a thing anyway except punish perfectly legitimate law abiding businesses.
Ken I mean all this in a friendly way and don’t mean to be insulting. I like a good discussion.
Do you mean me specifically, or is this advice aimed at all those you disagree with? I certainly never advocated blaming others for my troubles! Lecturng people is fun but it doesn’t do much good.
How about this–a community votes to ban fast food places from some neighborhoods–it’s usually called zoning. It’s done all the time, on the grounds that fast food places are unsightly and cause congestion and smell bad. I’m guessing that Richard would not object to a city ordinance that prevented Taco Bell from opening a store in his backyard, even if his neighbor got a really good offer from Taco Bell.
How come that kind of restriction–a law aimed at protecting the scenic view of grumpy model railroaders–is ok, but a law aimed at addressing the problem of obesity in poor neighborhoods is not? Grumpy model railroaders are not much of a national problem, they have few national costs. But obesity is a …hard not to make a bad pun…huge? big? vast? well, it’s a problem.
How about we give people stern lectures about the importance of taking responsibility, AND make it easier to find healthy alternative to a Big Mac? That way we could have both personal satisfaction, and something that actually might work.
Joe Satnik said:
mike,Oh, by the way, do Jews “have a problem with” eating pork, do Amish “have a problem with” bright colors, do Hindus “have a problem with” eating meat? Why are Catholics and other religions with beliefs on so called “birth control” the only ones that seem to “have problems”?.. do you see the propaganda tactics you are foisting on us here?
The real “problem” of those “inconvenieced enought to sue” the less than full service pharmacy isn’t that they had to travel another block… that’s just a smoke screen. They just don’t want their own consciences activated (pricked?) by someone else’s words or actions (= demonstration?). If you think about it, that kind of suit would be a form of censorship, gladly embraced I’m sure, by the “Freedom of (only their) Speech” loving liberals.
Sincerely,
Joe Satnik
Geez Joe, didn’t I say I was undecided on the issue? But yes, I’d be happy to say Jews and muslims have a “problem” with eating pork–that language does not seem at all propagandistic to me. It’s a theological problem, like the problem of evil or the problem of the dual nature of Christ.
It’s kind of ironic, don’t you think, that you end with a criticism of liberals who want to censor speech, but you begin by censoring, in the sense of scolding, me for my specific speech. Who is it that wants to prohibit speech? If you let me know the proper, politically correct speech to use when referring to the Catholic “problem” with birth control, I’ll be happy to use it.
Your solutions seem good to me, by the way.
Too many laws.
Laws to protect us from each other I can tolerate. An example is the neighbor building a Taco Bell next to your house.
Laws to protect us from ourselves are crap.
It is ironic that as countries around the world enjoy more freedom than they ever have, we are going the opposite direction.
Ralph
Mike it wasn’t aimed at you, by any means. But by passing laws that limit people’s choices of what they eat and where they eat it comes under the “Blame the other guy” heading. “It’s the fast food place’s fault, not mine”
It goes to the heart of what we’re discussing. Do you ban fast food stores because they create a health hazard or do you ban them for zoning reasons? Zoning reasons I can live with. Calling them a health hazard and to limit the problem of obesity is another story altogether. That comes under the Personal Responsibility heading and I will never agree to a law that undermines that. Car makers have been trying to “Idiot-Proof” cars for years and idiots still find a way to kill themselves in a car or worse, some innocent bystander.
So now it’s fast food places. What will they outlaw next? How much you weigh? How much you eat? And who determines if your obese or not? The government? I don’t need the government or anybody else lecturing me on how I want to live. If people want to eat a Big Mac, then have at it.
Mike,
You could ban nearly every food for health reasons.
If they feel trans fat is unhealthy…require a warning be posted. The trans fat will be removed soon enough.
How about beer and such? I’m sure this is a major contributor to health care costs.
Cars kill and maim…ban them also.
Sports ? You could get hurt…banned
Sex ? She could get pregnant.Health care costs, you know…banned
Ralph
Well as far as zoning restrictions, it’s harder find find a more unconstitutional piece of legislation. Freedom of contract is central to the American political system–it might be regarded as the central right–and zoning basically says that I cannot sell my property to whoever I please. I support zoning laws, but they are a blatant infringement of freedom of contract.
It could be easily argued that they serve to protect people from themselves. Absent zoning restrictions, everyone would make the best possible financial bargain, with the result being the collapse of specific neighborhoods and neighborhood character. Zoning laws protect people from their tendency to let the market rule. You could argue it that way.
If you can regulate who I can sell my house to under the guise of the public good, and you can regulate where businesses may locate under the guise of the public good, then this fast food “moratorium” (not ban) would seem to be consistent with precedent
What about, say, cigarette advertising? It’s banned on TV. You might call this the triumph of the intrusive nanny state, but the whole point of advertising is to persuade people to do something that they would not otherwise do. And it works–or why else spend billions of dollars on it?
Ladies and gentlemen, the responsibility steel cage match
On one side, a 16 year old doofus watching TV. On the other, Ligget and Myers, with a 60 million dollar advertising budget and the capacity to put the best creative minds of a generation–photographers, film makers, makeup artists, lighting experts, demographers, marketing experts-to work 24/7 to get doofus to start smoking.
Hey, it’s the kid’s fault!
Well yes it is, but let’s not pretend this is some kind of level playing field. It would indeed be my fault if I went up against the LA Lakers and lost. All my fault. No one would say it was a fair contest.
Or maybe Lincoln said it best, speaking of newspapers: “Must I shoot the 16 year old boy who deserts, and not shoot the treasonous editor who persuaded him to desert?” Was Lincoln arguing against personal responsibility?
You know, I’d just like to say thank you.
I tend to have opinions that are out of the mainstream around here, and probably out of the mainstream among G scalers in general. At some other forums political discussion usually takes the form of one guy saying “can I get an amen” and a bunch of guys saying “amen.” Saying anything else gets the moderators mad at you.
On this forum there seems to be lively and intelligent discussion and disagreement without the scorched earth hostility. That’s what free speech is supposed to be like. So thank you for letting me participate
“and zoning basically says that I cannot sell my property to whoever I please”
There is no zoning in my township. But I have lived with zoning in 3 other states.
Nowhere I have lived has zoning regulated who property can be sold to. It regulates use. You should be aware of the usage permitted when you purchase the property.
Any prior usage to zoning and zoning changes are usually “grandfathered”.
You can sell to whoever you please. They just can’t do whatever they please with it after they buy it.
Ralph
mike omalley said:
You know, I'd just like to say thank you.I tend to have opinions that are out of the mainstream around here, and probably out of the mainstream among G scalers in general. At some other forums political discussion usually takes the form of one guy saying “can I get an amen” and a bunch of guys saying “amen.” Saying anything else gets the moderators mad at you.
On this forum there seems to be lively and intelligent discussion and disagreement without the scorched earth hostility. That’s what free speech is supposed to be like. So thank you for letting me participate
I might get hostile now and then, but I usually snap out of it quickly.
I’ve been on the opposite side of the discussion here with both the right and left.
Some right wingers might think I’m a liberal. The liberals might think I’m a right winger.
Or you all may think I’m schizophrenic :lol:
Ralph