Your highly intrusive social engineering Friday open thread

Cause we know where you live! Free nachos for the best definition. Offer void where prohibited.

Comments

[Berial]

Isn't today still Thursday? Is pointing this out too intrusive?

[liberal japonicus]

Don't forget, I'm writing from the other side of the date line. Though I suppose writing a post from the future is the ultimate in intrusiveness, which is why it is a violation of the Temporal Prime Directive...

[hairshirthedonist]

Sure, it's still Thursday in the US according to our central-planning overlords who try to dictate our every action with their so-called "days of the week." But we're rising up and throwing off the shackles of a 24-hour Thursday. Hell, I might go into Saturday before midnight, before they find me, before I'm reprogrammed.

[Doctor Science]

And here I thought I'd get my post in at least 12 hours before yours ...

[envy]

Highly Intrusive Social Engineering? Is that like where you're "picking the brain" of some hapless peon for security vulnerabilities at their employer by literally opening their skulls and hooking it up to some crude, Dickish cephalochromoscope?

[CCDG]

It means NOT "free market theory as a normative model for discussing general human relationships".

[hairshirthedonist]

Marty, there are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary and those who don't.

(apologies to all who've seen that one before, especially if it was from me)

[CCDG]

hsh, all this cute but I am fine with ss and medicare. Much of the "liberal" agenda is social engineering from drug laws to outlawing McDonalds toys and transfats in foods. All of which I consider pretty intrusive.

I haven't seen any reasonable explanation of what "free market theory is a normative model for discussing general human relationships" even means.

[hairshirthedonist]

Drug laws, liberal? I agree with the intrusive part there, but liberal?

I'm not sure I get the intrusiveness with outlawing trans fats. Is there something you can't do now that you could before, aside from eating a bunch of stuff that contained trans fats, as opposed to eating the same stuff, except with non-trans fats? I haven't even noticed a difference in the food I eat - not that there's been a national ban. But just about everything, as far as I can tell from reading labels, that used to have trans fats now doesn't, or if it does, it's in very small amounts.

It seems making people aware of the dangers of trans fats has been enough in effect to ban trans fats on an economic basis rather than a legal one. Either way, what's the big deal, other than the benefit of fewer heart attacks?

I mean, even if there were a ban, it would likely be on the sale of foods containing artificial trans fats. If you liked them that much, you could always hydrogenate your own oil and make some cupcakes.

Seriously though, are trans fats really that central to your way of life? This issue sounds like some trumped up hobby horse for some unworthy media hack's fomentation of outrage.

[russell]

I haven't seen any reasonable explanation of what "free market theory is a normative model for discussing general human relationships" even means.

Allow me to cut and paste:

Normative as opposed to positive.

So, markets are not just a description of how people happen to relate in certain contexts, but a description of how they *ought to* relate.

Alles klar?

And, this is not a trend you have noticed over, say, the last 30 years in American public discourse?

And seriously, with all the sh*t we're facing, McDonalds toys and trans fats are the hill you want to die on?

I'm not sure how much more political chat I can handle. I feel like I'm headed for Countme territory, and frankly I'm not seeing that as a bad thing.

Time to go play some vibraphone.

[hairshirthedonist]

Admit it, russell - deep down, you miss lead paint. Stupid government...

[CCDG]

I read that in the other thread, what does that have to do with human relationships? What does that sketchy three sentences mean? So no it is not clear.

And no, those little examples aren't the hills I want to die on, I was just showing how simple and stupid it is to show how intrusive the liberal agenda is into the every facet of our lives.

Personally, I would like to have a cigarette without having to find a spot thirty feet from any doorway in downtown Boston or any publicly owned land or any, well anywhere, while feeling like a high school kid hiding from the smoking police. Yet everytime I get in an elevator I get out with a migraine from the confluence of perfumes and colognes. Yet now you can't smoke in a public park in downtown Tampa. So, no those aren't the hills I want to die on, I am willing to kill myself thank you.

[liberal japonicus]

smoking is a tough one, but isn't it akin to peeing in public places? My wife's dad and granddad, apparently would go out drinking (they were rice farmers) and part of the ritual was before they came in the house, they would unzip and whiz in the irrigation ditch, which bugged my wife to no end (maybe 40 years ago?) Not trying to dismiss your point, but why is smoking something that you want everyone to have no problem with, but you might understand why people might be unhappy with guys just letting go?

[Hartmut]

Would smoking while wearing a http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/263564/530wm/M3200134-Hay_fever_helmet_being_worn_by_allergy_sufferers-SPL.jpg>hay fever helmet be legal in places where smoking is banned? I assume the filters work both ways (they could be asymmetric in which case they would have to be put in the other way around).

[Hartmut]

Soon there'll be full body x-rays on airports and extra boob controls (Ahnold's new job?) to catch all the terrorists with implanted explosives. Sukeban Boy and Robo Geisha will become training movies.

[russell]

Personally, I would like to have a cigarette without having to find a spot thirty feet from any doorway in downtown Boston or any publicly owned land

I used to smoke. I loved smoking. If it wasn't bad for you, I'd be smoking today.

I used to smoke in the office, while waiting for the train, in restaurants, in the smoking section of planes and movies.

You know what?

It was freaking rude that everybody else in all of those places had to breathe, smell, and taste smoke from my cigarettes for all of those years.

Bans on smoking in public places are a good and correct thing, because the folks who smoke are not the only catfish in the sea.

And yes, you are correct, recognizing that and making public policy reflect that is far more a liberal tendency than a conservative one.

Here is the problem with the libertarian, "leave me alone" trend in conservative thought:

It doesn't scale.

Let's all just act as we wish. If we have any conflicts we'll sort them out for ourselves, without the intrusive hand of government telling us what to do.

What a beautiful thought! As Nell would say, a lovely promise.

Unfortunately, it requires people to be responsible actors, which is a sketchy proposition if I've ever heard one.

And even in the presence of responsible actors, it doesn't scale to anything like the population densities we have now.

It ain't the frontier anymore.

[CCDG]

Thats great russell, then when it becomes bs. when I can't stand in the middle of field with a stiff wind and have a cigarette because someone downwind might have to catch a scent of it, then I have the same right to ban your car, lawnmower, perfume,bbq grill, fireplace, campfire, etc.

I never once objected to going outside to smoke. I objected when the laws started making it where it became almost impossible to find a legal place outside to smoke and people like you used the lines like "It ain't the frontier anymore" to justify it.

[Turbulence]

Thats great russell, then when it becomes bs. when I can't stand in the middle of field with a stiff wind and have a cigarette because someone downwind might have to catch a scent of it, then I have the same right to ban your car, lawnmower, perfume,bbq grill, fireplace, campfire, etc.

What specific laws ban smoking in an empty field that you own? I don't believe there are any.

Perhaps the real problem you're complaining about is the free market at work: businesses have decided that they don't want junkies like yourself polluting their properties and so preventing you from doing so, but this can hardly be blamed on the government....

[Countme-In]

It never occurred to me in junior high school to call the burly vice-principal who barged into the boy's restroom to catch guys smoking a "liberal".

It seemed to us he was upholding conservative values. It really steamed us too when they disallowed peeing in the stairwells.

Did you know that the Marlboro Man's horse died of lung cancer?

Conservative folks often say (sometimes here, but more often outside the cork-lined room) that the government should be run like a business or like a family. Well, private businesses and families ban smoking all the time, so what's the problem with government banning smoking in the public space?

I've heard Avis and Budget may be contemplating, or have already implemented, a $250 dollar fee for smoking on their property, which they take to be inside their cars.

I'll bet their executives vote conservative to lower the corporate tax on the anti-smoking fees they impose.

What's funny about our silly country of course is that so-called liberal busybodies have disallowed cigarettes and cigars just about everywhere, but conservative and libertarian busybodies now permit firearms (even carried by crazy people and gun-show patronizing terrorists) to be carried just about everywhere.

Which side would Wyatt Earp be on? Hint: his horse died of old age. Doc Holliday's horse died of liver failure and a fall off a barstool.

Both point to "saving lives" as the reason.

Now, I've never been a smoker, nor a carrier of smoking guns, but it occurs to me that one of the joys of a gunfight in a saloon for the movie frontiersman was taking one last pull and flicking that butt away before you drew and shot that cardsharp.

Being a liberal, I don't quite see the point in carrying a weapon inside if the smokers I'm looking to shoot have already been chased outside.

I think CCDG should be permitted to smoke in a public park in a high wind, unless global warming causes droughts and more fire danger in Tampa.

[Phil]

Dear lord, smokers -- who are, let's face it, not different in any significant way from alcoholics or heroin addicts -- are the most insufferable, whiney, hypocritical people I've ever encountered. My favorite thing is the ones who, even in the dead of winter with temperatures below 10 F, drive around smoking with their car windows down so as not to dirty up their cars, then pitch the butts right out the window. (The amount of litter produced by smokers is staggering.) If it's so filthy you don't want it in your car, why the hell would you want it in your lungs? More importantly, why would you think I want it in MY lungs?

then I have the same right to ban your car, lawnmower, perfume,bbq grill, fireplace, campfire, etc.

Write your Congressman, you big baby. Good luck!

[CCDG]

Well turb, the latest is the ban on smoking in public parks in Tampa. Vast expanses of open fields, or at least a few open fields. Thats the government.

But culturally, I would love to take you on a tour of the area around the Garden in Boston and we can compare the "pollution" caused by the people that leave the bars and the smokers and we can decide which of the two should be banned. The drinking junkies leave a much more disgusting trail of woe in the streets.

Almost every smoker I know is courteous to a fault in trying to be as inconspicuous and polite as possible. They always look for a smoking area where provided, but eventually when it becomes clear that no amount of consideration given is enough to gain some back they just stop where they are and have a cigarette. To quote a popular line. It's our world too.

I don't drink, I don't drive rudely, I don't wear massive amounts of aftershave or cologne, I don't mow my lawn at 5 AM, I don't cut in lines at the airport, or do a bunch of things that I have to put up with others doing, often in public places, often rudely impinging on my life. So no one should imagine that my smoking is any more intrusive than things I deal with from others every day.

But, this discussion is tiresome, so I'll leave it here. It is ok to call smokers junkies and ban them everywhere and use the common tag lines to justify it, private or public entities.

[dr ngo]

Would smoking while wearing a hay fever helmet be legal in places where smoking is banned? I assume the filters work both ways (they could be asymmetric in which case they would have to be put in the other way around).

I'm still a bit groggy this morning, but I'm having difficulty coping with the image of someone putting on a hay fever helmet "the other way around." ;}

[Phil]

I don't drink, I don't drive rudely, I don't wear massive amounts of aftershave or cologne, I don't mow my lawn at 5 AM, I don't cut in lines at the airport, or do a bunch of things that I have to put up with others doing, often in public places, often rudely impinging on my life.

Which things in that list cause cancer and emphysema (among other things) even in people who don't do them?

It is ok to call smokers junkies

They are junkies. They're addicted to a substance of which they have to have multiple fixes daily or they cannot function. What's more, they'll spend money on their fix even when they cannot afford it and it would make more economic sense NOT to do it. That's, like, the actual definition.

Well turb, the latest is the ban on smoking in public parks in Tampa. Vast expanses of open fields, or at least a few open fields.

See, I bet part of this ban involves the enormous amounts of litter left behind by smokers, at which point every single one will chime in and say, "I don't leave my butts behind!" It's always all those other smokers. You know, the ones over there. Those guys.

we can compare the "pollution" caused by the people that leave the bars and the smokers and we can decide which of the two should be banned.

If you are not aware of the shape of the Venn diagram for "people who hang out in bars" and "smokers" (hint: it's nearly two concentric circles), I'm not sure you understand the issue.

[CCDG]

"See, I bet part of this ban involves the enormous amounts of litter left behind by smokers, at which point every single one will chime in and say, "I don't leave my butts behind!" It's always all those other smokers. You know, the ones over there. Those guys"

Yeah, that was it. They fired the guy who picked up the the coke cans and paper and all kinds of other trash, oh wait, no they didn't. They just banned smoking. Then removed the conveniently located ashtrays that smokers had congregated around when finishing their cigarettes, think that will really diminish the litter problem?

[hairshirthedonist]

The drinking junkies leave a much more disgusting trail of woe in the streets.

Legally? I'll bet some people get away with smoking in parks in Tampa, too, littering afterwards by leaving their butts on the ground. Maybe there's some guy on the internet complaining about it who doesn't know that smoking is already banned, suggesting that it should be.

...then I have the same right to ban your car

As much as I'd like everyone to use public transit where possible, banning cars would keep a lot of people from getting to work and would ruin our economy. Cigarettes - not so important.

[hairshirthedonist]

Yeah, that was it. They fired the guy who picked up the the coke cans and paper and all kinds of other trash, oh wait, no they didn't. They just banned smoking. Then removed the conveniently located ashtrays that smokers had congregated around when finishing their cigarettes, think that will really diminish the litter problem?

Before we go too far down the adversarial path here, I will say that it's entirely possible that this particular ban is not good policy.

[CCDG]

"Before we go too far down the adversarial path here"

And I'm feeling a little cranky today

[Ugh]

I always thought this was an adequate response to complaints about bans on smoking in places open to the general public:

Cigarette smoke is the residue of your pleasure. It contaminates the air, pollutes my hair and clothes, not to mention my lungs. This takes place without my consent. I have a pleasure, also. I like a beer now and then. The residue of my pleasure is urine. Would you be annoyed if I stood on a chair and pissed on your head and your clothes without your consent?

Though I see Marty has raised the issue of other un-consented to intrusions that don't have similar bans. I would note that, at least in my area, things like running the lawnmower at 5am, littering, being drunk in public, drinking in parks, the amount of emissions from car engines, drunk/aggressive driving, etc. are, in fact, legally banned or regulated in some manner.

But coming back to smoking, every time I think of it it never ceases to amaze me that car makers actually built (and AFAIK, still do in most cases) freaking cigarette lighters into their cars. Every. Single. Car. That's how pervasive the habit became (and still is).

Another problem with smoking is that a single smoker ruins the entire bar, restaurant, workplace, etc., not only while he/she is there but afterwards as well. So, even if 79 out of 80 people at a restaurant don't smoke, the one who does infects (if you will) the rest.

I also think part of the problem here too is that we have gone (in the US at least), gradually, over the past 20 years or so from a society where it was just expected if you went out in public, whether socially, for work, or to travel, cigarette smoke would be in the air, to pretty much the opposite, which has led people who have spent most of their years in the former environment (and who smoke), to rue the current one, as if the former were just the natural state of things and the latter some sort of horrible intrusion.

[wj]

Once again, Ugh (in his last paragraph) expresses me better than I do. Sigh.

[CCDG]

Or perhaps Ugh, smokers, like me, understand perfectly that the former was unacceptable and never objected to being asked to go outside to smoke. But when outside, over there, became too much of an intrusion on everyone else became less understanding of the lengths people went to in order to ostracize them.

[hairshirthedonist]

I'm a bit sympathetic to owners of, say, bars who would like to allow smoking, particularly if they're small bars that don't employ many people. I mean, if you can have cigar bars dedicated to cigars, knowing full well that if you work there, you're going to be exposed to smoke, why not bars that allow smoking?

I think one approach to such a thing in cities that have smoking bans in public places is to issue smoking licenses for bars in some ratio to the number of liquor licenses issued. This offers freedom of choice both to smokers and those who would prefer to avoid cigarette smoke, be they customers or employees.

It would be interesting to see how well each type would do business-wise and what ratio would put smoking bars and non-smoking bars on more or less equal footing in a given place.

[Turbulence]

Or perhaps Ugh, smokers, like me, understand perfectly that the former was unacceptable and never objected to being asked to go outside to smoke.

What? As I recall, there was intense opposition to Boston's plan to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Intense opposition from...smokers.

But when outside, over there, became too much of an intrusion on everyone else became less understanding of the lengths people went to in order to ostracize them.

I still don't know what laws you're talking about. Yes, Tampa may have banned smoking in parks, but (1) the vast majority of Americans don't live in Tampa and (2) there are still a great many places to smoke. You can smoke on the street, and you can smoke in public parks in almost any city or town except Tampa.

Do you actually spend a lot of time in Tampa CCDG? Or does the Tampa rule have ZERO effect on you?

I still don't understand by what you mean by 'when outside became too much of an intrusion'...are you referring to municipal ordinances? Rules set by private businesses for conduct on their property? Religious strictures? What?

[liberal japonicus]

I don't know about anyone else, but the Murdoch/News of The World debacle is grabbing my attention.

[Yama001]

Odd how much smoking appears to be making a comeback. I work for an environmental lab; all of the managers are smokers. The back lot is swarming with folks all trying to get a smoke in, diligently trying not to piss off us non-smokers. Its quite a circus at times.

I never picked up smoking and am generally pleased it is under more control these days. I am dismayed by the virulence smokers get treated with now. Bad habit, better off without it, but I have some sympathy for Marty here. A lot of smokers have tried hard to adapt; they really do not deserve the language that gets tossed at them.

[CCDG]

"What? As I recall, there was intense opposition to Boston's plan to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. Intense opposition from...smokers."

Some around restaurants, lots around bars, both smokers and owners. The "like me" in that statement did a lot of work. I already smoked in the basement at home before any of that.

"I still don't know what laws you're talking about. Yes, Tampa may have banned smoking in parks, but (1) the vast majority of Americans don't live in Tampa and (2) there are still a great many places to smoke. You can smoke on the street, and you can smoke in public parks in almost any city or town except Tampa.

As it turns out I have run across a few cities that have banned smoking in public parks.

And you are right, there are a great many places to smoke, the largest and most common safe spot being, in the street.

Interestingly, the owners of buildings in Boston can somehow establish arbitrary distances(typically 30 feet for some reason) that you can't smoke from their doors. In many places in Boston this creates an overlapping set of no smoking zones that leaves the middle of the street as the actual allowable place to smoke, which of course isn't legal for other reasons.

So, of course, the trick is to be walking so you are never in any zone long enough for a property owner to actually complain. Not to mention that the enforcement is typically on tenants of the building, so people just go stand in the zones of other peoples buildings, none of which have ash cans or any kind of receptacle so if you don't field strip your cigarettes there isn't anyplace they can go but in the street.

But for someone who is less happy with just getting around the rules it presents a challenge. I would like a place where it is "the ok place" to smoke.

"Do you actually spend a lot of time in Tampa CCDG? Or does the Tampa rule have ZERO effect on you?

Oddly, I have been typing Tampa all day, out of habit because I just tend to always refer to whatever happens in the area as Tampa, like people in MA say I live near Boston. The new ordinance I am referring to is actually in Sarasota, it does occasionally impact me directly although not daily, but it is much closer to where I live than Tampa.

[Countme-In]

Yes, lj, the Murdoch/News Of The World story is a corker.

As a reflection within an organization of the pure ruthless malignity of the individual at the top of that organization, it reminds me of Richard Nixon's Watergate.

[hairshirthedonist]

So, of course, the trick is to be walking so you are never in any zone long enough for a property owner to actually complain.

Maybe the extra exercise will offset the ill-effects of the smoking. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I like to imagine that smokers would be completely unoffended by someone smoking on a foul-smelling cigar at the next table. It may even be the case.

I grew up in a household where both parents smoked. I even took up smoking in middle school. Once I stopped (sophomore year in high school), I couldn't stand to be around my parents when they smoked. It was worse than being around someone who showers once every couple of weeks whether they need to or not.

I'm not a huge fan of city-wide laws prohibiting smoking in e.g. restaurants, but I do applaud restaurants that prohibit smoking, and my own workplace banned indoor smoking back in the early 1990s. Eventually they banned smoking anywhere on the property, because the smokers (it turned out) were spending a great deal of time chatting outside with other smokers. But I do have memory of working with people who smoked in their office; even smoked cigars in their office.

Personally, I'd like to have a beer or two on the job. I think it'd be great for morale, and the number of people I'd offend would be fairly small.

[Phil]

Here are my final public thoughts on the matter of smoking. (Not that anyone cares.)

1. It seems that a lot of people don't like to confront directly the fact that smokers are drug addicts, and what's more, they're drug addicts that American society goes to great lengths to accommodate in ways that we don't accommodate any other drug addicts. (Employers certainly don't like it if alcoholics slip out repeatedly during the day to have a couple of shots.) And yet they still have the temerity to complain that they aren't permitted to indulge their drug habit in a sufficient number of places, and that people have the audacity to be mean to them about it. Jesus wept.

2. Although you might not think so, I'm generally a pretty easygoing guy and able to put up with a lot of stuff from people. But smoking is A Bridge Too Far for me. I grew up literally having it shoved into my lungs from infancy, with two parents and two grandparents who smoked. I am the only nonsmoker in a family of smokers (my sister started at age 13 and has continued for 29 years), and I've hated it since I was consciously able to hate things. My parents both only quit in the past 12 months, after both of them got cancer.

So after choking on that crap for 20 years, until municipalities and workplaces finally started to get a little sense, forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the poor tobacco addicts who aren't allowed to get a fix in the public park. If it were up to me, they'd be allowed to smoke in their own homes, and nowhere else.

I suggest Marty move to Detroit. They still let you smoke in restaurants there.

[russell]

It seems that a lot of people don't like to confront directly the fact that smokers are drug addicts

When I quit smoking, for the next couple of months I would catch myself licking the back of my teeth to get a little taste of that fine fine nicotine from the little bit of residual tar left there.

Yes, if you are a smoker, you are a junkie.

I don't really attach all that much of a heavy moral thing to it, and I'm not looking down on anybody about it. I don't really care if folks smoke or not, it's their business.

But it is what it is. It's a highly efficient drug delivery system.

I appreciate that it's a royal PITA if you're a smoker these days. It was sorta starting to suck when I quit, I'm sure it sucks quite a bit more now.

Like the man said, I feel your pain.

But what strikes me is this:

We have over 9% official unemployment. In real life, it's close to twice that. People by the millions are losing their homes, jobs, livelihoods, savings, careers. A lot of that ain't coming back, ever.

Millions of people have no health insurance, and millions of other people have only the most rudimentary catastrophic insurance.

Obesity, diabetes, and a spectrum of disabling chronic diseases are at close to epidemic levels. The country is on track to be bankrupted by increases in health care costs.

We have an economy utterly dependent on fossil fuels, and for the last 35 or more years we have been a net importer of those fuels. Which is to say, not self-sufficient, and therefore vulnerable. We have done bugger-all about it.

We are in two wars -- make it two-and-a-half -- that bleed American lives and money every day, and we have no idea how to bring them to any kind of conclusion at all, let alone a satisfactory one.

In ten years' time we've gone from surpluses as far as the eye can see to being on the brink of literal default, and that through a decade of irresponsible, profligate fiscal idiocy, yet we cannot countenance, at all, the idea of letting tax rates return to historically normal levels.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on. And on.

And the hallmark of insidious liberal meddling is, apparently, the inability of folks to smoke in the Sarasota public parks, or buy food with trans fats at a restaurant, or get a toy with their happy meal.

I don't mean to minimize the degree to which bureaucratic regulation can bug the living shite out of a person. I live with it every day.

But don't we have bigger fish to fry?

I'm not trying to stick it to CCDG in particular, but jeebus freaking christmas on a stick, aren't the stakes a little bit higher than whether you can smoke in the park in Sarasota or not?

[bobbyp]

"And I'm feeling a little cranky today..."

Trying to quit, eh? I know the feeling. I still miss smoking.

But really, if this is what passes for "highly intrusive government", we're in farce territory. You sure this isn't the Onion blog?