[worldwidetraveler]

(02-10-2012 09:00 AM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 12:54 AM)velkrum Wrote:  

I'm glad people can't smoke or drink on the beach or in parks. All that leads to is lazy ignorant idiots throwing their cigarette butts on the ground and leaving their empty cans / bottles strewn about. It ruins it for everyone. I've been to some beautiful locations that were ruined because people were disrespectful slobs that littered.

I agree with that.A lot of things wouldn't need rules if there weren't so many thoughtless idiots about .

I guess you would be ok with the government limiting how many drinks you can have in a bar. I mean, there are idiots that drink too much and drive.

So limit one drink, per night, per person.

Oh, how about limiting people on how they dress. If we look, live and all own the same things there will be less crime.

People seem to think it is great to limit behavior when it works in their advantage. I wonder how happy they would be when the limitations start hitting closer to home.

[iknowexactly]

(02-10-2012 09:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 09:00 AM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 12:54 AM)velkrum Wrote:  

I'm glad people can't smoke or drink on the beach or in parks. All that leads to is lazy ignorant idiots throwing their cigarette butts on the ground and leaving their empty cans / bottles strewn about. It ruins it for everyone. I've been to some beautiful locations that were ruined because people were disrespectful slobs that littered.

I agree with that.A lot of things wouldn't need rules if there weren't so many thoughtless idiots about .

I guess you would be ok with the government limiting how many drinks you can have in a bar. I mean, there are idiots that drink too much and drive.

So limit one drink, per night, per person.

Oh, how about limiting people on how they dress. If we look, live and all own the same things there will be less crime.

People seem to think it is great to limit behavior when it works in their advantage. I wonder how happy they would be when the limitations start hitting closer to home.

Strawman. Arguing with positions that weren't taken.

Also, otherwise valuable contributor G Manifesto has to be pointed at whilst I use nasal schoolteacher voice for glorifying an early black gummy death to lungs, via with "cool" terms like "spark" etc.

[worldwidetraveler]

Quote:

Strawman. Arguing with positions that weren't taken.

Also, otherwise valuable contributor G Manifesto has to be pointed at whilst I use nasal schoolteacher voice for glorifying an early black gummy death to lungs, via with "cool" terms like "spark" etc.

This adds nothing to the conversation. You might as well just start correcting us on punctuation.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-10-2012 09:23 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 09:00 AM)Pilgrim37 Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 12:54 AM)velkrum Wrote:  

I'm glad people can't smoke or drink on the beach or in parks. All that leads to is lazy ignorant idiots throwing their cigarette butts on the ground and leaving their empty cans / bottles strewn about. It ruins it for everyone. I've been to some beautiful locations that were ruined because people were disrespectful slobs that littered.

I agree with that.A lot of things wouldn't need rules if there weren't so many thoughtless idiots about .

I guess you would be ok with the government limiting how many drinks you can have in a bar. I mean, there are idiots that drink too much and drive.

So limit one drink, per night, per person.

Oh, how about limiting people on how they dress. If we look, live and all own the same things there will be less crime.

People seem to think it is great to limit behavior when it works in their advantage. I wonder how happy they would be when the limitations start hitting closer to home.

Yeah, if someone can't understand the freedom implications of this, their problems obviously don't end there.

(02-10-2012 09:34 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Also, otherwise valuable contributor G Manifesto has to be pointed at whilst I use nasal schoolteacher voice for glorifying an early black gummy death to lungs, via with "cool" terms like "spark" etc.

I have no idea what this means.

(02-10-2012 12:19 AM)misterstir Wrote:  

Really can you not smoke in your car before you get here or after you leave. Do you really need to smoke while standing in the water, do you really need to smoke every 15 minutes. Maybe you do but lots of people don't want to smell other people's smoke when going to the beach which is one of the few places you can get fresh air.

Wait till the government bans something you love, like cross dressing.

This is about freedom.

[iknowexactly]

(02-10-2012 12:09 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Also, otherwise valuable contributor G Manifesto has to be pointed at whilst I use nasal schoolteacher voice for glorifying an early black gummy death to lungs, via with "cool" terms like "spark" etc.

I have no idea what this means.
[/quote]

I'm trying to give you a hard time about implying smoking is
reasonably safe without being abrasive about it; cause a lot of your posts are good stuff, and I only disagree with this.

[velkrum]

@GManifesto

If people want to smoke and drink they can go right ahead ! Once they start littering and mistreating public spaces they FORFEIT their right to do as they please, as they have proven INCAPABLE of handling freedom responsibly.

Sucks for people who smoke and drink in public but their anger should be directed at the idiots who ruined it for everyone else !!

If people were responsible and the government passed a tyrannical law a backlash would occur and people would be in opposition.

REALITY tells a different story ! Idiots can not handle freedom and ruin it for others. It would be impossible to go after each individual idiot so a law is passed !

[thegmanifesto]

(02-10-2012 12:29 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

@GManifesto

If people want to smoke and drink they can go right ahead ! Once they start littering and mistreating public spaces they FORFEIT their right to do as they please, as they have proven INCAPABLE of handling freedom responsibly.

Sucks for people who smoke and drink but their anger should be directed at the idiots who ruined it for everyone else !!

If people were responsible and the government passed a tyrannical law a backlash would occur and people would be in opposition.

However REALITY tells a different story ! Idiots can not handle freedom and ruin it for others. It would be impossible to go after each individual idiot so a law is passed !

Littering is already illegal.

We should ban eating in public because people throw their food wrappers on the ground.

Right?

[misterstir]

@Gmanifesto. I see your argument based on liberty. But saying people should smoke on the beach means I have no freedom to go outside and enjoy fresh air because a group of idiots can come besides me and light up. Sure I can move, and I do, but its seems so prevalent I lose my freedom. What about people with allergies or asthma or copd and other lung diseases allergic to cigarettes, you're basically saying they have no right to go to the beach. You have the right to smoke as long as no one else who doesn't want to has to smell it.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-10-2012 01:16 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

@Gmanifesto. I see your argument based on liberty. But saying people should smoke on the beach means I have no freedom to go outside and enjoy fresh air because a group of idiots can come besides me and light up. Sure I can move, and I do, but its seems so prevalent I lose my freedom. What about people with allergies or asthma or copd and other lung diseases allergic to cigarettes, you're basically saying they have no right to go to the beach. You have the right to smoke as long as no one else who doesn't want to has to smell it.

We should also ban cars right?

Because people can't breathe fresh air with cars emitting exhaust.

Do you drive?

[velkrum]

exactly misterstir.

gmanifesto

is not taking EVERYONE else's freedom into account. He is only seeing things from his point of view.

@gmanifest, you missed my point completely

People can do what ever they want just so long as it does NOT infringe on the freedom of others. Once they DO infringe on someone else's freedom actions should be taken.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-10-2012 01:21 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

exactly misterstir.

gmanifesto

is not taking EVERYONE else's freedom into account. He is only seeing things from his point of view.

@gmanifest, you missed my point completely

People can do what ever they want just so long as it does NOT infringe on the freedom of others. Once they DO infringe on someone else's freedom actions should be taken.

I agree with you 100%.

We should ban cars.

And throwing footballs on the beach.

And I think you should be able to wear a dress whenever you want.

[velkrum]

banning cars is not practical and you are not thinking logically

[thegmanifesto]

(02-10-2012 01:29 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

banning cars is not practical and you are not thinking logically

I will quote you:

Quote:

People can do what ever they want just so long as it does NOT infringe on the freedom of others. Once they DO infringe on someone else's freedom actions should be taken.

So we should ban cars then right?

We should ban eating in public so people don't throw their wrappers on the ground.

Because you don't like littering right?

Even though littering is already illegal.

I hope you see how banning things is a slippery slope.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

[velkrum]

It is a slippery slope but you are thinking in absolutes.

What works well for 1 situation may not work well in another.

Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

There are times when you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils because it is a statistically better choice (if even marginally)

and trading liberty for protection is a different discussion than creating laws for peaceful coexistence.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

It is a slippery slope but you are thinking in absolutes.

What works well for 1 situation may not work well in another.

Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

There are times when you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils because it is a statistically better choice (if even marginally)

and trading liberty for protection is a different discussion than creating laws for peaceful coexistence.

So you are in favor of banning things that benefit you, but are against it when it doesn't benefit you.

Glad that we are clear that you are a hypocrite.

[Enfant_Terrible]

(02-10-2012 04:45 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote:

The Board of Supervisors this week agreed to lift an all-out ban on playing with footballs, other balls and Frisbees on the beach, according to a media statement released by the L.A. County Department of Beaches and Harbors.

The update means that beach-goers may toss balls and Frisbees with Lifegauds permission on beaches in Los Angeles County between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

The article is saying that you can play with footballs and frisbees on the beach. I played frisbee on the beach last summer. Nobody said anything to me.

I would say that you probably shouldn't play it where people are laying. Go to a part of the beach where there's lots of space.

Right. People should just focus common courtesy, if not people will get pissed anyway and should take care of the problem. What I still don't like is that you need a goddam permission from a Lifeguard and limit it to certain seasons!

Beach cops / life guards should focus more on the litter bugs.

How about this...can't even walk your dog on the sand even if you pick up the dog poop!

Give me break, frisbee...

[at350zguyy]

In some ways this makes me happy I won't be in LA for some time now. Was planning on going in a few weeks, but it seems like California is becoming more and more controlled. Also don't like the early shut down either. I'll gladly put up with winter.

[Tail Gunner]

(02-09-2012 06:58 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 11:59 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Enjoy your next trip to Sunny California!

Smoking, talking on the phone and driving, gay guys getting married, medical weed, cameras that mail you speeding tickets, etc. got started out here right after they come out of CA. Wrap your head around CA's Sales and Use Tax laws that I learned about when I started my surfboard blank business. We got a version of it here in Hawaii.

Take a look at the Proposition 65 laws.

My theory as to why this happens is that because so many of our lawyers go to Hastings Law School, they get that California mentality instilled. They come back here, then start working and things go to hell.

Actually, it is because -- aside from Massachusetts -- California and Hawaii are the two states that suffer from one-party rule by the Democratic Party. And Massachusetts, I might add, is even crazier.

I have seen the tension first-hand in California. You cannot enjoy the beach because people use it as an ashtray and drunken asstards urinate in public and hassle pedestrians. Texting drivers risk their lives and everyone around them. As a libertarian, however, I understand that people cannot legislate every form of idiotic behavior -- so I err on the side of freedom. Democrats do not, because they are statists who firmly believe in government control of our lives.

The demographics in California have changed immensely. California voted for the Republican candidate for president from 1968 to 1988 during the period when California was truly the "Golden State." California voted for the Democrat candidate for president from 1992 to 2008. So, during which period did California thrive?
The answer is obvious. Along with one-party control, it now has the economy of a third-world country.

http://www.270towin.com/states/California

[misterstir]

(02-10-2012 01:19 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 01:16 PM)misterstir Wrote:  

@Gmanifesto. I see your argument based on liberty. But saying people should smoke on the beach means I have no freedom to go outside and enjoy fresh air because a group of idiots can come besides me and light up. Sure I can move, and I do, but its seems so prevalent I lose my freedom. What about people with allergies or asthma or copd and other lung diseases allergic to cigarettes, you're basically saying they have no right to go to the beach. You have the right to smoke as long as no one else who doesn't want to has to smell it.

We should also ban cars right?

Because people can't breathe fresh air with cars emitting exhaust.

Do you drive?

No but we should ban leaded gas that smells like shit and does make people sick which has already been phased out for a long time for the precise line of reason I am arguing. Besides its not like people try to drive their car down to the beach on the sand where people are relaxing and put their 10 cars next to where I am sitting and then rev the engine and blow their car exhaust in my face. Its not like someone drives their car into the water where I am swimming and blows their exhaust into my face. If they set up designated smoke zones in the parking lot or something I would not oppose that. Its not like people liter the beach with exhaust butts and flick their exhaust butts and burning ash all over the place. As well cars serve a useful purpose, you basically need it to travel in the 21st century.

Banning cars is just so impractical its not going to happen because we can't afford to provide public transportation to everyone. Cigarette smoking is a social activity along the lines of drinking imo. Anyways we already have designated driving zones called roads. We have designated drinking zones called liquor licenses places and your house. I don't see any reason why they could not make a designated smoking place far away from people who don't want to smell that when in a park or at the beach.

[misterstir]

(02-10-2012 01:42 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-10-2012 01:38 PM)velkrum Wrote:  

It is a slippery slope but you are thinking in absolutes.

What works well for 1 situation may not work well in another.

Banning smoking and drinking in public IS an infringement on SOME peoples rights but it allows other people who are in the MAJORITY to enjoy theirs.

There are times when you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils because it is a statistically better choice (if even marginally)

and trading liberty for protection is a different discussion than creating laws for peaceful coexistence.

So you are in favor of banning things that benefit you, but are against it when it doesn't benefit you.

Glad that we are clear that you are a hypocrite.

You really provide no clear or comprehensive argument in favour of your position other than it violates liberty of you and smokers. Of course no one is arguing smoking should be banned, just not permitted in certain areas. And there are few activities that are permitted everywhere anyways, so what your really asking for is special rights. As it stands you can smoke in more places you can drink in most places that don't allow one to walk the streets with an open alcoholic beverage.

Anyways your basic position is no different than velkrum's. You favour smoking on beaches because it benefits you and you oppose smoking on beaches because its not in your favour.

The crux of the matter is that it is impossible to get fresh air on the beach when a several people are smoking near you and therefore allowing smoking on the beach basically means no one gets the right to fresh air there. Saying people should smoke in their car or off the beach doesn't stop them from smoking, just at that particular point. I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if some company let off a bunch of dirty air that made it impossible to get clean air on the beach, so why should special exemptions be made to special interest groups?

[Mujeriego]

Misterstir- As a lifetime CA resident I understand G's frustration. It's not about wanting special privileges, it's about the state having one more reason to bust your balls. Every year some new absurd laws get passed under of the banner of public health/safety. There's almost always a hefty fine attached, revealing the true purpose: revenue generation.

[thegmanifesto]

Quote:

Anyways your basic position is no different than velkrum's. You favour smoking on beaches because it benefits you and you oppose smoking on beaches because its not in your favour.

No you are missing the point.

I am in favor of people having the freedom to smoke.

I am in favor of people having the freedom to throw a football.

I am even in favor of letting you throw on a dress, put on make up and hang out with your boyfriend.

I am in favor of freedom.

Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

[chairman]

Yeah in Europe, if you don't smoke you suck it up. Banning smoking is just a small step to banning other "unpleasantries" to the eyes of government. If you let the government have an inch they will take a mile and that is why our country today is on the verge of almost being fascist or at least not constitutional.

[misterstir]

(02-11-2012 02:19 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

Quote:

Anyways your basic position is no different than velkrum's. You favour smoking on beaches because it benefits you and you oppose smoking on beaches because its not in your favour.

No you are missing the point.

I am in favor of people having the freedom to smoke.

I am in favor of people having the freedom to throw a football.

I am even in favor of letting you throw on a dress, put on make up and hang out with your boyfriend.

I am in favor of freedom.

Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

I am also in favour of people having the freedom to smoke. But I also support the right of people to not smoke and not inhale 2nd hand smoke against their will on the beach when trying to get some fresh air. If you cannot get cigarette smoke free air on the beach or in the park then in what outdoor area are you suppose to get it. Smokers can smoke virtually anywhere else outdoors.

I am in favour of people having the freedom to play football, but I am also in favour of people having the freedom to not be hit in the head by a drunk weed smoker on the beach.

You are being selective in the freedoms you are picking. There is no reasonable way for someone to avoid a group playing football or smoking on the beach, even if you move their game or smoke can follow you or enter your area. Hence their freedom to do annoying or potentially dangerous things infringes on others freedoms to try to use the beach for its intended purposes. Smokers can smoke anywhere they want as long as it does not interefere with others who don't want their smoke. That's freedom and liberty.

[misterstir]

(02-11-2012 01:33 PM)Mujeriego Wrote:  

Misterstir- As a lifetime CA resident I understand G's frustration. It's not about wanting special privileges, it's about the state having one more reason to bust your balls. Every year some new absurd laws get passed under of the banner of public health/safety. There's almost always a hefty fine attached, revealing the true purpose: revenue generation.

Your position or if this is his position that there is too much government, is a reasonable position there is too much government, I agree.