On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:16:35AM +1000, Trent W. Buck wrote:
That reminds me of a story from the hospitality sector: smokers were allowed regular smoking breaks, whereas non-smokers had to stay on their feet and working continuously for an umpteen-hour shift. The result of which was they all started smoking.
(I forget who told me this story, so it my be from another country.)
sounds like the non-smoker's version of "damn refugees get free cars from the government" to me.
i.e. the terrible, awful fear that someone might be getting something you're not, whether that fear has any actual basis in reality or not.
I think that everyone who has any significant experience working in Australia (IE for long enough to pre-date the more recent smoking restrictions) knows that there's some truth to this. Smokers have traditionally had lots of breaks throughout the day when non- smokers didn't. For example on one occasion some smokers were outside the door of the small office where I worked telling jokes, they seemed to be having fun so all the non-smokers joined them. Then the manager went out and told everyone to get back to work. Smokers having some time off was apparently OK but when the non-smokers do so too it's an issue of lost productivity. On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Quoting Craig Sanders (cas@taz.net.au):
actually, what you're talking about is NOT democracy. it's tyranny of the majority. or *a* majority.
Actually I'm surprised that the Libertarians never weigh in on such issues. Surely the right to have others not violate your air space is something that Libertarians should approve of. It's not as if smokers are being prevented from smoking, they are merely prevented from smoking too close to other people.
Quite.
Illustration of the fact that worse than wowzerdom can emerge from the War on Drugs Without Major Corporate Sponsorship: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/dea-agents-raid_n_3942731.html
That's not really a drug issue. Such militarised police raids have been well documented for "crimes" that don't concern drugs at all. The strange thing is that the police want to do that. There is legal precedent in the US that you are permitted to shoot someone who bursts through your door with a gun even if they happen to be later identified as a cop. People in the US have got away with shooting police and ATF agents in self- defence. Lots of NRA types cite killing bad cops as a reason for owning a gun. It seems a bad strategy for the police to provide evidence in support of such claims. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/