« 'But Mommy! **UPDATED** and Updated again! | Main | The 'Holiday' Season starts ... »
November 22, 2008
How I gave up on liberty and learned to embrace Nanny
And savor the irony of the overweight, grey-haired, peace-sign-wearing, former hippie near the end blathering:
Tobacco is a no win situation for all of us and if we can't stop ourselves the government should help us stop.Dude!
Posted by Darleen at November 22, 2008 02:06 PM
Comments
Here in So Cal the city of Calabasas banned smoking in all public places including your car if the windows are down and someone else maybe effected.
I personally break that law every chance I get.
Posted by: ML at November 22, 2008 10:11 PM
Wow, you're a regular fucking Gandhi, ML. Way to fight the power, brother!
So do you guys want to legalize all drugs or are you ok with the nanny state as long as you get to be the nanny?
Posted by: Josh at November 22, 2008 10:31 PM
Josh
In the pantheon of drugs, I'd rather my adult children smoke cigarettes than drink alcohol.
A whiff of second-hand smoke on a public sidewalk is no more dangerous than that whiff of coffee escaping the Starbucks where we find fattie hippie above.
And you should like really watch that straw in your diet ... all law in a nation predicated on individual rights and liberty (as opposed to Leftist collective rights and soft slavery) must come under scrutiny as to its intrusive effect on individuals, its efficacy and if it is the proper province of government.
While The One has little respect for the Constitution, the Founding Fathers wrote it as a limiting document on government, not a limiting document on The People.
Posted by: Darleen at November 23, 2008 07:30 AM
Josh
You suffer from a bad case of short-man syndrome.
Say hi to Tom Cruise for me.
Posted by: ML at November 23, 2008 09:20 AM
I'm actually 6'6", ML. Makes it tough to ride the subway sometimes but I get by.
I don't think coffee fumes contain carcinogens, Darleen. Food for thought.
Are either of you actually going to give a straightforward answer to my question? Should we throw off the chains of the nannystate and legalize marijuana? How about cocaine?
Posted by: Josh at November 23, 2008 09:46 AM
The day you are 6'6" is the day pigs will fly.
I think the city of Calabasas smoking ordinance goes to far.
Now I like the no-smoking laws for restaurants and such, when I travel to places that do not have these laws I find the indoor air quality atrocious.
All our illegal drugs were legal back in and before the 1920's.
Medical Marijuana is legal here in California, and it’s a joke because its easy to find a Doctor and get a prescription for it and for any reason.
Posted by: ML at November 23, 2008 10:04 AM
Hmm, ML, sounds like maybe you are suffering from Short Man Syndrome.
Not sure if that was a yea or nay on legalizing drugs, though.
Posted by: Leah at November 23, 2008 11:13 AM
That’s a nay, the wide use of these drugs in the 1920's caused lots of problems. Just as too much alcohol does today.
Posted by: ML at November 23, 2008 11:26 AM
I see. So this is an area where you and Darleen disagree. Cause you DO believe in a nanny state. I understand.
Posted by: Leah at November 23, 2008 11:45 AM
No I do not believe in a nanny state.
Its like building codes and other laws there to protect the citizens but it has limits.
Posted by: ML at November 23, 2008 12:11 PM
Josh
Still with the straw. It's not either/or in regards to "drugs", but matters of degree. You might as well say "either you are for or against traffic laws". And we know such laws can be over or under done.
Personally, I'd legalize and regulate pot like alcohol. And I would allow employers to demand no pot smoking like they do alcohol consumption.
And ditch the carcinogen hysteria, Josh. All "smells" are a collection of molecules your olfactory system picks up and coffee contains carcinogens, too. Hells bells, if we wanted to avoid all carcinogens we'd have to stop eatting and breathing completely!
There is no such thing as a risk free life. Adults learn to deal with it and balance risk against gain or loss; leftist juveniles demand a guarantee against all risk.
Posted by: Darleen at November 23, 2008 01:02 PM
Hey, ML. Here is a picture of me dunking in college. As you can see from my unimpressive vertical, I am indeed 6'6".
You just got owned, ML.
Darleen, I have a BA in biochemistry (though perhaps I'll have to post my transcript to prove it to ML), so I'm well aware of what smells are. One thing I learned in my studies was that everything is dose-dependent, and cigarette smoke has a much higher concentration of carcinogens than coffee does. It also lacks the anti-oxidants that coffee has that may fight cancer.
What is wrong with California drawing the line of acceptable risk so that sidestream cigarette smoke is excluded? If people need to indulge their addiction, fine, but why should anyone else have to be exposed to it?
Posted by: Josh at November 23, 2008 05:17 PM
Of course I got owned, you found a picture on photo bucket and that proves what?
Form my experience most men taller then 6 foot are not so emotionally unhinged, you maybe the exception.
If you have a BA in biochemistry, I wouldn’t brag about it and you may want to request a refund because you are a half-wit.
Something doesn’t jive from your photobucket, you claimed you send cougars home and from your picture those cougars must be what 90-100 years old, I think those are called dinosaurs not cougars.
But don’t let me interfere with your 6'6" tall Bruce Lee delusions
Posted by: ML at November 23, 2008 08:51 PM
Yeah, ML. You're right. I confess. It's a massive fraud to convince you that I'm actually the height I say I am. Too bad teen detective ML sniffed me out!
You're a fucking clown. Who helps dress you in the morning?
Posted by: Josh at November 24, 2008 12:21 AM
most men taller then 6 foot are not so emotionally unhinged,
Wingnut science! Being short makes you crazy!
Posted by: Leah at November 24, 2008 03:31 AM
Josh
Like I said,
I wouldn’t brag about having a BA in biochemistry and whatever you paid for it, you got ripped off.
It is possible that you are a 65+ year old long haired 6'6" tall man that could dunk 45+ years ago and you have a BA in biochemistry.
But I wouldn’t brag about being that old and that ignorant and that immature for someone who is supposedly so highly educated.
In light of that your cougar comment makes no sense, unless those cougars are over the age of 80, which is also possible.
Posted by: ML at November 24, 2008 07:10 AM
You make less sense with each comment. That picture is 12 years old. I'm 32. See the cut-off shirt that Mahidi is wearing underneath his practice jersey? People didn't wear that style 40 years ago.
Are you on an anticholinesterase? I'd ask my doctor if I were you.
Posted by: Josh at November 24, 2008 09:54 AM
On second-hand (and first-hand) smoke:
Lies, Damned Lies, and 400,000 Smoking Deaths (PDF)
Posted by: Stephen R at November 24, 2008 12:03 PM
You have that much gray hair at 32?
That sucks.
Posted by: ML at November 24, 2008 03:56 PM