I came across this on another board where I am also considered a troll

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Monday, June 18, 2007 00:58
VIEWED: 10040
PAGE 3 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

LEADB

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 4:57 AM

Fer what its worth, I wouldn't ask someone in a smoking section to not light up. That someone did you, is unfortunate. It's just plain wrong (well, polite asking isn't plain wrong(mildly presumptuous, perhaps), but insisting after is).

The SUV loophole is irritating to me too. I can't believe they let that slide through the emissions and MPG guidelines seperate from cars.

Re Nicotene patches, I've had a few friends who swore by them for getting off cigs. To the best of my knowledge they have completely abandoned the patches as well (of course, if they haven't, how would I know).

Sounds like you are probably more concerned with the job the FDA is doing than I am; likely because you have better information than I. There are some specific concerns I have regarding some drug testing; on the other hand, I have no reason to have confidence the items that have caught my awareness are the only problems in their domain.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:10 PM

You sound like a reasonable dude, Lead.. would that more folk were.

I can come off harsh, but mostly it's cause i'm starting to feel really backed into a corner by the combined forces of society and government all wanting to run my damn life for me, and it's gettin up my back no matter how well meant it is.

And in re: the incident mentioned - oh no, the suit didn't come over there, he sent the restaurant *manager* over there, and it struck me as an ego-stroke power play cause we were seated at the diametrically opposed opposite corners of a rather sizeable restaurant AND underneath the air scrubber intake, so I think that was more about some suits ego than anything else, and it cost them four customers 3 nights a week.

As for emissions, one of the things pissin me off is the EPA lookin the other way for SUV's but getting all up in the case of us moped-scooter folk and our 'dirty' 2 stroke engines that get 80-210 miles per gallon, and in their entire lifespan put out less exhuast than a single coast run with a tractor trailer, cause we don't have a PAC or big $$$ lobby to buy them off you see.

Last info I had on the effectiveness on those patches placed then at an average of 4%-11% depending on demographics and in many cases, statistically insiginificant as a factor - not sayin they wouldn't help someone, but only if they ignore the designed-to-fail "program" and do what works for them best.

As for butts, I smoke my own hand rolled filterless, waste not, want not, less or no additives cause I buy in bulk lots, and no resulting litter, either.
(and I roll em torpedo-style as a snark at the local PD, which has long since quit buggin me or threatening me with paraphanelia charges since)

And yeah, any real investigation into the doings of the FDA, or hell, any Govt agency, will turn your stomach in hurry.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

LEADB

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:42 PM

np, read enough of your posts to know your heart is in the right place; not that we always agree, but what would be the fun in that?

Sent the mananger; yes, I suppose you did say that in the first post, it didn't sink in. That's plain obnoxious.

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:16 PM

Leadb,
You keep saying "mythical kaneman land", my original post was not to start an anti/pro smoking thread. It was meant to be on GOV power and the constitution. You also said a 'theoretical land where there are no smoking laws', well there are states(New Hampshire) that still allow smoking anywhere.

I guess what I am saying is it is not the Fed's place ..or even the states place to decide if you can smoke in MY fucking restaurant. It should be up to me. If I lose business because I allow smoking that's my problem. If I gain business......... If I allow smoking and it offends you.. leave, don't work for me, move along....Know what I'm saying? Of course you do...

LEADB

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Leadb,
You keep saying "mythical kaneman land", my original post was not to start an anti/pro smoking thread. It was meant to be on GOV power and the constitution. You also said a 'theoretical land where there are no smoking laws', well there are states(New Hampshire) that still allow smoking anywhere.

I guess what I am saying is it is not the Fed's place ..or even the states place to decide if you can smoke in MY fucking restaurant. It should be up to me. If I lose business because I allow smoking that's my problem. If I gain business......... If I allow smoking and it offends you.. leave, don't work for me, move along....Know what I'm saying? Of course you do...

I know better what you mean. What I'm really not clear on is how far you wish to limit the fedgov power, or state gov in this case. For instance are you really saying that you would like to see OSHA complete abolished; if a company happens to have asbestos fibers floating freely where workers are expected to breath that's just fine? If you do not mean such an extreme 'end position' then it would be helpful if you clarified what 'middle ground' you would be proposing.
In NY state you can still run a restraunt which permits smoking but the restrictions are pretty tight; you need not only be the owner, but all workers need to either be yourself or family; or there needs to be some way that the other workers would not be exposed (eg: kitchen is still smoke free; or there's a limitted space where smoking is permitted and only owner/family serve those folks. I realize that makes it pretty impractical to run a smoking restraunt. I believe the underlying principle is that workers should be able to work in a safe environment; they should not be forced to choose between a safe work environment and putting food on the table.
To be honest, personally, I was always reasonably content to simply not go places where the smoking was too bad. My wife is really the more sensitive of the two of us, and it was pretty bad news if we went some place different and found the non-smoking areas were not well isolated. Personally, I'd be content if a place indicated they had a non-smoking section there be requirements that it be setup sufficiently that the smoking area would not impinge on that non-smoking spaces; and if it wasn't that they not be permitted to mark a space non-smoking. At least then we'd know once we settled someplace we wouldn't have to worry about drifting smoke.
In any case, I well understanding you mean the smoking issue as an example of where you feel gov (state gov, sometimes county gov in some areas) has overstepped. I'd be interested to know how far back you wish to roll back such rules and restrictions on other topics. For instance, do you think it would be ok for a company to post : "Asbestos in air" and simply expect the workers there to deal with it on their own? Or perhaps you think a sign isn't even necessary? Or do you believe the current requirements that the asbestos levels need to be maintained below a certain level is reasonable?

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:19 PM

My position is the gov should have no rules that regulate a private business. If the owner runs a company that is not healthy for his customers and the employees, and they know this, soon he will be out of business, he'll have no workers.....if it is the peoples will. If people choose to work there that's their choice. In no way am I saying the hazards shouldn't be disclosed to the populous, just saying that a free people can choose their own fate...

OR

Maybe the government can ban crab fishing.......I hear it is quite dangerous......

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:37 PM

Kane, you might wanna consider studying other people a little bit if you intend to try communicating with em - I'm well aware that you don't care if you offend em, but it would help to effectively get your point across even so.

The salient point is just how much government interference is too much, and the root of that problem actually lies in the whole issue of corporate personhood, something that never should have been allowed in the first place as it lead to the immense robber baron super corps that can bend the gov to their will financially or otherwise.

Once that genie was out of the bottle and they couldn't stuff it back in, the Gov responded by trying to put controls on the zaibatsu in other means, which mostly doesn't work cause the big guys get it waived, loopholed, or just laugh at the pathetic fines which amount to less than 0.01% of the profits of ignoring those rules at that scale.

While that's going on, the small and mid sized businessmen get completely hammered under a massive amount of nitpicky rules and regulations that often have little or nothing to do with the business they're running, or are badly applied in such a fashion as to be ruinous to them.

Much as I dislike Gov agencies, the health inspectors do serve a fairly useful function, and I would not eliminate them - however, the problem is better solved by requiring ANY restaurant to have an adequate, fully tested ventilation system regardless of whether it allows smoking or not, in all truth it's damned common sense thing, for both health AND safety reasons, how are you going to vent the smoke in the event of a minor kitchen fire, yes ?

There's limits, but where they are is a really debateable issue cause there's no way to make everyone safe in a free country, and if the choice comes down to it, I will not bet on a "safety" that is all but illusion in exchange for my freedom, no.

As for choosing between risking your neck and putting food on the table, that's a lot of jobs, especially anything dealing with heavy machinery, heck, even my job pushing a cab can be dangerous.

Life isn't without risks, you can trip on a curb, fall at the wrong angle and break your neck, but that's no reason to outlaw curbs, so we gotta look at this from the aspect of social triage with emphasis on personal freedom whenever possible.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KANEMAN

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:57 PM

"Kane, you might wanna consider studying other people a little bit if you intend to try communicating with em - I'm well aware that you don't care if you offend em, but it would help to effectively get your point across even so."

Man, I am bad. I had no idea I was being offensive to anyone.

RUE

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 4:25 PM

and the root of that problem actually lies in the whole issue of corporate personhood Amen

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:11 PM

K-man...When is that "offensive" tag coming off you?

Why did it appear in the first place?

Lot's of people here use the F word, so why are just you ( all I can see ) being Scarlett lettered?

I don't think you're a troll....you may be many things, but I don't see any trollish posts from you.

A troll would come on FFF and bash Firefly or Serenity...you don;t do that...you may bash some FF fans, etc...but that 'aint no troll. I like your posts...they're certainly not mainstream here, but they're always entertaining...and that's really why I'm here. Thanks.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE