Comments on: Post-Reductio America

By: Ms. Dani

Ms. Dani — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:15:01 +0000

My entire family smoked and so did I, but my older sister hates it and has not ever smoked. I used to steal my step-dad’s cigarettes. How does that happen that my sister and I were so different in that and having the same influences?

Here’s a a good ban: “Ban on Internet Taxes” Woohoo! Four more years of freedom!

By: roger

roger — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:48:02 +0000

Evan -

Interesting point. My dad was a smoker back when I was a kid, and I think that had a lot to do with my aversion to smoking.

Plus, back in school, I always found the smokers looked like they were trying WAY too hard to be cool, which of course ended up making them look anything BUT cool. Thus, I never caved-in to the supposedly relentless peer pressure, either.

By: mosesmalone

mosesmalone — Fri, 30 Apr 2004 00:28:18 +0000

…funny…I was in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia a few years back and they had these “morality” police (who were distict from the regular ‘beat’ cops) who wore long flowing robes and carried what looked like a riding crop…they would use it to swat passing women who showed a bare ankle or who looked to be dressed in an ‘immoral’ way. Strange that there would be parallels between our bible belt and theirs.

By: Diego

Diego — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:23:12 +0000

Who will you call to fix your sink when all the plumbers are in jail for visible buttcrack?

By: Amy Phillips

Amy Phillips — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:17:53 +0000

Garth,
We can’t just monitor what parents feed their kids, because they may slip them junk food when the government isn’t looking. I think we should ban parents feeding their kids at all, and require that they bring their kids to government run food distribution centers three times a day to be served government approved, nutritious meals. Any parent caught feeding his child would be arrested and his parental rights terminated. After all, how else are we supposed to protect the children?

By: Joker

Joker — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:09:05 +0000

So, um, what about ‘beach-wear’? You can pretty much see whatever you want and the last time I checked, the world isn’t scheduled to end because of that.
On smoking:
I too am a successful example of the ‘second-hand repulsive deterrence’ effect. Lucky for me I guess – too bad for those who will be denied that opportunity.

And another point to consider: if your typical teenager wants to ‘rebel against society’ will he/she take up smoking or decide not to do it, these days?

By: msc

msc — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:53:17 +0000

Now, I do live in S. California, and unfortunately, I do also smoke. And I am PISSED. I don’t have kids, and I would never smoke if I did. (If you are going to quit to have a baby why go back?)
But, first the restaurants, than the bars (of all places),beaches, public parks, and now my OWN CAR!!
On the issue of bars by the way, ALOT of bars went out of business completely when that ban went into effect. That is the ones that choose to follow the law at all, there are still quite a few establishments (mostly dive bars) where you can still smoke!
UNBELIEVABLE!

By: the diddy

the diddy — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:40:46 +0000

If they aren’t going to prosecute Todd Bertuzzi for making meat pies out of Steve Moore’s face on a hockey rink, they sure as hell can’t prosecute a basketball player for wearing his pants wrong.

By: Andrew Ian Dodge

Andrew Ian Dodge — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:09:52 +0000

Just because they are health fascists doesn’t mean they are not fascists.

By: Garth

Garth — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:51:22 +0000

I say we ban parents from feeding kids junk food. We need random (and not so random) home invasions by federal marshals in which cupboards and refrigerators are searched, junk food impounded, and the parents hauled away. It is for the good of the children afterall!

And let’s deputize cashiers at supermarkets, convenience stores, and Micky-D’s who can make spot arrests if parents buying things that they should not be feeding their children. Think of the children!

/sarcasm

By: Skip Oliva

Skip Oliva — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:39:56 +0000

If low-rise pants are so bad for people, why don’t states just tax them for revenue like they do with cigarettes?

Kidding, of course.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:24:49 +0000

Does this ban on low rise pants have a clear definition of what low rise pants are? Is there a certain distance from the belly button that they become “low rise pants”? Will police walk around with rulers, measuring the distance between each passer-by’s pants and their navel?

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:53:55 +0000

Evan -

I’m right there with you on “second-hand repulsive deterrence” (good name, too). The biggest deterrent to me smoking was my mother’s awful smoking when I was a kid.

By: Evan Williams

Evan Williams — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:05:32 +0000

I think you’re all missing a very important component of this issue. Now, I don’t have any scientific documentation (as I am sure that not too many studies, if any at all, have been done on the subject), but I speak purely from firsthand experience.

What I’m talking about is what I call “second-hand repulsive deterrence”. Allow me to explain. My mom used to smoke when I was a kid. She smoked in the house, she smoked in the car, she smoked smoked smoked. And I HATED IT! It was a nasty, awful, repugnant stank. And you know what? Thanks to that experience, I grew up dispising, HATING, cigarette smoke. And to this day, I have never so much as put a cigarette to my lips, in all my years. And I attribute this directly to my mother’s irresponsibility.

And even though I hate smoke with a passion, I vehemently oppose all these bullshit bans in private establishments and, now, PRIVATE AUTOMOBILES.

These foolish lawmakers are inadvertently depriving these children of their god-given right to be repulsed by this awful habit, and thus, develop an abhorrance that keeps them away from it when they grow older.

Perhaps I’m just a bit crazy, and perhaps my experience was unique, but I just thought I’d add that little tidbit to the fire. I still oppose these bans on all the principled libertarian platforms, etc., etc., et. al. This is just another layer.

By: David L.

David L. — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:53:03 +0000

I want to know who’s funding these legislative outings and see if they’ll pay me to champion silly bills in Florida….

By: Gino

Gino — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:45:54 +0000

Answer: It’s not a law that bans poisoning your children. It’s a law telling you what to do, in your car, purportedly for the sake of your children, with little or no regard for the differences between second-hand smoke and that directly inhaled, and with little or no regard for variances; for example, driving with the windows down versus up, one cigarette per day versus several, etc. Once you follow the line of thinking of this kind of legislation, there is no end to what the state can tell you to do, and thus no beginning to your own discretion. It’s silly really.

By: Scared Stiff

Scared Stiff — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:14:11 +0000

Even on the basketball court!!

By: Ms. Dani

Ms. Dani — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:03:34 +0000

Funny thing is, Loosiana is the home-state of Britney Spears, queen of the low-rise pants.

By: Frank Hummel

Frank Hummel — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:18:14 +0000

Land of the free…

By: MattG

MattG — Thu, 29 Apr 2004 06:43:33 +0000

BAN! BAN! BAAAAAAAAN!!!!!