It's discrimination, but it's okay because they use tobacco

[grouchy]

you cant get a job with marion county if you smoke or can prove that you have quit smoking for atleast (6?) months.
there are even private industries with no smoking policies.
next thing will be arrested from carring your smokes across a state line. smoking while driving.
how long are people going to be complacent about these shinnagins snow balling?
define: of the people by the people and for the people. does this even exist anymore in anyway? is it worth more than quotation marks? politically correct? for whom?

your/you're right to ask questions and demand answers.

 

[yoru]

MIP = minor in possession aussielass -- usually reserved for pot and other drugs, but recently they've been really cracking down on tobacco as well. and a ticket is well. .. .a piece of paper (ticket) with a fine that you have to pay on it :P
Also grouchy -- your questions are the reason I give up. Either everything is all right, or nothing is -- everything obviously cannot be all right, but politicians cannot be trusted to me moral or upstanding by any definition ergo one cannot simply address the actual issues -- ergo the real-life alternative is that nothing is. Everything is acceptance of the national culture, not freedom. We have the freedom to remove the freedoms of others by the consent of the loudest majority -- nothing more. I'd point out that this is proof that democracy does not and indeed CANNOT work. . .but 200+ years of slavery, bigotry, religious persecution, racism, sexism, wage-slavery, sedition acts, patriot acts, the Red Scare, prohibition, the war on drugs, no child left behind, Spanish American War, Vietnam, the after-math of WW I, Occupation of Japan, concentration camps of various peoples (most prominently Germans on a few occasions and the once of Japanese), xenophobia, sloth, self-indulgence, self righteous religious fervors and abolitions, half-assed revolutions, martial law. . . .. I could go on and on and on trying to say that the "founding fathers" ideals were never practiced at all, this is nothing new, and things aren't even getting worse, just different. Look at Jefferson's own attempts to gain near totalitarian control when he realized that the people are an unruly mob once becoming president.
What does work? Maybe nothing. In fact, almost certainly nothing. If anything can be said about mankind it is that those with strong beliefs impose them on others, and that the nature of man tends towards entropy. In other words, these persons impsoe their will which is accepted in good times, and during the bad times they cause revolution or at the very very least reform is birthed. And the cycle repeats.

 

[markw4mms]

Everything is acceptance of the national culture, not freedom. We have the freedom to remove the freedoms of others by the consent of the loudest majority -- nothing more. I'd point out that this is proof that democracy does not and indeed CANNOT work.

The problem here is we are not or are not supposed to be a Democracy, the US is a Constitutional Republic, somewhere everyone has forgotten the Constitution part of the equation,and until we start following it again, we'll continue to have these problems.

 

[yoru]

Supposed to be and reality are two very different things -- we are an amalgamation of an oligarchical republic, which is controlled an an almost aristocratic estate of wealthy elites and powerful merchant and industrial companies, with a mercantile economy where the crown is replaced by these companies which have been nearly enfeoffed in many ways (take, for example, that most corporate taxes are actuated through sales tax. . .which the consumer pays) and where, at the local level, the government is rule by a almost wholly democratic method, except where replaced by appointment mandates.
If you had to say we are -closest- to anything? Mercantilism (as would apply if it were a form of governance directly) absolutely. Then the Roman Republic, and then Athenian democracy.
As for the constitution? There's nothing in it that prevents us from being a a democracy at the state level. In fact, that's the whole thing. The original constitution wasn't supposed to -do- much of anything. The original intention of the US federal government was effectively to do the job of the EU of today. What people should be much, much more concerned with is -state governments- and the horrifying thing is that a lot of -states- have added things to their constitutions that give them the ability to do these forms of discriminatory acts and so on. The United States are exactly that, united States (as in countries, independent governments) -- can one really argue the Civil War argument of States Rights was just pulled out of their ass? I mean yeah, not the point of the war (certainly not by itself at any rate) -- but up until this point the federal government wasn't supposed to mess with states beyond their contact with foreign nations or with one-another.
Furthermore, democratic republic is the classical definition of the US Government, because we -are- suppose to vote for representatives as well as the president, and even that much power in the hands of the voters, I argue, is far to much. Again, I can see reasons it doesn't work--- but there is no working alternative.
The closest thing to a functioning government is a limited democratic socialist republic where the government itself owns all these corporations and uses the funds to supply the more difficult needs of the people and to equalize them. No need to tax the wealthy because there ARE no wealthy. The government itself owns 85% of the wealth so it has the funds to provide almost universally for the people, and people can still make amounts relevant to the amount of work they do because the government would actually receive 100% of all money entering the state at some point, that 15% of the wealth controlled by the people is just easily chosen and dispursed.

Obviously taxes would be a moot point as well.
But even in this case where individuals would have the power to be trusted here. . .it wouldn't work. Because people cannot be trusted.
Finally, mark --- the part of my post that you quoted applies equally to Republics as it does democracy. Representatives act on the nature of the national culture, and the loudest minorities, always have -- and the constitution could be altered and would be if people took the time to bother with it. People started skipping this step more and more often a long time ago when they realized that they could, and it is faster, cheaper, and slightly easier to do so. SO I state the same information is proof that Republics don't work.
Also. . . just a little side-note. . . .Since Athens is the only city (basically) ever to use straight democracy, it can be said that democracy does not exist, and when one says Democracy, they mean Constitutional Republic. I mean, all these nations we've 'liberated' and put in democracy. . .did we put in democracies? No, we put in Constitutional Republics. The terms are interchangeable in the US (I think Democracy is just more appealing).

 

[doctorthoss]

Yoru -- Our republic has been pretty successful so far. No system has ever worked perfectly, no matter how you define "perfectly." At least in ours, there are theoretical limits to the government and majority rule, and so long as we have free and open elections the people have at least some say-so. I look at it as Winston Churchill did: "Democracy is a horrible form of government -- but it's less horrible than anything else that's ever been tried."

 

[yoru]

As my own mentor was wont to say - My own goal in life is that you shall prove me wrong. But today all I've heard from you is a pardon the ills of the governance, rather than redress them. I stand by my words.

 

[markw4mms]

I have to agree that there is no real perfect form of government, but what we have here is better than what a lot of the world has to deal with. That being said, I'm a firm believer that the main things the Federal government should be responsible for are the protection of the union from foes, both foreign, and domestic, and for things such as the interstate highway systems, etc. I also believe that the Federal government should prevent the states from interfering with free interstate commerce (ie not allowing tobacco shipments into one state from another). I believe this issue itself should be challenged as unconstitutional. I do order most, if not all my tobacco online, but it's not because if I do I don't have to pay taxes on it, it's because I don't feel like having to drive almost 100 miles round trip to get to one of the few decent B&M's to me. But the biggest sticking point I have with what you said, (and forgive me if I'm reading you wrong), is the government has no business in the redistribution of wealth at all. I'm not rich by any means, I work to support a family of three, and get absolutely no assistance from anyone. Even though I live paycheck to paycheck, I don't think it's right to take from one to give to another just because they can afford it so to speak. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"(Karl Marx) is not what this country needs, and not what I desire. This of course, is just my humble opinion, and we all know what that's like, I'm sure you know the saying I'm referring to. I do enjoy the debate with you though.
Note to the Mods, if this post has violated any of the rules, I apologize,and ask that it be removed.

 

[pipetrucker]

Sadly, fascism, authoritarianism, etc. has always crept into every form of government that has ever existed. I personally believe that is the very thing that, along with corruption, has eventually led to the downfall of every great civilization that has ever risen. People simply can't resist the urge to control the lives and behaviors of other people and mind their own damn business.
At some point the people who are not in control or among the elite class get sick of being crapped on and revolt.

 

[markw4mms]

Sadly, fascism, authoritarianism, etc. has always crept into every form of government that has ever existed. I personally believe that is the very thing that, along with corruption, has eventually led to the downfall of every great civilization that has ever risen. People simply can't resist the urge to control the lives and behaviors of other people and mind their own damn business.
At some point the people who are not in control or among the elite class get sick of being crapped on and revolt.

I agree, and that's one reason I'm really surprised this country hasn't already fallen apart. There are a lot of people who will tell you that historically speaking, we are past due for a revolution. We've had this government for well over 200 years, and most don't last that long without a major shake up. Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a good example of what is likely to come.

 

[cthulhu]

I think the reason why stuff like this happens is pretty simple: Government is to appease the masses. Tobacco use has fallen out of favor, being painted by the government as a poison. So, it's no surprise that tobacco users are being singled out.
It will be this way in any type of government you can conceive. You simply cannot address all the problems associated with a society and keep all parties happy. No matter how good or bad a society will be, there will be a group that will be unhappy with what is happening. The sad part is, due to human nature, we must have some form of order, so it's really a situation of choosing the lesser of two evils.
Pipetrucker, I agree with you, but must add that I feel the reason many of the great societies crumbled was not knowing when to stop. This is why we see counterculture movements that take extreme conservative views in hopes of reversing or at least slowing down the degeneration of morals etc.. in their culture.

 

[cthulhu]

Whoops double post...

 

[dburrows]

I do believe a business has the right to refuse whom they choose. I think the argument would be made against frequent smoke breaks by many cigarette smokers. I had a friend who owned his business and he would take anyone he was interviewing to a restaurant. If they lit up while having lunch they wouldn't get the job.
It would be wiser (not saying I agree with these... I'm not making the rules, but for the sake of argument) to say no smoking on company time... or perhaps limit how many breaks one could take, etc. Not sure though. In any place I've worked over the last 8 years, I've seen companies relegate smoking sections to: off the property, by the dumpster on the other side of the parking lot (they would always say by the dumpster, I believe, to make a statement) and the last place the smoking section was moved so far away it was quite literally a 3 or 4 minute walk to get there.
What I completely disagree with is the testing for nicotine - a legal substance. It doesn't tell you anything about the person and unfortunately lumps any tobacco user with the one they are most likely trying to avoid.
[edit]And if it's really an argument regarding health/insurance, etc., then people need to be educated. Is it really the tobacco that causes the health problems? Or is it the some 600 synthetic chemicals that get added to most cigarettes? And anyone who is so naive to scold cigarette smokers for their bad habit while walking into a McDonald's to get a Big Mac, french fries and a coke needs to have their head examined.

 

[yoru]

You read me more or less correctly Mark -- I wasn't saying it works. . .or exactly that precisely . .. but in the real world that is what many of my nearest ideas would come to -- if you take my meaning on that bit of circuitous thought *chuckles*.
I respect your optimism, I don't share it, but there is a time and place and purpose to everything and your attitude certainly has its place and merits. As I alluded -- I'm just waiting for someone like you to out and out prove me wrong by showing me what this kind of optimism can lead to. Though I recognize your basic pessimism in the actual practice of things as well (if your Atlas Shrugged allusion was even half serious), that optimism is what I would like to see prove true.
In fact, if one notes that my mentor used to say it to me: that he was waiting for me to prove him wrong, I mean, then it should come to light that I had optimism once upon a time. Then he died, and while his death did not cause my cynicism, I think if he had been alive during the times that DID lead to that, it might have turned another way. Anymore, I just don't have the belief, faith, or optimism that our government, our people, or that(those) of any nation have either the ability or the merit to persist. But this kind of cynicism pays a heavy toll, and I cannot help but wish to be shown that I am a wrong and miserable thing.
"Better to burn in hell for seeing heaven, than to live forever in the abyss."

 

[markw4mms]

Well Yoru, we'll just have to see what happens. I used to be one that said it's better to be pessimistic and pleasantly surprised,, than be optimistic, and always disappointed, but all the negative thoughts just led to total depression. It does seem that what the people expect from government goes in cycles, and the trend over the last few years has been more a socialistic view, but in time, it will swing the other way if history repeats itself. Once again, I've been enjoying our discussion, and will be interested in the views of some more of the members as well.