Okay...just gotta ask

[Lex]

First, to get the labeling straight---instead of being a self-described liberal, in the speech Friedman described himself this way : "I am a limited-goverriment (sic) libertarian, not an anarchist libertarian, though I have a great deal of sympathy for anarchist libertarians, including the fact that my son is one."

Cigaret smoking has declined so significantly because it was recognized as a public health crisis and the population was educated about it. The % of smokers has been reduced by more than half. More people quit and more never started. The hearts and minds were won over concerning risk and smoking has become increasingly less socially acceptable. Today kids make their parents squirm if they smoke. If a pregnant woman is smoking or drinking, people are horrified. If it had simply been criminalized, that change in attitude toward wouldn't have occurred. Hearts and minds are being won over. It took time.

The war on drugs hasn't and won't work because the hearts and minds of the population haven't been won over. Somehow we adopted a military approach to this "war". Where there is demand, someone will supply. Cigaret use didn't decrease because the suppliers were put out of business or became more responsible. People learned about smoking and smokers learned how to stop. It'll have to be the same with drugs. Prior to the mid-1960s, very few people would consider using drugs. That's changed and there needs to be a massive and effective education campaign. It's slow, but it works. Active addicts don't need to be educated. They know better than anyone what a nightmare addiction is. Once addicted, no one wants to continue to be an addict, but they haven't been able to stop. Like cigaret smokers, they want to stop, but haven't found a way to. They need access to treatment. Incarceration is not treatment.

Drugs are going to continue to be available. I wouldn't favor legalization of hard drugs. I wouldn't make them more or more easily available. Our experience with tobacco and alcohol should discourage that. Drugs are manufactured right down the street---crystal meth--or come into the country quite easily. And again, the Taliban may be a lot of things, but they're not the ones providing heroin to the U.S. Most heroin (and cocaine) reaching the U.S. is from Mexico or South America (primarily Colombia). Big busts look good on television, but they're such a tiny drop in the bucket as to be meaningless. The truth is that we can't stop drugs from being available. The trade is so extensive and highly organized that it can't be disrupted in any significant way. In the case of crystal meth, it's the reverse--- small-scale, disorganized, transitory operations. The funds and resources are wasted and the agencies are satisfied with busts that have only PR value and let the TV viewers believe that we're making a "dent". Guys in uniforms aren't going to be the key people in addressing the drug epidemic.


And since drugs are going to continue be available the only approach that has any chance of working is to change hearts and minds. Put the money into making treatment available. Stop filling prisons with people who need treatment. And make a serious commitment to dealing with this public health crisis. We hopped on H1N1 pretty quickly. At the start we didn't do to well addressing the AIDS epidemic, but eventually came around to an effective approach. People will die today from drug-related causes. There needs to be a serious commitment to addressing it.

We're urban dwellers We've lived in a large city for years, so this gives us a bit different perspective than many on this forum. This is close to us. Daily. My work also brings me into direct contact with folks with substance abuse problems. These are not statistics or nameless, faceless people to us. Time to recognize the drug epidemic as primarily a public health crisis and to organize it and fund it appropriately.

[sherban]

Lex- Alot of sensible comments...I agree education is one of the best tools we have. There are alot of people, however; who cannot or will not learn...they may just be doomed. I also think that we have to realize that recreational drugs are something people want and will pay for (DEMAND)...that's what alcohol is and nicotine/caffeine are....this is a business that will never go away.

Sox- I guess I understood what point you were trying to make I just don't see the connections you are making...just perspaective.

Smoking in public hurts people near you. It is something you choose to do that can hurt others in near proximity.

Sun and sunscreen....doesn't affect others it is nature and how you deal with it.

Nuclear power...an industrial risk...just like a factory...if it blows we are screwed.

I just don't see what any of that has to do with choosing to smoke in a restaurant...I know I can get up and leave but what if the smoking a$$holes come in when we are halfway through our meal?...It's alot different.

[soxfan22]

Smoking in public hurts people near you. It is something you choose to do that can hurt others in near proximity.

Sun and sunscreen....doesn't affect others it is nature and how you deal with it.


I just don't see what any of that has to do with choosing to smoke in a restaurant...I know I can get up and leave but what if the smoking a$$holes come in when we are halfway through our meal?...It's alot different.

Sherban...It matters because we just came very close to turning over 20% of our economy to the federal government under the guise of "healthcare reform" because of "cost to the system"...In other words, according to some in favor of HCR, the individual decisions of some affect all of us...So, my point is, if we are really trying to limit "costs to the system", then why not mandate sunscreen.

My arguement sounds preposterous because it is. You say that we should mandate smoking bans (federal or state mandates) because of potential harm to you or your family. I guess what I am saying is that, people who are generally in favor of an increased role of government in our everyday lives, use all types of rationale for pushing such policy...Whether it be potential harm to your children (health), or potential harm to the system (economic), there is always a reason (and usually one that sounds very sympathetic) for why we must do something in the legislative branch to protect ourselves from...ourselves and our own "ignorance".

Because you know, congressmen/women know best.

[soxfan22]

I know I can get up and leave but what if the smoking a$$holes come in when we are halfway through our meal?...It's alot different.

I ask this out of pure curiosity...How often, prior to the smoking bans, was your family subjected to the "smoking a$$holes" (your term, not mine) while in the middle of a meal?

When I was a kid, we went out to eat our fair share (generally at a family steakhouse/family restaurant/etc)...I remember vividly one time on our way back from Disney World, we stopped in Virginia at a family buffet called "Duffs"...Some may remember these places, I don't think they exist anymore...Anyway, a woman dressed in a long black dress, high heels, etc sat down right next to our family of four and began smoking like a chimney...My parents were disgusted, and we finished our meal and left.

I tell this story because, it is the ONLY time this happened to me...I remember it like it was yesterday. According to my parents, most people had the common decency, even then, not to smoke around young families, etc.

I tend to have a ton of faith in the decency of the human race. I'm sure that is tough for many here to swallow, being that I am one of three conservatives/libertarians who post regularly, and well, the common misconception is that we just don't care nor believe in others like our political counterparts do.

Couldn't be further from the truth, really!

As for life without the smoking bans...I have always like the adage "Just because you have the right to do something, that doesn't make it the right thing to do"...I try to live my life by that, and will raise my children to believe that as well...And I tend to believe most people live their lives the same way. Maybe I am naive. However, a country that enjoys the freedom, personal liberty, pursuit of happiness (not the guarantee of happiness) depends on the majority living by that precept.

[soxfan22]

First, to get the labeling straight---instead of being a self-described liberal, in the speech Friedman described himself this way : "I am a limited-goverriment (sic) libertarian, not an anarchist libertarian, though I have a great deal of sympathy for anarchist libertarians, including the fact that my son is one."

Lex, with all due respect, I was talking not of the way Friedman described his political ideology in this speech, rather how he had historically done so, which was as a liberal in the true definition of the word "liberal".

See the following clip for his own explanation, I think you'll find it fascinating.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZNc2vzVsIM4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZNc2vzVsIM4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You need only watch these two minutes to gain an understanding of the genius that was Milton Friedman.

[sherban]

Let me state my position on the smoking ban and exit this subject.

I support smoking ban because it is an action of one individual that harms another.

I am not big on forcing people to save themselves if it doesn't affect others. If you don't want to waer a helmet, fine...don't...If you want to smoke two packs a day, do it...just don't share your smoke with my family...I quit back in the 80's...

IMO- the difference is that one affects other people and one is only self inflicted.

[soxfan22]

I respect your opinion, Sherban, and am not trying to change your mind on that. But aren't there many things that other people do that can have a negative impact on the health and well-being of you and your family?

[hawksnestbay]

Cid, pass the peace pipe, I am starting to understand this conversation...

hhhhhhhhhhffffff,


much better. Love you man.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Thanks Cid for insulting the way in which I have spent the last 24 years of my life.

In terms of the "policies" and practices that I advise my clients on, it is more than common sense. Several years ago, the Supreme court came out with companion decisions in the sexual harassment context establishing an affirmative defense for employers if they have a valid sexual harassment policy and actually train personnel on how to enforce it.

Subsequent court decisions and EEOC guidelines have given more detail to what constitutes a valid policy. One part of my job is to keep up on this stuff and to make sure my client's policies meet the standard. Another part of my job is to help my clients train their own supervisors on how to effectively implement the policies and on how to conduct thorough investigations should a complaint arise under the policy. It's more than mere "common sense."

My billing rate reflects the fact that my clients are willing to pay for my 24 years of experience in this area.

The bulk of my job, however, is litigating the meritless discrimination cases that most of my clients face.

You want small business to thrive and keep people employed, then tell the EEOC to do something about the whack employment laws and tell the DOL to do something about the FMLA. These laws are so fraught with peril that employers get tripped up by them through no fault of their own. Guys like me help them navigate these unfriendly waters.

Everybody hates lawyers...until they need one.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Last time I checked, the legal "industry" didn't write laws. That would be the legislature.

Try as you may, you will not get me to feel badly about what I do. Heck, I know that people hate lawyers...I even have a tab on my firm's website entitled, "why people hate lawyers." But, some of us operate with integrity and provide a service to our clients.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Don't get me wrong Pete, I respect the work and study it takes to get a law degree and pass the bar. Don't want to turn this into a beat up the lawyer thread, as the on topic discussion has been very informative. I know how to file a motion, reply and sur reply Beyond that, my courtroom etiquette is marginal, and I have even won some points with the folks with the robes on.

Thanks. I was feeling as though my livelihood was being criticized, which no man appreciates.

Sorry for the diversion. Please feel free to get back to the original topic.

[sailorgirl]

Pete - The only reason we need lawyers is because the legal "industry" has complicated the law so much that it is impossible for the common man to defend himself against the procedural complexity of the system. It is an industry which feeds itself, over and over, on the misfortune of others. I wouldn't be too proud of your billing rate, a good hooker makes more and tax free too!

Gerneralzations are dangerous and frankly unfair. For every hour I bill equal amounts of time go unbilled. Those quick, "it will just take a minute phone calls", the "can I ask your opinion" requests, client who have arbitrary billing rules and who just take 10% off the top for the hell of it. Im proud of my profession and the work we do and frankly I'm getting a little sick and tired of the bashing.
We don't sit around all day congratulating ourselves for pulling off some big hoax over 4 martini lunches and big steaks. Most lawyers earn alot less than you think .

[sherban]

No personal attacks guys...that stuff sux.

My favorite two lines out of this thread so far:

there was some wig adjustment going on.

Finally, I think that we all would benefit from a huge bong hit...gentle on the carb, no coughing.

The wig adjustment comment had me LOL at my desk at work...

Cheers for the fabulous freak bros!