Forums → WEPR → Biggest "Jerk" Of New York - Tyrant King, Mayor Bloomberg
| 31 | 9934 |
Tyrant Bloomberg is pushing a ban in New York City that will ban soft drinks, larger than 16 fluid ounces, from being sold in public.
New York has already seen a number of ridiculous bans.
* In 2003, the city banned smoking in bars and restaurants. Eight years later, smoking was also banned in public parks, beaches, and plazas.
* In 2006, the New York City Board of Health adopted the nation's first major ban on the use of most artificial trans fats in restaurant cooking.
* In 2008, New York became the first major city to require fast-food restaurants to post calorie information in large type on their menu boards, including at McDonald's and Starbucks.
* In 2009, the city's Education Department issued new rules that effectively banned bake sales in city schools.
* In 2010, Bloomberg stepped up to coordinate the National Salt Reduction Initiative, a U.S.-wide effort to cut salt in restaurant and packaged foods by 25 percent.
* The billionaire mayor's charitable foundation has also been active in public-health issues, particularly an anti-tobacco effort. This year, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $220 million commitment over the next four years to fight tobacco use globally, including for the funding of legal challenges against the industry.
* The city's health department has led a series of campaigns against smoking and unhealthy eating, running graphic ads on the city's subway cars that have featured people deformed by illness.
-Chicago Tribune
âNew York City is not about wringing your hands; itâs about doing something,â he said. âI think thatâs what the public wants the mayor to do.â
-NY Times
This tyrant is either in denial, or he is lying to make himself sound less villainous. Either way, for the sake of New York, this tyrant must be pulled off his throne one way or another.
Tyrant Bloomberg is a self righteous, grade A, ******. He not only believes he knows what is best for the people, but he is FORCING everyone to act in a manner that must be approved by him, less said citizens want to see more bans.
By ordering a large soda and fast food with a number of outlawed trans-fats, I would find the people selling these things going to JAIL. These people would be fined! If these people refused to pay their fines, either the government will take their property or they will be kidnapped and thrown in prison with other criminals, many of which are murderers.
Mayor Bloomberg is the epiphany of violence. He hires cronies to THREATEN others into behaving, and he believes this is justified because it's "for their own good", despite these actions, these so called "crimes", being CONSENSUAL, NON-VIOLENT, AND VICTIMLESS.
I promise, if there is ever a day when I see Mayor Bloomberg in person, I would do my best to walk up to him, smoke my first cigarettes ever, just to blow smoke in his face. I will even put the cigarette out on his fine jacket that the tax payers payed for.
Needless to say, I REALLY ****ing hate Mayor Bloomberg. I don't live in New York, but it is he who is the cancer that spreads through the country. He is a tumor that should have been removed from society long ago.
- 31 Replies
The only other reason to ban cigarettes in open areas, since there is barely a health issue, is that cigarettes offend people, which is why I listed an example of other offensive behaviors.
New York does have a lot of asthmatics. Especially in the Bronx. So, the reason for this law would probably be because of that.
Bull****. Being anywhere near a smoker gives me asthma problems. Does their wish to get a buzz in public trump my right to breathe without needing rescue medication?
Exactly. And again, with pleanty of asthmatics, this becomes a problem.
Unless you're constantly around secondhand smoke, it's not going to hurt you.
And people should be able to selfishly expose plenty of others to their harmful habit in a public area? That's just not right. They can go somewhere else, away from others. There is absolutely no reason that their "ersonal freedom" has to take place around people who are going to be bothered by it or harmed by it.
In most cases, when you're around a smoker outside, the amount of smoke you breath is going to be trivial, especially if you consider the fact that you're only going to be around this person for a few seconds.
Oh really? So if I'm at the beach and some person is smoking up wind, everyone downwind should just relocate or "deal with it?" Are you serious?
The only other reason to ban cigarettes in open areas, since there is barely a health issue, is that cigarettes offend people, which is why I listed an example of other offensive behaviors.
List of reasons to ban cigarettes in public areas:
1) 90% of the population does not smoke and does not want to be around it
2) It stains the interior of buildings and is very hard to remove the smell.
3) It is harmful to oneself and others.
4) Cigarette butts are a huge source of litter (and don't give me that it's already illegal to litter because where people smoke there are cigarette butts inevitably).
5) It is a potential hazard in the form of fire.
6) Animals which consume cigarette butts can die from it. If someone brings their dog to the beach, it digs up a cigarette, eats it, and gets sick, are you seriously going to try and claim that the person wasn't watching their dog every second and not instead blame the person who left the butt there? Wildlife included.
Need I go on? How selfish does one person have to be at the expense of others for "ersonal freedom" to no longer work as a pitiful excuse to do whatever one wants?
I have no problem with property owners banning cigarettes on their own property. I have a problem with the government banning cigarettes.
Your reasoning is completely arbitrary. Private institutions ban cigarettes for the exact same reasons the government bans them in public areas, reasons which you have already admitted that you think are SMART and that you AGREE with them. It's only when the "Government" becomes involved that suddenly those very same reasons are tyrannical intentions of suppression of personal freedom.
True, but how harmful is this smoke? Again, I don't think the damage is anything but trivial unless you're constantly around it.
The fact that there's ANY harm at all is already reason enough to disallow it in public areas. It stops becoming a personal freedom when you harm others. Don't give me this crap that it "causes trivial harm unless you're constantly around it" when the fact remains that there IS harm.
People have no right whatsoever to cause others harm just by being around them, especially in such a hypocritical way as smoking. If they want to smoke, they can leave and harm themselves, they have no right to stay and harm everyone else around them without consent.
It's a form of liter, and littering is already banned.
Just because something is banned doesn't mean people are going to listen. If you don't want cigarette butts all over the place, you have two options.
1) Disallow smoking in that area.
2) Hire people to pick up the butts.
The butts are going to be there regardless, people are ********.
Forcing sit-down restaurants to calculate calories would be fairly damaging for those who create daily specials, because specials are often created on a whim.
If I recall, "sit down" restaurants were never required to show the caloric intake on their overhead menus which do not exist, right? This already is not a problem and is irrelevant. The law is targeting fast food because it is a factor in the health issue and has legitimate reasons to require such things be shown.
When the property is owned by the government, then I believe the government should be allowed some power, and a smoking ban in said areas is okay.
What the hell do you call public areas if not owned by the government?
However, if this property is owned by a the private sector, it shouldn't be the government's call to make.
I agree with that. In regards to smoking anyways.
Property rights is not dictatorship. In fact, we already have property rights! We're already allowed to make up our own rules pertaining to our own property. In no way is it a dictatorship now. You're saying that what I suggest would be like localized dictatorship, how would it be like dictatorship if what I suggest already exists?!
Because what you're suggesting is that so long as the food is sold on private property the people who own it have the right to put whatever crap in there they want without warning to the customers. It's their property, they can do what they want right? No.
If I own property, I can require everyone there to wear red clothing if I wanted to. However, everyone owns their own self, so anyone who wishes not to comply has the right to leave my property, and I am unable to force them to stay.
Going with the clothing analogy, it would be more accurate to say that there is no notice that you have to wear red clothing and that if you don't they have the right to beat you up for not doing so. It's their property. Again, no.
Some people argue that restaurants try to make their food addicting by adding things such as salt to their food, but people like tasty foods! That's the whole point in providing food to people!
It's not salt they're calling addicting. It's addicting crap they are calling addicting, such as additives and chemical stuff.
Surely government intervention is needed, right?
Except that, at this point, everyone knows that cigarettes are addicting and they ARE forced to put on every package how damaging to your health they are. According to your rationalizations the tobacco company has no obligation to say that their product is harmful or addictive since it's "the private sector."
If e-cigarettes become a more popular trend, then this will be an example as to how solutions to fixing problems can result from non-coercive actions!
Because the tobacco company is sooooooo going to do what's best for people and make e-cigarettes cheaper in order to help influence this.
Bull****. Being anywhere near a smoker gives me asthma problems. Does their wish to get a buzz in public trump my right to breathe without needing rescue medication?
I highly doubt it. Again, you have to be in an area where there are a lot of smokers or you have to be relatively close to be effected. Even then, I highly doubt breathing a small amount will harm you, even if you do have asthma problems.
And people should be able to selfishly expose plenty of others to their harmful habit in a public area? That's just not right. They can go somewhere else, away from others. There is absolutely no reason that their "ersonal freedom" has to take place around people who are going to be bothered by it or harmed by it.
When smokers are outside, they're generally in a place where it isn't a problem. When they're inside, it should be up to whomever owns the building as to whether that person should be allowed to smoke or not.
Oh really? So if I'm at the beach and some person is smoking up wind, everyone downwind should just relocate or "deal with it?" Are you serious?
How many cigarettes is this person smoking at one time? A few people smoking is not going to stink up a whole beach, let alone a single cigarette.
1) 90% of the population does not smoke and does not want to be around it
This is not a reason to ban smoking. Again, I can wear perfume 90% of the population doesn't like, or a shirt that offends 90% of the population. It doesn't matter if they're uncomfortable or not, I'm allowed to do these things. And no, these are not red herring. It's important that we establish that offense is not a reason for the government to ban something.
2) It stains the interior of buildings and is very hard to remove the smell.
It's not the government's job to take care of your home or business. If someone doesn't want people smoking in their home, restaurant, or shop, they can ban smoking on their own property. For the government to do this is wrong.
3) It is harmful to oneself and others.
It's none of the government's business what one puts into their own body and cigarette smoke is only harmful if you find yourself around it a lot.
If you don't want to be around smokers, find a place where smoking isn't allowed or where the smokers are successfully separated from non-smokers.
4) Cigarette butts are a huge source of litter (and don't give me that it's already illegal to litter because where people smoke there are cigarette butts inevitably).
Not inside buildings. ; )
Honestly though, I don't see too many cigarette butts in most public areas. Generally when I see cigarette butts littered all over the ground, it's in areas where there aren't any smoking bins.
I'm all for suggestions on how to stop people from throwing their cigarette butts on the ground, but to outright ban cigarettes is just unacceptable.
5) It is a potential hazard in the form of fire.
I'm pretty confident that fires started from cigarettes are incredibly rare. Definitely not something that warrants a ban.
6) Animals which consume cigarette butts can die from it. If someone brings their dog to the beach, it digs up a cigarette, eats it, and gets sick, are you seriously going to try and claim that the person wasn't watching their dog every second and not instead blame the person who left the butt there? Wildlife included.
This is not a reason to ban cigarettes, but litter. It's easy to get away with littering, so instead of banning cigarettes, we should find other ways to discourage people from littering. For example, people can be politely asked by whomever owns the beach to use cigarette bins when they're at the beach.
Just because something is banned doesn't mean people are going to listen. If you don't want cigarette butts all over the place, you have two options.
1) Disallow smoking in that area.
2) Hire people to pick up the butts.
The butts are going to be there regardless, people are ********.
A lot of people use smoking bins and though there are people who litter, these people can be asked to stop by whomever owns the property. And yes, it's going to be impossible to stop every single person, we can't watch everyone all the time, but we can't put foam on everything and prohibit everything that has a few people who abuse their privileges.
If I recall, "sit down" restaurants were never required to show the caloric intake on their overhead menus which do not exist, right?
Their regular menus are the same exact concept as overhead menus. These restaurants aren't required to post calories in their regular menus, and very few people see this as a problem.
It's irrelevant as to what kind of menu is being used. The reason fast food restaurants have to post calories on their over head menus is because the lawmakers feel they should be forced to share this information with the public in some way. The same thing can be said for sit down restaurants.
What the hell do you call public areas if not owned by the government?
Often when people talk about public areas, they mean any area that's open to the public, even private property such as stores and restaurants.
Because what you're suggesting is that so long as the food is sold on private property the people who own it have the right to put whatever crap in there they want without warning to the customers. It's their property, they can do what they want right? No.
This has nothing to do with the claim you made. And remember, people own their own bodies, so when someone buys food from a restaurant, that food can't contain anything that will harm said person. If there's anything harmful in the food, then the customer can sue the restaurant for harming their property. Restaurants do not own whatever it is that walks on their property, they own the food that they serve until that food is sold. There is a consensual agreement between customer and restaurant and the food is assumed to be safe. If the food harms the customer due to the customer being ignorant of a harmful ingredient, then the restaurant is held responsible.
Going with the clothing analogy, it would be more accurate to say that there is no notice that you have to wear red clothing and that if you don't they have the right to beat you up for not doing so. It's their property. Again, no.
You're misrepresenting my point, so this has absolutely no bearing on my argument.
Remember, people own their own bodies. If I go on another person's property and I break a rule, such as not wearing red, then I'm allowed to leave the property. I can not be harmed simply because I walked onto that property, nor can the cops be called on me.
Our bodies are our property, and nobody is allowed to harm it unless we threaten to harm their property. If we intentionally break rules that are in place, authorities should be called. If I want someone to stop smoking on my property, I have the right to call authorities and have the police handle them, because those people are refusing to respect the laws I have in place for my property.
Except that, at this point, everyone knows that cigarettes are addicting and they ARE forced to put on every package how damaging to your health they are. According to your rationalizations the tobacco company has no obligation to say that their product is harmful or addictive since it's "the private sector."
Everyone knows smoking is bad for them before they read the cigarette pack. The reason we know smoking is bad is because there are so many different sources of information.
Because the tobacco company is sooooooo going to do what's best for people and make e-cigarettes cheaper in order to help influence this.
I'm not catching the sarcasm. If there's a higher demand for e-cigarettes, more people will provide them. They're relatively new so they may take a while to catch on, but I'm sure we'll start seeing less people smoking real cigarettes in public. It's not the government that's going to cause this, it's innovation.
I highly doubt it. Again, you have to be in an area where there are a lot of smokers or you have to be relatively close to be effected. Even then, I highly doubt breathing a small amount will harm you, even if you do have asthma problems.
Well lets say a kid with asthma needs to walk down a pathway and some guy is somking on the path. The kid will need to get close to him. Or I guess everyone else could just move around the smoker somehow, but that seems odd to me.
We could also have a senario where a kid is running past a smoker. An asthmatic child who is gasping for air, and a smoker should not be near each other. No matter how long, it's bad in general. A couple whiffs of smoke makes my lungs feel terrible and it takes a while to wear off. I can't come near my grandfather when he smokes. At all. Not even for a quick hug. I can bearly be around him when he's not smoking because the smoke sticks to fabric and clothes too. I nearly got pnemonia from sleeping on his couch once. So... Yeah ciggarettes can be bad for asthmatics in general, under most circumstances. It's a often a big trigger, and can harm them firsthand, secondhand, and thirdhand. Which is why I understand the restriction in New York. Not nessicarily in other places though.
Even then, I highly doubt breathing a small amount will harm you, even if you do have asthma problems.
I don't have asthma and it bothers me, even just walking past two people smoking causes me to cough a lot.
This is not a reason to ban smoking. Again, I can wear perfume 90% of the population doesn't like, or a shirt that offends 90% of the population. It doesn't matter if they're uncomfortable or not, I'm allowed to do these things. And no, these are not red herring. It's important that we establish that offense is not a reason for the government to ban something.
Its way beyond offensive when it ACTUALLY HARMS OTHERS.
For example, people can be politely asked by whomever owns the beach to use cigarette bins when they're at the beach.
Because that works so well.
The reason fast food restaurants have to post calories on their over head menus is because the lawmakers feel they should be forced to share this information with the public in some way. The same thing can be said for sit down restaurants.
In most cases sit down restaurants don't put incredibly unhealthy chemicals in their food. You should have the right to know what you are eating.
If the food harms the customer due to the customer being ignorant of a harmful ingredient, then the restaurant is held responsible.
If that was true for fast food all fast food businesses would either be out of business or serve healthy food.
Our bodies are our property, and nobody is allowed to harm it unless we threaten to harm their property
Yet you continually say smokers should be able to harm others because they want to smoke.
Your reasoning is completely arbitrary. Private institutions ban cigarettes for the exact same reasons the government bans them in public areas, reasons which you have already admitted that you think are SMART and that you AGREE with them. It's only when the "Government" becomes involved that suddenly those very same reasons are tyrannical intentions of suppression of personal freedom.
I would really like to see a response to this.
I'm just going to blanket address most of the points on smoking, since they're piling up.
First, your entire argument against bans on them in public areas is "they cause minimal harm." That's a pitiful excuse to allow people to harm others in the name of personal freedom.
Second, my entire argument for bans on them in public areas is for a myriad of reasons which together logically show how they should not be allowed and also show how smokers can still have their personal freedom but not at the expense of others.
I agree that building owners should be able to determine for themselves if smoking is to be allowed on their property or inside the building.
Please stop with the "if you don't want to be around smokers you can leave" argument. It is not the responsibility of the non smoker to separate themselves from the smoker, it is the reverse. Smokers have no right to infringe on others in the way that cigarettes do.
Boiled down: There is absolutely no reason why smokers need to be in a public area to smoke or why they cannot separate themselves for a short time if they want to smoke.
Again, I can wear perfume 90% of the population doesn't like, or a shirt that offends 90% of the population. It doesn't matter if they're uncomfortable or not, I'm allowed to do these things.
These are Red Herrings. Perfume or clothing choices do not affect the health of others. They don't get littered all over the place. They aren't hazardous if disposed of incorrectly. Perfume, even worn in excess, is no where near as strong of a smell as smoke.
They are Red Herrings because the issue is smoking in public areas, not offensive shirts or perfume. They are irrelevant to this conversation. The reasons behind each are different and they have different effects and implications and uses.
These restaurants aren't required to post calories in their regular menus, and very few people see this as a problem.
Those restaurants generally don't have meals which are 400 calories that fit in your hand either. Or a "salad" with more calories than a burger. Caloric intake is not intuitive from appearance.
I would be fine with all restaurants requiring caloric values to be available in some form, but really it's not all that necessary for anything other than fast food.
And remember, people own their own bodies, so when someone buys food from a restaurant, that food can't contain anything that will harm said person.
And that law is enforced by whom? The government. The government determines what is harmful or not and the standards by which this is held. You're attacking the government for doing what you say should happen if harm does occur. Requiring standards and enforcing them is their job, but you want it so they can't do anything and instead want to leave it up to the common decency of the private sector to regulate it. That won't work.
If we intentionally break rules that are in place, authorities should be called.
And who sets the rules? Rules change, new ones are implemented and old ones are revised or left behind. The government is responding to the fact that America is the fattest country in the world in part due to fast food over consumption and general ignorance of health and laziness. Requiring fast food restaurants to display caloric values is in response to this.
Often when people talk about public areas, they mean any area that's open to the public, even private property such as stores and restaurants.
Then they don't know what public means, because public is more than just where ever you can walk without security clearance.
A public park...hmmm, who upkeeps it...oh I know! The government.
Beaches? Same thing.
Streets? Yeps.
By your own words, "I have no problem with property owners banning cigarettes on their own property. I have a problem with the government banning cigarettes." the government is the property owner in these situations. They have the right to enforce what they believe to be best according to you, which is banning of cigarettes in these areas.
Everyone knows smoking is bad for them before they read the cigarette pack.
I wonder why that is...it CAN'T be because of the anti-smoking campaigns and ads...which, if I don't recall, are often government funded?
You say that the government shouldn't ban cigarettes in public areas, but then go onto say property owners can do what they want. Further, you say that the government should intervene in the case of personal harm, but then condemn them for doing so. Even more, when they take actions to prevent said harm, you gripe at them for it because it's "violating personal freedom" arbitrarily chosen on what is and what is not harmful to others.
Long story short, the government is in a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose situation by your standards. No matter what they do, it's wrong. They stop harm from occurring, violation of personal freedom. They enforce standards, violation of personal freedom. They use money to inform people of these possible harms, waste of tax money. They require businesses which are at the root of these harms to inform the public of these possible harms, tyranny.
May I ask what DO you want from the government?
Well lets say a kid with asthma needs to walk down a pathway and some guy is somking on the path. The kid will need to get close to him. Or I guess everyone else could just move around the smoker somehow, but that seems odd to me.
Well, let's say anything can happen, but it means nothing unless we analyze the odds of it happening, and frequency.
An asthmatic child who is gasping for air, and a smoker should not be near each other.
How often does this happen? How often do you see kids have asthma attacks while running around in public areas? How often do these kids run into a smoker to a point where they are drowning in cigarette smoke?
This is an unrealistic scenario. Technically, I could argue that there's a chance someone could hold a child down and directly breath smoke into his mouth, and suggest that cigarettes be outlawed for that reason. It's just an unrealistic, highly undroppable, situation.
Its way beyond offensive when it ACTUALLY HARMS OTHERS.
You have to be around a lot of second hand smoke for it to do any harm to you, and since there have always been places that could successfully separate smokers and non smokers, or ban smoking all together, it's not like there weren't any other options (obviously I'm referring to before these smoking bans).
Because that works so well.
Link
Watch 2:24 - 2:36
If you're the owner of a beach and you ask someone to stop smoking, you have every right to kick them off your beach.
If you aren't the owner, you could always ask, or you could move. But again, if you're outside, the smoke will very likely disperse before it reaches you. If you're on a beach, and you have to ask someone to stop smoking, then that beach better be absolutely packed with people or you're just going to sound like a jerk.
If someone is playing their guitar in public and they suck, should their crappy guitar playing be banned? Remember, the fact that you don't like it is not enough to warrant a ban, and it's not unhealthy enough to warrant a ban either. Like I said before, you have to be around a lot of second hand smoke for it to harm you.
In most cases sit down restaurants don't put incredibly unhealthy chemicals in their food. You should have the right to know what you are eating.
In most cases, fast food restaurants don't put incredibly unhealthy chemicals in their food. Go figure! (of course, this has nothing to do with requiring restaurants to post the number of calories in their foods, since this is an obesity issue, not a food poisoning one).
If that was true for fast food all fast food businesses would either be out of business or serve healthy food.
Wrong. That's just not true at all. Snarky remark link.
Fast food restaurants are deemed unhealthy because the foods are fatty and contain a lot of calories. What's constantly ignored is the fact that obesity stems from over indulgence, inactivity, health issues, and as side effects from certain medications.
To blame a fast food restaurant because their burger made you fat is like blaming video games for lack of sleep.
Yet you continually say smokers should be able to harm others because they want to smoke.
I never said this. The closest thing to this that I have said is that I believe smokers should be allowed to smoke inside if the property owner is okay with it. In this case, non-smokers can choose to go elsewhere. When it comes to smoking outside, the smoker disperses. The amount of damage done is trivial.
If you go to someone's house and the owner of the house smokes, should you be able to ban them from smoking inside their own house? If not, then why should you ban people from smoking in restaurants where the owner is okay with smoking?
Of course, before smoking bans, restaurant owners would often have smoking and non-smoking sections. Sometimes the two sections wouldn't be separated well enough, and sometimes the two sections were in two completely different rooms. So before you say anything, business owners do care, and they don't need the government to force them.
First, your entire argument against bans on them in public areas is "they cause minimal harm." That's a pitiful excuse to allow people to harm others in the name of personal freedom.
The correct word is "trivial". Being around second hand smoke occasionally does trivial harm to your body. Trivial, as in the amount is so insignificant that action isn't called for.
Second, my entire argument for bans on them in public areas is for a myriad of reasons which together logically show how they should not be allowed and also show how smokers can still have their personal freedom but not at the expense of others.
You pointed out that cigarettes are unhealthy and annoying to be around. I explained that the health impacts are either trivial, or that it's up to business owners to allow smoking or not, and that being annoyed is not grounds to have something banned.
These are Red Herrings.
No, it's not.
Perfume or clothing choices do not affect the health of others. They don't get littered all over the place. They aren't hazardous if disposed of incorrectly. Perfume, even worn in excess, is no where near as strong of a smell as smoke.
You claimed that people shouldn't have to smell disgusting cigarette smoke. I was addressing how this reasoning doesn't work.
They are Red Herrings because the issue is smoking in public areas, not offensive shirts or perfume.
I was using an analogy, and when a person uses and analogy, the two things being compared have to be different, or else it isn't an analogy. Of course, there are strong analogies and weak analogies, but I feel my analogies were appropriate, and were therefore strong analogies.
I was addressing the specific point that being annoyed or bothered is not grounds to ban something.
Those restaurants generally don't have meals which are 400 calories that fit in your hand either. Or a "salad" with more calories than a burger. Caloric intake is not intuitive from appearance.
Au contraire.
Of course, I can find parts of the article I would argue against, such as, "The Rand Study suggests restaurant owners take responsibility to provide healthier foods." Many fast food restaurants do offer healthier alternatives, but people choose to eat the more unhealthy foods!
I would be fine with all restaurants requiring caloric values to be available in some form, but really it's not all that necessary for anything other than fast food.
As a law, this would be horrible. As I said before, it's very common for restaurants to create daily specials on a whim, as a way to use up certain ingredients they need to get rid of.
Of course, if a restaurant does calculate calories, that's great! It should be up to the restaurant though.
And that law is enforced by whom? The government. The government determines what is harmful or not and the standards by which this is held. You're attacking the government for doing what you say should happen if harm does occur. Requiring standards and enforcing them is their job, but you want it so they can't do anything and instead want to leave it up to the common decency of the private sector to regulate it. That won't work.
The private sector sets regulations, the government enforces said regulations. The government should protect people from coercion, fraud, and certain harm.
If I create a rule that people can't smoke in my restaurant, then I'm allowed to have the police enforce that law. If something I do is effecting someone in a negative way, doing harm to their property, then they can use the police against me. This is where we start talking about cigarette smoke, but as I said before, the damage is trivial.
Then they don't know what public means, because public is more than just where ever you can walk without security clearance.
accessible to or shared by all members of the community
the government is the property owner in these situations.
Again, I'm not so down on government banning cigarettes on government property. But not all parks and beaches are owned by the government.
If you're the owner of a beach and you ask someone to stop smoking, you have every right to kick them off your beach.
Have you ever asked a smoker to "Sir, could you please put out your cigarette or move up the beach a little? A lot of people downwind are uncomfortable because of the smoke." because I have. More than once or twice. The responses each time? "You don't like it you can deal with it or YOU leave."
It doesn't work.
But again, if you're outside, the smoke will very likely disperse before it reaches you. If you're on a beach, and you have to ask someone to stop smoking, then that beach better be absolutely packed with people or you're just going to sound like a jerk.
You and I seem to have very different ideas of how far away a smoker can be noticed. You and I also seem to have very different ideas about common courtesy, wherein the smoker is the one responsible to not bother others with their habit, not vis-versa.
If someone is playing their guitar in public and they suck, should their crappy guitar playing be banned?
If it's that bad, someone will ask them to stop or play somewhere else eventually. Unless they're really pounding on the strings as well, that guitar isn't going to be making much more noise than the ocean, kids, seagulls and whatever other sounds are already at the beach.
In most cases, fast food restaurants don't put incredibly unhealthy chemicals in their food. Go figure! (of course, this has nothing to do with requiring restaurants to post the number of calories in their foods, since this is an obesity issue, not a food poisoning one).
*Anymore. Know why? Government regulations. Before we starting focusing on fast food for health issues, it DID have lots of crap in it. Now they can't get away with that.
To blame a fast food restaurant because their burger made you fat is like blaming video games for lack of sleep.
I agree with this. Note: inside the very first pc game case I picked up at random (Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic 2) it has a few things...
1) A rating for appropriate ages.
2) A warning for epileptics on the back and in the booklet.
The caloric intake values and the nutritional label on food are the equivalent to that. But no, it's tyrannical to require that businesses provide this information.
I never said this. The closest thing to this that I have said is that I believe smokers should be allowed to smoke inside if the property owner is okay with it. In this case, non-smokers can choose to go elsewhere. When it comes to smoking outside, the smoker disperses. The amount of damage done is trivial.
If you go to someone's house and the owner of the house smokes, should you be able to ban them from smoking inside their own house? If not, then why should you ban people from smoking in restaurants where the owner is okay with smoking?
Of course, before smoking bans, restaurant owners would often have smoking and non-smoking sections. Sometimes the two sections wouldn't be separated well enough, and sometimes the two sections were in two completely different rooms. So before you say anything, business owners do care, and they don't need the government to force them.
I 100% agree with all that.
Being around second hand smoke occasionally does trivial harm to your body. Trivial, as in the amount is so insignificant that action isn't called for.
So if you were allowed to non-harmfully poke other people at random in public areas, the damage to your skin is "trivial" and thus shouldn't be banned?
Just because the damage is trivial does not mean there's no damage at all, and again, is relying on you not being around them "much" especially, and this is the real emphasis, IT IS NOT THE NON-SMOKER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO RELOCATE OR AVOID SMOKERS, IT IS THE SMOKER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BE COURTEOUS TO THOSE SURROUNDING THEM.
I would be perfectly fine with a law saying that smoker's can smoke in a public place if they ask everyone 15-20 feet in radius if they don't have a problem with them doing so. Then, it's consensual.
You claimed that people shouldn't have to smell disgusting cigarette smoke. I was addressing how this reasoning doesn't work.
And they are Red Herrings because the reasoning isn't the same for the cases. They don't have the same impacts, the same rationals, the same uses or health effects in any way.
I was using an analogy, and when a person uses and analogy, the two things being compared have to be different, or else it isn't an analogy
Problem is though that the analogy has to have the same underlying issue. Your analogies only had 1 facet of the problem, and were a line trying to be a pentagon.
I was addressing the specific point that being annoyed or bothered is not grounds to ban something.
And I already addressed how this makes it a Red Herring because my argument is quite more than it simply being "annoying." If I wanted everything I felt annoying banned in public, there would be no music, no people, no motorcycles, no car radios and no dogs allowed there.
My reasons for thinking that smoking should be banned in public areas go far past "it's annoying."
Au contraire.
Then you require the same of them.
As a law, this would be horrible. As I said before, it's very common for restaurants to create daily specials on a whim, as a way to use up certain ingredients they need to get rid of.
And as people who have brains, there could just be a "Daily special notice that caloric values are not available and that if you are on a diet of some kind this meal is not recommended due to the inability to calculate these values at a whim."
Many fast food restaurants do offer healthier alternatives, but people choose to eat the more unhealthy foods!
And that's their choice. However, it's not uninformed. I have no problem with people doing whatever they want so long as it affects only them.
Of course, if a restaurant does calculate calories, that's great! It should be up to the restaurant though.
In a perfect world, I would agree with you. However, looking into the past it's quite obvious what businesses will do to lower prices, increase profit margins and attract customers. Lacking this perfect world, standards and laws are needed.
The private sector sets regulations, the government enforces said regulations. The government should protect people from coercion, fraud, and certain harm.
And when the private sector won't set regulations or blatantly refuses to set some when it will affect the health of the customer unknowingly to them, what happens? The government steps in. That's what they are doing with the fast food menu.
You are attacking them for what you say they should do.
Again, I'm not so down on government banning cigarettes on government property. But not all parks and beaches are owned by the government.
Well, let me retro-actively say that when I said "smoking should be banned in public areas by the government" I was referring to government funded and run public areas. If someone owns a private beach or park and they want to allow smoking, that's great, it's their park.
This is an unrealistic scenario. Technically, I could argue that there's a chance someone could hold a child down and directly breath smoke into his mouth, and suggest that cigarettes be outlawed for that reason. It's just an unrealistic, highly undroppable, situation.
These situations aren't that unrealistic. There are 1.1 million asthmatic adults in New York. And about 1 in every 13 school kids are asthmatic. [Source]
Okay, now lets see some of the facts on smokers.
14% of residents (853,000 people) smoke.(1)
⢠17,000 high school students currently smoke cigarettes(2); one-third of whom will die prematurely as a direct result of smoking.(3)
⢠More than 200,000 children are still exposed to secondhand smoke at home.(4)
⢠New York State residentsâ tax burden from smoking-related healthcare costs is $900 per household.(5)
[Source]
And New York is a crowded place. So do you now see why New York is so against smoking? Many kids are being affected by it whereever they go. If not outside then at home, but they haven't even banned it entirely. They've only banned it publicly. I agree that it shouldn't be banned entirley, but something should be done. These are the steps they taken, and I can't say I disagree.
Sorry for the double but...
The correct word is "trivial". Being around second hand smoke occasionally does trivial harm to your body. Trivial, as in the amount is so insignificant that action isn't called for.
Again, not in New York.
It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe.Link
So more than 200,000 children are being forced to inhale 85% of a person's smoke. In the home. If we were to lift the ban in those certain areas, then the number could only increase.
Most of theses niceties that the private sector businesses may or may not do on their own... like do their own calorie counts or making people aware of certain ingredients aren't really 100% products of their own untampered with volition. Granted, I'll concede that there might be that one person who is less common than a shiny pokemon that would have the goodness in their heart enough to be that token decent human being in this universe. We as people are forged by whatever and whoever teaches us. Often times, this is society, our family, our peers, and whatever society has taught our family, friends, and peers. It's somewhat like how calculus was developed separately by 2 or 3 different people at the same time. It's doubtful that most of the people came to this "I'm going to be a good human being about my business" attitude without any prior government interaction. Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and other books most definitely wouldn't have had as much of an impact without the government being brought in to make changes. The government working against these atrocities and helping supplement the books' messages helped bring the problem to the light. If people say that they're not going to be like the olden days then it is most likely that they wouldn't be that way if the government had never gotten involved.Â
That being said, the people from yester year pretty much prove that business owners left to their own decisions will sell ground up rats and human flesh as hamburger meat, they'll store their food stuffs in cheaper less sanitary ways, and that the all mighty dollar will decide just how sanitary/buyer friendly they'll be.Â
If someone has a staph infection and their customers are aware but don't care, then that's their decision. A few years back(actually it was more like late 90's), some woman working a fast food restaurant's drive through had a staph infection around here and was just handling people's food without anyone knowing... then people got sick and once this was discovered the McDonald's had to put it in the local newspapers and I think run something through the local news stations too. Without regulations people WILL inevitably subject their customers to unhealthy and unsanitary vectors that may even kill them without them even knowing it.Â
I'd touch on the obesity thing, but my hughesnet ip address is apparently banned (whoever you are that's been using hughesnet and getting all of the provider ip's banned on here... I HATE YOU >_>(moreso than the amount that Nemo hates this governor!))...and I'm too lazy to keep bouncing things from my computer to my email to my phone to back to here.
* In 2008, New York became the first major city to require fast-food restaurants to post calorie information in large type on their menu boards, including at McDonald's and Starbucks.
* In 2010, Bloomberg stepped up to coordinate the National Salt Reduction Initiative, a U.S.-wide effort to cut salt in restaurant and packaged foods by 25 percent.
* The billionaire mayor's charitable foundation has also been active in public-health issues, particularly an anti-tobacco effort. This year, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $220 million commitment over the next four years to fight tobacco use globally, including for the funding of legal challenges against the industry.
* The city's health department has led a series of campaigns against smoking and unhealthy eating, running graphic ads on the city's subway cars that have featured people deformed by illness.
I disagree with your disdain for these in your opening post. The first seems to be a great way to inform people. If I found out the grande chalupa supreme I get from the local taco shop has more calories than I should consume in a week, I'll probably avoid eating it. At the very least, I'll be informed on why I'm gaining weight faster than a body builder. We complain up and down every day about transparency in government, how is caloric value of food suddenly a necessity?
Second one has nothing to do with his mayoral duties and he is therefore free to pursue it. It doesn't say he started the committee or that he's quartering troops to enforce it. He is simply following a obvious passion of his. You can't criticize his mayoral capabilities based on a national committee he is part of.
Third, I bring you back up to my second point. This is his own charity for goodness sake. He's allowed to pursue his public health interests using his own money and his own charity. If I had millions and wanted to make a charity to fight the act of underwater basket-weaving, I'm perfectly free to do so. This is America, he's perfectly within his freedoms to do this.
Fourth actually seems like a good idea. You think he's wasting money by trying to promote the dangers of an unhealthy lifestyle? America is always being scoffed at for being 'fat' or 'slobbish'. It's true too, we are very poor at leading healthy lives as a nation. Here's a man simply showing what the consequences of poor actions lead to. You say you've never smoked right? You must have a reason for not. I'm willing to bet my horse that it has something to do with the adverse side-effects it has on your health. What if no one had told you while growing up that cigarettes are bad? What if we lived in a society that still romanticized smoking? Your complaints about him doing this are silly. I'm glad he's showing truth and honesty. He's not saying people can't smoke, but he is showing you what happens when you develop mouth cancer after smoking for three decades. The truth isn't pretty.
By ordering a large soda and fast food with a number of outlawed trans-fats, I would find the people selling these things going to JAIL. These people would be fined! If these people refused to pay their fines, either the government will take their property or they will be kidnapped and thrown in prison with other criminals, many of which are murderers.
As they should be if it's against the law to sell them. We send people that sell drugs to jail because it is unlawful. They made the choice to sell drugs, or in this case, the restaurant selling the food prepared illegally and should be punished as stated in the law. If the laws are found to be unconstitutional (which are able to be challenged via class-action suits), they are repealed. What is made into law isn't necessarily set into stone. This is America, not Soviet Russia.
they will be kidnapped and thrown in prison with other criminals, many of which are murderers.
This simply is not true. Show me where you came up with this idea that the government doesn't put people through the courts, to be judged appropriately. Our government isn't going to summon black ops to black-bag the local McDonald's manager for selling 32oz sodas or heart-attacks-on-a-bun. That is ridiculous to even imagine.
Mayor Bloomberg is the epiphany of violence. He hires cronies to THREATEN others into behaving, and he believes this is justified because it's "for their own good", despite these actions, these so called "crimes", being CONSENSUAL, NON-VIOLENT, AND VICTIMLESS.
[Citation Needed]
I don't live in New York, but it is he who is the cancer that spreads through the country. He is a tumor that should have been removed from society long ago.
I like to think that the true cancer of society comes from carcinogens, not political officials. Let's be serious here for just a moment. I know I've said this a few times already, but this is America. I don't know how educated you are in the political system, but I'm well-versed enough to understand that if we have a political official that is disliked by the majority of the community, they will remove him from office. It is the check we placed on the Legislative and Executive branches of our government. Public officials are responsible to their constituents and no amount of money is going to corrupt the system enough to change that.
Keep in mind, I believe people should be allowed to do drugs as long as they don't harm others.
And yet a lot of drugs makes people violent. You hear about that guy that bit that other man's face off in Miami? That wasn't a zombie (as I'm sure many people were hoping it would be). It was drugs. Amphetamines are dangerous and make people dangerous. You shouldn't lump marijuana in with it if you're trying to legalize marijuana. You won't get far.
People will submit because they don't want to be arrested. It will appear as if the law isn't harming anyone, when really we're just giving up our rights.
I will bold it this time for you: You are perfectly free to file lawsuits against laws you find unconstitutional. This isn't fascism. Our government is practically begging you to voice your grievances so it can be brought up in court and deemed truly against your rights.
This is just unnecessary. It's not really something that does much harm, but it doesn't do much good either. It's just a waste of time and it's just an excuse to sue any fast-food restaurant that doesn't comply with the law. I think it's great they're showing off the number of calories that are in each of their meals, but it really shouldn't be forced.
That is your opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would like to be aware of the information. I want honesty. I don't want deception with my happy meal. Why do you get to decide for me on whether or not I get to see information more easily? Show me one time when hiding facts about food preparation has been beneficial to society. I'll throw a bit of history at you. Have you ever read "The Jungle" by Sinclair? I'll summarize. He showed America just how foul and unsanitary the meat industry was. Rats and other vermin contaminated all the tools and the meat itself. People have a right to know what they're consuming. People should know these things. Even if they still eat those high-calorie foods, they're fully aware of what it is they're consuming.
This is a waste of tax payer money. If people want to show off such ads, they should be allowed to, but not with tax dollars.
That's what the health department is there for. It's meant to regulate and inform the public on health risks. It's the Health department, not the transportation department or the thumb-twiddling department. Its purpose is rather explicit with the name.
Again, public smoking isn't very harmful.
[Citation Needed]
I highly doubt it. Again, you have to be in an area where there are a lot of smokers or you have to be relatively close to be effected. Even then, I highly doubt breathing a small amount will harm you, even if you do have asthma problems.
Who are you to know of someone's sensitivity to smoke? Are you a doctor, a scientist, someone with severe asthma problems? You can't possibly know how smoke affects someone else. You may think you have an idea of what it's like, but you really have no clue.
If the food harms the customer due to the customer being ignorant of a harmful ingredient, then the restaurant is held responsible
How are we to know what harmful things are in food if people like you are against the public disclosure and easy access to such knowledge?
Everyone knows smoking is bad for them before they read the cigarette pack. The reason we know smoking is bad is because there are so many different sources of information.
Exactly! It took people similar to Bloomberg to get all this information out there though. Do you honestly think the tobacco industry happily informed everyone that they put tar, nicotine and other harmful chemicals in their cigarettes?
If there's a higher demand for e-cigarettes, more people will provide them. They're relatively new so they may take a while to catch on, but I'm sure we'll start seeing less people smoking real cigarettes in public. It's not the government that's going to cause this, it's innovation.
Many people that smoke will be more likely to pay less for real cigarettes. I live in Kentucky, I know how much cheaper it is to make them. There's no fancy manufacturing involved in the production of tobacco. You grow it, pick it, dry it, sell it, and then they chop it then roll it and eventually sell it. The only way we will ever see the day when e-cigarettes are cheaper than real ones is when the government taxes the tobacco industry enough that the price skyrockets.
In most cases, fast food restaurants don't put incredibly unhealthy chemicals in their food.
[Citation Needed] Last time I checked, saturated fats and trans fats are quite bad for you. You may not die that day, but they are unhealthy for you, nevertheless.
What's constantly ignored is the fact that obesity stems from over indulgence, inactivity, health issues, and as side effects from certain medications.
And that whole trans/saturated fats thing I just mentioned too, right? You can not even dream up an argument where those two fats are anything but bad for your body.
____
In short, he is not a tyrant. If you are so against the laws that have been made through very legal means, you are more than welcome to fight them through legal means yourself. The supreme court is there for people like you that are unsatisfied with what the government is doing. Go use that.
NoName, the point you seem to be missing is that there's a difference between infringing on personal rights, and removing public hazards to health. It would be a government overreach if ALL smoking were banned. However banning smoking in public areas is not only within the bounds of the Constitution, but also just courtesy to those who do not wish to be around the second hand smoke.
Have you ever asked a smoker to "Sir, could you please put out your cigarette or move up the beach a little? A lot of people downwind are uncomfortable because of the smoke." because I have. More than once or twice. The responses each time? "You don't like it you can deal with it or YOU leave."
It doesn't work.
How close were you to these people? Again, smoke disperses.
You and I seem to have very different ideas of how far away a smoker can be noticed. You and I also seem to have very different ideas about common courtesy, wherein the smoker is the one responsible to not bother others with their habit, not vis-versa.
I think we can both agree on common courtesy, we just can't agree if laws should be passed to enforce courtesy.
*Anymore. Know why? Government regulations. Before we starting focusing on fast food for health issues, it DID have lots of crap in it. Now they can't get away with that.
Many businesses were already on their way to providing safer foods. But I'm not against regulation, I feel we can find ways in which we can regulate without government intervention.
Problem is though that the analogy has to have the same underlying issue. Your analogies only had 1 facet of the problem, and were a line trying to be a pentagon.
Copy and paste my original response here.
And when the private sector won't set regulations or blatantly refuses to set some when it will affect the health of the customer unknowingly to them, what happens? The government steps in. That's what they are doing with the fast food menu.
You are attacking them for what you say they should do.
Said issues either don't exist or are hardly a problem.
Well, let me retro-actively say that when I said "smoking should be banned in public areas by the government" I was referring to government funded and run public areas. If someone owns a private beach or park and they want to allow smoking, that's great, it's their park.
I believe we're on the same page here.
These situations aren't that unrealistic. There are 1.1 million asthmatic adults in New York. And about 1 in every 13 school kids are asthmatic. [Source]
Many people who have asthma understand that they can't constantly run around with medicine, which is why you hardly see these people gasping for air in public. That alone makes the scenario unrealistic.
Okay, now lets see some of the facts on smokers.
14% of residents (853,000 people) smoke.(1)
⢠17,000 high school students currently smoke cigarettes(2); one-third of whom will die prematurely as a direct result of smoking.(3)
⢠More than 200,000 children are still exposed to secondhand smoke at home.(4)
⢠New York State residentsâ tax burden from smoking-related healthcare costs is $900 per household.(5)
[Source]
I think it's horrible that parents smoke around their children. But we should take responsibility to help inform our friends and family who do this, and do what we can to stop them. It's not up to the government.
As for the tax burden of health care, this only proves that government health care should be gotten rid of!
Everyone talks about how the government should provide the people with health care. Then, when people do something unhealthy, everyone talks about how the government provided healthcare costs tax payers money! If having government healthcare means the government can dictate how we live our lives, then I want no part of it at all.
And New York is a crowded place. So do you now see why New York is so against smoking? Many kids are being affected by it whereever they go. If not outside then at home, but they haven't even banned it entirely. They've only banned it publicly. I agree that it shouldn't be banned entirley, but something should be done. These are the steps they taken, and I can't say I disagree.
Just because you're against cigarettes doesn't mean you have to support every action that is made against cigarettes. I think it's absolutely, disgustingly, wrong for people to do hard drugs. I will do everything in my power to stop people I love from doing these drugs. However, I do not support the government's decision to ban these drugs.
[quote]It is estimated that only 15% of cigarette smoke gets inhaled by the smoker. The remaining 85% lingers in the air for everyone to breathe.
Link
So more than 200,000 children are being forced to inhale 85% of a person's smoke. In the home. If we were to lift the ban in those certain areas, then the number could only increase.[/quote]
Your point is invalid. Just because 85% of the cigarette smoke remains in the air, does not mean all of that smoke is going to be breathed in by others.
That being said, the people from yester year pretty much prove that business owners left to their own decisions will sell ground up rats and human flesh as hamburger meat, they'll store their food stuffs in cheaper less sanitary ways, and that the all mighty dollar will decide just how sanitary/buyer friendly they'll be.
I skipped to this point, then reread your previous paragraph. I knew you were referring to The Jungle. That book is a work of fiction. The man who wrote The Jungle made most of his stories up.
But let's suppose everything in The Jungle was true. Do you know how much stuff in that book would be ILLEGAL in a free market? Not to mention that there are a number of immigrants who still work in the US illegally, and I could be wrong, but I don't think they're being abused like those in The Jungle.
There were problems though, and I'll admit that the market itself can not simply exist without innovation. However, I believe we can achieve innovation WITHOUT use of government force in most cases. If I said every single thing the government has done was wrong, then I'd be lying. However, I believe the things the government has done right, for the most part, could have been done without government.
Anyway, I can't respond to anymore posts. I'm going fishing.
How close were you to these people?
Do you mean if I knew them, or where they were? For the first, it doesn't matter. For the second, it still doesn't matter, they were obviously close enough for me and others to be bothered by it enough that we felt the need to ask them to stop.
Again, smoke disperses.
Irrelevant.
we just can't agree if laws should be passed to enforce courtesy.
Probably true. In my experience, people are going to do whatever the hell they feel like doing so long as there's no reprimands for it. The people who actually have a shred of common courtesy and respect are, unfortunately, lacking in number. Being apart of society means living by the rules which are logically set for the good of all. Having a ban on public smoking does not prevent a smoker from pursuing the habit if they wish, only that they cannot do so around people whom it may very well bother.
I feel we can find ways in which we can regulate without government intervention.
To be honest, I feel the same way you do. However, logic, experience, and just plain rationality show that the vast majority of people will not do what is best for others. We have to operate by the way the world works, not how we want it to work.
If having government healthcare means the government can dictate how we live our lives, then I want no part of it at all.
Or simply by choosing to indulge in medically proven harmful activities or habits you invalidate yourself from government support in healthcare, eliminating the "drag."
I see no reason why the idea of government run/assisted healthcare cannot work, only that the current system in place is far from ideal.
I will do everything in my power to stop people I love from doing these drugs. However, I do not support the government's decision to ban these drugs.
I'm having a hard time understanding your thought process. Taking it point by point: You want people to have the ability to choose for themselves what they can and cannot do to themselves in the confines of their own property, but are against harmful to self actions which may result in harm to another party, but do not support action from the government which prevents these excessively harmful actions by disallowing their use which is arguably in the favor of every person's health to avoid, but believe that people should be stopped from harming oneself? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's quite a few contradictions in there.
Just because 85% of the cigarette smoke remains in the air, does not mean all of that smoke is going to be breathed in by others.
The point remains though that cigarettes have the potential to affect far more than just the consumer. Even if I only breath in 1% of that 85%, that's 1% that is harmful to me and I did not consent to.
Do you know how much stuff in that book would be ILLEGAL in a free market?
Now we have come full circle to the point where you believe that companies should self regulate but when they refuse to do so the government steps in but chastise the government for stepping it (or at the very least, how they do so).
I believe we can achieve innovation WITHOUT use of government force in most cases
When your boat has leaks in it because some people think it's funny to swing a pickaxe on the boat, you don't patch the holes first, you restrain the ones swinging, then plug the holes, then teach the people who were swinging the pickaxe that it's a really bad idea.
Basically, you're wanting the end result without the process. This is simply not realistic.
However, I believe the things the government has done right, for the most part, could have been done without government.
Here is the crux I believe.
Would those things which the government effected have occurred? It doesn't matter if they could have, but if they would have. Or if they would have within a reasonable time frame, or without allowing harm which needed correcting to continue?
You must be logged in to post a reply!