All Hank, all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Something so minor seems really out of place in the middle of your rant.

The 2d hand smoke debate is so flawed. The surgeon general says its "dangerous" in any amount. That's simply a lie. It's an outrageous expansion of the baseline for "danger." Ask any oncologist - he'll tell you they've never even proved 2d hand smoke can cause lung cancer. It's considered a joke among docs privately, but they don't say that aloud.

We allow the govt to lie to us on these issues because "well, its all for a better good." And so they take our liberties. I personally don't mind smoking bans, but the dumb do-gooders who get behind them, and trumpet their misinformation like it were scripture, are sooooo fucking annoying.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I think the liberal view of terrorists as criminals also has something to do with liberals' sympathy for terrorists. Terrorists do what they do because they have no other options to fight those in power. Liberals live to challenge power structures. Its part of the definition of a classic liberal in this country. Liberals "understand" terrorists. In a queer way, they sympathize with a terrorist's struggle, even if they loath what the terrorist does.

The liberals are misguided. They miss the fact that this isn't a David v. Goliath thing. The terrorists are not fighting for righteous change - they just want to be in power, and be every bit as oppressive as the regimes they cry have oppressed them.

I'm sure you'll get a lot of flack for posting this, but not from me. I have always maintained on here that there is a certain romantic notion to Bin Laden so that even prosperous, educated Muslims living in Western Nations secretly find the guy cool and admired his ability to "take down the towers." I think this anti-power/stick-it-to-the man thing is romantic to liberals, too and there could even be a gut level, fleeting empathy with terrorist acts (but not when the issues are fully analyzed).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Given that smokers tend to sea the beach (and the woods, the street, the sidewalk, or basically, anywhere) as their own personal ashtray, I do see the logic in it.

But if sebby has a market-based solution to the problem of littering, I am all ears.

If the ban were based on littering, I'd get behind it. I agree smoker's litter is offensive.

But it's not based on that. It's predicated on a absolutely unsupportable claim that second hand smoke on a beach might somehow cause cancer in a person sitting ten feet from you, which is outrageous. That they'd even offer such a predicate shows just how stupid the public is, and how sure the govt is that it can get away with using misinformation to achieve goals. That's saddening and frightening.

But hey, if we're stupid enough to be manipulated by this shit, we deserve whhat we get.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the ban were based on littering, I'd get behind it. I agree smoker's litter is offensive.

But it's not based on that. It's predicated on a absolutely unsupportable claim that second hand smoke on a beach might somehow cause cancer in a person sitting ten feet from you, which is outrageous. That they'd even offer such a predicate shows just how stupid the public is, and how sure the govt is that it can get away with using misinformation to achieve goals. That's saddening and frightening.

But hey, if we're stupid enough to be manipulated by this shit, we deserve whhat we get.

It's stinky and gross, and that's enough for me.

However, as to your dangers argument, I think the danger of secondhand smoke is very very real for, ahem, infants and small children and can permanently affect them. Less of a danger for adults. So I'm pretty much OK, and I don't plan on having any kids -- yay for me! Plus the health of kids lungs and their brain capacity and stuff may not matter when most all the crops die. I'll be dead by then -- yay for me!

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If the ban were based on littering, I'd get behind it. I agree smoker's litter is offensive.

But it's not based on that. It's predicated on a absolutely unsupportable claim that second hand smoke on a beach might somehow cause cancer in a person sitting ten feet from you, which is outrageous. That they'd even offer such a predicate shows just how stupid the public is, and how sure the govt is that it can get away with using misinformation to achieve goals. That's saddening and frightening.

But hey, if we're stupid enough to be manipulated by this shit, we deserve whhat we get.

I agree that a second hand smoke justification is ridiculous. But the article you linked to suggest that litter was at least part of the justification.

• Discarded cigarette butts that either burden trash collectors or wash into the ocean also have fueled beach bans.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Adder

But if sebby has a market-based solution to the problem of littering, I am all ears.

Ban the sale of filtered cigarettes. Or charge a premium for them equal to the cost of cleaning up and/or disposing of each butt. Or put a "deposit" on them like bottles, and give anyone 10c for each filter they bring in.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It's stinky and gross, and that's enough for me.

However, as to your dangers argument, I think the danger of secondhand smoke is very very real for, ahem, infants and small children and can permanently affect them.

On the beach?

You raise a good point. I understand the indoor smoking bans. I can deal with that. But outdoors? Come on... Nobody's getting cancer from somebody sitting twenty feet away puffing a stogey.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
I agree that a second hand smoke justification is ridiculous. But the article you linked to suggest that litter was at least part of the justification.

• Discarded cigarette butts that either burden trash collectors or wash into the ocean also have fueled beach bans.

It should be the only justification. The rest is a lie, which a small caveat hinting at the real reason for the ban doesn't undo.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There is no good reason for us not to be doing the same thing, except that our government does not take the threat of terrorism as seriously as Israel's does.

Wikipedia describes it thus:

• Passengers are asked to report three hours before takeoff. In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation.

Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.

If you were going to implement something like this, you'd have to do pre-screening, and provide for "safe traveller" passes, that would allow people to avoid the lines.

Also, in reviewing teh TSA website for some recent travel, and seeing the diverted flight posted above, I learned that scissors and screwdrivers are now allowed in carry-on luggage. Scissors I can understand, because people knit, sew, etc. But screwdrivers? What do you need a screwdriver on the plane for? Are you putting together a computer or a cabinet? It seems like the criterion should not be limited to potential danger, but also potential utility while in flight.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On the beach?

You raise a good point. I understand the indoor smoking bans. I can deal with that. But outdoors? Come on... Nobody's getting cancer from somebody sitting twenty feet away puffing a stogey.

WTF beach are you going to? What about when it's crowded, and you've gotten out the cooler and spread out the blanket and put the umbrella up and (a) the infant has finally gone to sleep or (b) the kid has toys all over the place, and a bunch of hoodlums set up camp right next to you and are all smoking up a storm?

Again, I could give a shit about your kids' brain damage or heart damage or lung disease. But I'd think you would care.

And I like not having to smell cigarette smoke when I'm basking in the sun, listening to the waves.

I am soooooo going to the beach this weekend.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
On the beach?

You raise a good point. I understand the indoor smoking bans. I can deal with that. But outdoors? Come on... Nobody's getting cancer from somebody sitting twenty feet away puffing a stogey.

Why should I have to smell someone's stogey while I relax on the beach? So what if it's not causing cancer. It stinks, and I came for fresh, salt air at the beach, not clouds of tobacco smoke.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bear in mind that El Al has only international flights, and those flights are of relatively long duration (they don't fly to most of the neighboring Arab states [or aren't allowed to]). So, implementing such a scheme on US flights wouldn't easily translate. All domestic flights? Well, that pretty much kills anything short of New York/Chicago or NY/DC, or NY/Bos. People will drive or go private, if you need 3 hours in advance.

Do terrorists want short flights (which have very little fuel)? I guess I don't know what the plan was for using the liquid explosive, and what kind of damage it would have caused. Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights? Possibly not administrable, but I'm trying to think outside the box.

Also, in reviewing teh TSA website for some recent travel, and seeing the diverted flight posted above, I learned that scissors and screwdrivers are now allowed in carry-on luggage. Scissors I can understand, because people knit, sew, etc. But screwdrivers? What do you need a screwdriver on the plane for? Are you putting together a computer or a cabinet? It seems like the criterion should not be limited to potential danger, but also potential utility while in flight.

Maybe it's a gift? Or dad is going to visit, oh, like me and do some repairs around the house? And doesn't want to check luggage? I mean, what in-flight utility does a bottle of shampoo or conditioner have?

ETA this would not be about me, as I was outfitted with a set of tools culled from the parental set around when I got my first house. I think they were driven to me.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do terrorists want short flights (which have very little fuel)? I guess I don't know what the plan was for using the liquid explosive, and what kind of damage it would have caused. Perhaps security is different for longer versus shorter flights? Possibly not administrable, but I'm trying to think outside the box. Maybe it's a gift? Or dad is going to visit, oh, like me and do some repairs around the house? And doesn't want to check luggage? I mean, what in-flight utility does a bottle of shampoo or conditioner have?

Can you carry on creme-filled donuts still, or are you limited to solid?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Can you carry on creme-filled donuts still, or are you limited to solid?

I don't know. I am waiting until a flight is in the near future to figure out what to pack. No use worrying about it now. Sufficient to each day is the evil thereof.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why should I have to smell someone's stogey while I relax on the beach? So what if it's not causing cancer. It stinks, and I came for fresh, salt air at the beach, not clouds of tobacco smoke.

If that's enough of a basis to get it banned on the beach, then offer that as the basis for the ban. If people get together and approve a ban because smoking is just plain annoying to others, fine with me.

But instead, they lie, and say we need the ban because someone smoking OUTDOORS near you can cause you health problems.