The new deviant class

[minsue]

Schwarzenegger Jr then? Does the gubernator spawn?

Dear god, I hope not. *shudder*

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm torn on policies like this, and I know that they are turning up in the United States as well. I recently read of one company that instituted a no-hire on smokers. They also supplied a year's worth of counselling, funded stop-smoking programs, and medication funding to their currently smoking employees, but told them that if they were still smoking at the end of the year, they would be fired. It felt outrageous - but then the company spokesman gave their reasoning. It was nothing to do with intelligence or even secondhand smoke; it was that every smoker cost immediately cost them an extra thousand dollars a year for health coverage. That's right from the insurance company in straight expenses, and doesn't include any sort of lost time / likelihood of sick days calculations. That's a hell of a lot of money.

I still don't know how I feel about it. After all, one could make the same argument about other voluntary activities - being obese, choosing to have children, or choosing not to exercise. I don't like the idea of people's liberties being curtailed. On the other hand, any liberty is less than wholly our own individual decision to make if we're asking someone else to pay for it - and if I'm asking someone else to pay a thousand dollars cash for it, I think I've got to acknowledge that he or she is going to want some say in the situation. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with a different solution, like re-writing the benefits package to include only a specific contribution to the health plan that could be topped up by smokers who chose to pay the extra themselves. But then that's a slippery slope too; once the door's open to the employer paying less than the entire coverage, I think we can all see where that's headed, and I really dislike that idea of people with premium-increasing issues that they can't control being caught up by a rule like that.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

That's one of the nice things about a public health care system.

It doesn't differentiate. You're a citizen and have a right to medical treatment.

(Puts on flame retardant clothing because I can hear the flamethrowers being lit)

 

[yevkassem72]

You've already taken the first steps towards having Schwartzenegger as your president...

The Earl

That was Stallone, and he's already an American.

 

[FallingToFly]

I'm just going to go sit over there

---->

with the other deviants who drink, smoke, have sex, and are happy to have some vices, and let the rest of you piss it out.

Anal sex has been proven to cause hemmorhoids (probably spelled wrong, I'm laughing here) if not properly done- shall we ban homosexuality or anal sex altogether?

Oh, shit, when I was pregnant the doctor said to not have oral sex because it can cause an embolism if improperly done as well- no oral sex for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant!

Wait... shit- if a someone had strep throat, even dormant, and gives head, it can transfer to the penis and then to the vagina or anus. Dammit, no more blowjobs!

And the female partners of uncircumsized men have a scientifically proven higher rate of cervical cancers- no sex for those uncircumsized men!!

Drinking causes cirrhosis of the liver, and stupidity, and unplanned pregnancies. Alcohol should be banned.

Caffeine is a stimulant as addictive as heroin and as ferocious as speed, causes irritability, insomnia, stomach problems, withdrawal symptoms, cramping, and diarrhea. (there's a reason it's good for your colon, Hooper- it keeps everything flushed out!) No more coffee, tea, soda, etc, for you!

Red meat is bad for the arteries and cholesterol and colon. Throw the steaks out and let the cows go free, Farmer Brown. No more steak.

Chicken has salmonella, so does fish- all meat has bacterias! Shit.. no more meat, period.

Wait- pesticides cause cancer. Oh, hells.

What are we going to eat?

I've never seen a group of people so eager to beat the rights out of any group of people in my life- I keep expecting someone to pull out a cross and some kerosene, maybe some hooded robes with an anti-smoking patch over the heart. And gas masks to preserve anonymity.

Who knew there were so many narrowminded, obnoxious, and pitiful little prudes on a porn board?

 

[rgraham666]

Nice one, Falling.

 

[Guest]

Nice one, Falling.

I agree with the spirit but wish to clarify a few points?

Rough anal sex can cause small fissures in the anus. Hemorrhoids, however, are swollen blood vessels in and around the anus and lower rectum that stretch under pressure, similar to varicose veins in the legs. The increased pressure and swelling may result from straining to move the bowel. Other contributing factors include pregnancy, heredity, obesity, and aging. About 50% of the population have hemorrhoids by age 50.

Anal sex could worsen a condition, but may not be the cause.


The possibility of an embolism? That would be as a result of blowing air into the vagina, not just oral sex. Tongues can still fly.


And the strep bacteria that can cause potential danger to a newborn (born vaginally) is not the typical bacteria that causes strep throat. There is a real danger here, but OBs should have the current information.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm just going to go sit over there

---->

with the other deviants who drink, smoke, have sex, and are happy to have some vices, and let the rest of you piss it out.

Anal sex has been proven to cause hemmorhoids (probably spelled wrong, I'm laughing here) if not properly done- shall we ban homosexuality or anal sex altogether?

Oh, shit, when I was pregnant the doctor said to not have oral sex because it can cause an embolism if improperly done as well- no oral sex for women who are pregnant or may become pregnant!

Wait... shit- if a someone had strep throat, even dormant, and gives head, it can transfer to the penis and then to the vagina or anus. Dammit, no more blowjobs!

And the female partners of uncircumsized men have a scientifically proven higher rate of cervical cancers- no sex for those uncircumsized men!!

Drinking causes cirrhosis of the liver, and stupidity, and unplanned pregnancies. Alcohol should be banned.

Caffeine is a stimulant as addictive as heroin and as ferocious as speed, causes irritability, insomnia, stomach problems, withdrawal symptoms, cramping, and diarrhea. (there's a reason it's good for your colon, Hooper- it keeps everything flushed out!) No more coffee, tea, soda, etc, for you!

Red meat is bad for the arteries and cholesterol and colon. Throw the steaks out and let the cows go free, Farmer Brown. No more steak.

Chicken has salmonella, so does fish- all meat has bacterias! Shit.. no more meat, period.

Wait- pesticides cause cancer. Oh, hells.

What are we going to eat?

I've never seen a group of people so eager to beat the rights out of any group of people in my life- I keep expecting someone to pull out a cross and some kerosene, maybe some hooded robes with an anti-smoking patch over the heart. And gas masks to preserve anonymity.

Who knew there were so many narrowminded, obnoxious, and pitiful little prudes on a porn board?

As one of the resident Libertarians, I find that interesting. I never advocated banning anything here. Quite the opposite. Do whatever the fuck you want. I just think that private firms have the right to hire and fire as they please. If they're narrow-minded pricks, then the market can punish them, and probably will.

 

[Pure]

SEVI just think that private firms have the right to hire and fire as they please.

P: bzzt. wrong. in Randland, maybe, but not the landof the free and the homof the brave.

SEV: If they're narrow-minded pricks, then the market can punish them, and probably will.

P: wrong also. 'punishment' by the market is extremely iffy, though occasionally if the discriminated persons are very numerous and well organized; it has worked, e.g., lunch counters were boycotted in the US south in the 60s, and it had an impact.

discriminatory acts or practices by companies/organizations are not easy to break by public action for lots of reasons. to give you an example, the Catholic school board used to DISallow women teachers who were showing pregnancy, from continuing to teach--i.e. it suspended them. (I mean married ones, of course.) it was in place for many years.

the phone company used NOT to hire any women as "linemen" (climbing the poles), and i believe it took law suits to change this.

it might be noted that discrimination may be *rewarded* by the market, and NON discrimination punished. e.g., companies lately that seem friendly in hiring gay people have been the target of evangelical groups, boycotts, etc.

even more clear examples exist, e.g., companies that didn't hire Jews have been well rewarded by the 'market.'

no, the 'market' is a very imperfect and erratic instrument in suppressing discriminatory practices, and fairly predictably has sometimes supported them over very long periods. (this baffles the libertarians and Adam Smithians, since these companies are sometimes acting against their own interests in having discriminatory policies.)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

SEVI just think that private firms have the right to hire and fire as they please.

P: bzzt. wrong. in Randland, maybe, but not the landof the free and the homof the brave.

SEV: If they're narrow-minded pricks, then the market can punish them, and probably will.

P: wrong also. 'punishment' by the market is extremely iffy, though occasionally if the discriminated persons are very numerous and well organized; it has worked, e.g., lunch counters were boycotted in the US south in the 60s, and it had an impact.

discriminatory acts or practices by companies/organizations are not easy to break by public action for lots of reasons. to give you an example, the Catholic school board used to DISallow women teachers who were showing pregnancy, from continuing to teach--i.e. it suspended them. (I mean married ones, of course.) it was in place for many years.

the phone company used NOT to hire any women as "linemen" (climbing the poles), and i believe it took law suits to change this.

it might be noted that discrimination may be *rewarded* by the market, and NON discrimination punished. e.g., companies lately that seem friendly in hiring gay people have been the target of evangelical groups, boycotts, etc.

even more clear examples exist, e.g., companies that didn't hire Jews have been well rewarded by the 'market.'

no, the 'market' is a very imperfect and erratic instrument in suppressing discriminatory practices, and fairly predictably has sometimes supported them over very long periods. (this baffles the libertarians and Adam Smithians, since these companies are sometimes acting against their own interests in having discriminatory policies.)

How long will they actually continue such policies, in view of their bottom line? If all that they care about is money, as most lefties tend to assume, then won't they stop when they realize that is undercutting their shareholder value? Not at first, but in the meantime, it affects their profits.

And I was speaking of constitutional authority. I have no problem with anti-discrimination policies and laws that govern the public sector, but no matter how righteous the motive, the Feds have no legal or constitutional jurisdiction over private sector employment, whatever rights to the contrary that they claim to posssess notwithstanding. A proper and strict interpretation of the 10th Amendment makes that clear. I have no love for bigotry, but I prefer legal remedies to unconstitutional ones.

And the price for such policies is a logical consistency with occasional absurdities to them (people suing to get into women's only gyms, for instance- like it or not, by the same logic involved, the men have the right to join).

I personally would strongly oppose discrimination against people for sex, race, religion, sexual orientation (after all, I don't want to be discriminated against for my bisexuality), etc. I would condemn it. I would favor laws preventing the public sector from showing any preferential treatment to one segment of society over another. But until the Constitution is changed, I would oppose Federal legistlation to regulate this. It will take more than the Commerce Clause, so frequently stretched beyond all recognition by the Federal Government. It will take a Constitutional Amendment revising or altering the 10th Amendment in some way.

Of course, one can possibly argue for states having that power, and I wouldn't be opposed. States have plenty of legal authority over private firms. There is no law or rule against that. After all, private firms are chartered by states, and they have the legal right to revoke those charters of incorporation at any point by proper legal means. Just food for thought.

 

[Pure]

ok, have the 50 states do it in 50 varied ways. the point is that the 'market' is pretty unreliable in 'punishing' various discriminatory and improper, even dangerous business practices. clearly then, the impression i go from your last post was incorrect: it seemed like you were saying NO government should tell an employer what to do in firing, not firing, hiring.

PS, the fed has been exercizing power over private employers and employment for at least 70 years. sorry you don't approve.

 

[Hooper_X]

I have to flat out disagrre with that- I've worked everything from stables to cocktail waitressing to teaching assistant, and I worked my ass off, no matter what I was doing.I've worked with smokers and non-smokers, and guess what? There is absolutely NO difference in how much work they get done based on that criteria.

Even if this is true, and I'm certainly not stipulating to its validity, employers don't want their employees breaking off from their duties and going outside every hour or so. A large percentage of smokers engage in that kind of activity on a daily basis.

 

[Hooper_X]

rg, i think you overstated the case. it's partly true though because of what's actualy the case: the new pariahs are the poor people.
they can't appear in magazines, in ads, in TV shows, and their ads...

This is complete off topic, but this is why I watch so many French movies. A great deal of French cinema centers myopic character studies of ordinary people living unexceptional lives. In constrast, as soon as I see the trailer for a typical American movie and the narrator says, "In a world gone mad...," I'm instantly turned off.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

ok, have the 50 states do it in 50 varied ways. the point is that the 'market' is pretty unreliable in 'punishing' various discriminatory and improper, even dangerous business practices. clearly then, the impression i go from your last post was incorrect: it seemed like you were saying NO government should tell an employer what to do in firing, not firing, hiring.

PS, the fed has been exercizing power over private employers and employment for at least 70 years. sorry you don't approve.

I was suggesting two legal approaches: the States and the People. That's what the 10th Amendment says. If the Federal Government wants its current legislation to be valid, it needs to change the Constitution. I would have no problem with that in this day and age. However, the legal, constitutional process needs to be followed. The law needs to be respected. You would need a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. I frankly think that it should happen for a number of areas no longer practical for states to control. However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, overriding any other legal authority.

To make the Federal Government have those powers, you have to abide by the process laid down by the Constitution and by the Framers. Strict construction is not just an opinion: it's the approach most consistent with the clear language of the 10th Amendment. If you explained it in terms of legalizing the necessary things long established by Congress in the past several decades, it might well be ratified. For instance, the EPA is technically illegal, but very useful. It just needs a Constitutional Amendment to give it a sound legal basis. I suppose that I didn't make that clear enough.

Yes, I tend to be a stickler for Constitutional law. In a free society, the Constitution is our safeguard against tyranny. Being a stickler is the surest way to protect ourselves. Even when I was a fundamentalist, for instance, I was against a Federal ban on partial-birth abortion, because it was Federal. I was in favor of a state ban. I am still in favor of a state ban, though I am no fundamentalist. I don't believe in these convoluted, "living Constitution" excuses for stretching the supreme law of the land into anything convenient at the time. Not only does the 10th Amendment refute them, but their idea sets a bad precedent that can be used for far worse things (abridging the freedom of speech and press, for instance).

If we operating under the Roman system of law, that would be one thing. Roman constitutional law was more flexible by nature, since it didn't have a single governing document that stipulated what was legal and what was not for the government to do. It was simply a concept of mos maiorum. It also made it easier for abuses, crimes against the People, atrocities, and persecution of various factions to occur. Given that reality, I prefer a written Constitution, no matter how inconvenient it might be at times.

 

[Pure]

the point, sev, is that 'markets' don't do the job. companies are people, not rational maximizers, and they do shortsighted discriminatory even dangerous things (like dumping mercury into rivers). hence there is a role for government regulation (all levels).

the Framer's intentions are not sacred; after all, they avoided the slavery and women related issues. there was controversy over a National Bank, and banking role of the gov in the earliest days.

some changes--the first two-- have been done by amendment; some have not--the last.

the 14th amendment has been an umbrella under which extensive powers have be ascribed to the federal government, e.g., around discrimination-- equal rights for all citizens. sorry you don't agree with that.

the Supreme courts, which you don't happen to agree with, have often enlarged the role of federal government by NOT interpreting according to the letter, but rather according to the spirit of the constitution. (which does not prevent tyranny, btw; witness the present powers claimed by the "commander in chief" to ignore any laws he pleases).

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

the point, sev, is that 'markets' don't do the job. companies are people, not rational maximizers, and they do shortsighted discriminatory even dangerous things (like dumping mercury into rivers). hence there is a role for government regulation (all levels).

the Framer's intentions are not sacred; after all, they avoided the slavery and women related issues. there was controversy over a National Bank, and banking role of the gov in the earliest days.

some changes--the first two-- have been done by amendment; some have not--the last.

the 14th amendment has been an umbrella under which extensive powers have be ascribed to the federal government, e.g., around discrimination-- equal rights for all citizens. sorry you don't agree with that.

the Supreme courts, which you don't happen to agree with, have often enlarged the role of federal government by NOT interpreting according to the letter, but rather according to the spirit of the constitution. (which does not prevent tyranny, btw; witness the present powers claimed by the "commander in chief" to ignore any laws he pleases).

I don't agree with the means. I have no problem with the motive. Don't put words in my mouth. I prefer to follow the proper legal process. The Supreme Court has done a lot of things that I deem wrong, yes. I sometimes agree with their view, but many of the convoluted reasonings are just plain excuses for using shortcuts around national problems. It wouldn't take much to follow the proper legal means.

The 14th Amendment was meant primarily to give citizens their full rights, regardless of race and previous status (i.e. slavery). It was never meant to be applied to the private sector. However, I wouldn't have a problem with laws governing the private sector, provided that they are within the jurisdiction of the legislative body in question. Everything should be done within the proper legal jurisdction.

As for the Framers, many were opposed to slavery, but had to form a nation first. Slavery could be dealt with afterward, and it was. I consider their thinking to be, if not quite sacred, damned close. I tend to consider what three of them said in the Federalist Papers, for instance. They are very relevant.

The President's recently expanded powers were also outside of the Constitutional framework. His invasion of Iraq was done outside of the proper warmaking process (a declaration of war or waging an undeclared war in defense of the homeland). His wiretaps are clearly unconstitutional. His violation of the writ of habeas corpus is particularly heinous. Again, the motives were probably sincere, but the means were illegal.

I don't agree with the notion of judges redefining the Constitution according to their subjective idea of its "spirit". It's NOT a "living, breathing document". It's the Supreme Law of the Union. All judges, Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, etc. must swear allegiance to it. That's how important it is. It supersedes acts of Congress. It can not be legally revised without the proper Amendment process. There would no harm if the legal process were followed.

Those who change the Constitution without that might have good motives, but they are breaking the law. Many times, they are breaking their oath of office as well.

Again, I am not opposed to changing the Constitution by the proper legal means. It's like my attitude toward immigration. Follow the legal process. It's all well and good, if you don't break the law.

My formula is: civil liberties above states' rights, states' rights above Federal powers. The Supremacy Clause only gives the Feds supreme authority in their proper jurisdiction. Outside of that, they are usurping the authority of the states.

The Framers were not fools. They knew that change was sometimes necessary. That's why they gave us the Amendment process. Let's follow that, instead of resorting to sophistry and clever misinterpretation.

 

[Guest]

 

[FallingToFly]

I don't care if I'm a deviant, I want a cigarette.

NOW.

Over here, love.

*waves Jammies over to the deviant's corner and offers her cigarette case and Zippo*

Want a drink while you're at it? I stocked up the liquor cabinet when I went out and bought all that junk food last night. Oh, and the tattoo party starts at nine.

 

[deathlynx]

Over here, love.

*waves Jammies over to the deviant's corner and offers her cigarette case and Zippo*

Want a drink while you're at it? I stocked up the liquor cabinet when I went out and bought all that junk food last night. Oh, and the tattoo party starts at nine.

Ooooh! I like this corner...Don't drink anymore but that's just because I let it control my life a little too much...

Oh, and watch out for the newest piercing...i's still a little tender...

 

[FallingToFly]

Ooooh! I like this corner...Don't drink anymore but that's just because I let it control my life a little too much...

Oh, and watch out for the newest piercing...i's still a little tender...

You mean this one? *tweaks*

 

[deathlynx]

You mean this one? *tweaks*

EEEEEEP! *Curls into a ball protecting his poor abused chest*

 

[Liar]

Who knew there were so many narrowminded, obnoxious, and pitiful little prudes on a porn board?

K. So not wantng to choke makes me a pitiful prude?

And if not me, then who? Didn't see any "nuke the nicotinists" banners at this rally, baby.



Yah yah, we can't protectourselves from other people's vices, is that it? Kewl. my vice is speed. I like to drive very fast in a big-ass Hummer. Across schoolyards. Hunky-dory?

Of course not. But between that and other more benign vices, it's only matter of grading. Which ones are cool and which ones are not?

 

[Pure]

i don't see relocating smokers as prudish or inhumane. smoking should be treated like farting. to be done away from people. that's good manners.

the health issues, of course are a reason for banning smoking from public buildings, restaurants, etc---maybe leaving a few 'smoking bars' and pool halls.

 

[rgraham666]

I could live with that.

Ain't gonna happen though. The people behind the anti-smoking laws won't be satisfied until we smokers are dead and buried.