and the sense of shame which smokers feel increases and motivates them to quit.
now you are hurting my self esteem.
The program here has worked in a state with 35 million people, urban and rural, rich and poor, native and immigrant, diverse in national origin and religion, educated and Republican.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of each group. I am ignoring the unneeded swipe
and the sense of shame which smokers feel increases and motivates them to quit.
now you are hurting my self esteem.
The program here has worked in a state with 35 million people, urban and rural, rich and poor, native and immigrant, diverse in national origin and religion, educated and Republican.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of each group. I am ignoring the unneeded swipe
Empirical evidence suggests that all the Mexicans who cross the California border illegally are doing so in order to be in a smoke free environment.
dgs49 wrote:Smoking has decreased disproportionately in California because it became unfashionable in a population where appearances are more important than anywhere else. It had nothing to do with government propaganda.
Of course, the "government propaganda" thing just might explain why smoking went (relatively quickly) from being fashionable to being unfashionable in California--a change for which you've advanced no hint of an explanation...
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God@The Tweet of God
Big RR wrote:If and when we have to ration care, these decisions will have to be made, but where do we draw the line. Do we refuse care to obese and smokers only, include drinklers, include those who engage in other dangerous activities (rock climbing, scuba diving, sky diving, skiing, etc.), exclude those in stressful jobs, exclude those who have family histories which indicate predisposition to certain diseases... It's far from easy to make these choices, even harder if you care about the freedom to make stupid or less popular choices, but it's a debate worth having. Ultimatly it does come down to what costs we are willing to bear in the name of personal freedom (and considering all the "costs" the government has used that line to justify over the years, those costs might well be considerable).
Here's one: my friend is an avid rider of mostly-vintage snowmobiles, dirtbikes, 3-wheelers, and ATV's. Any and all of those can be dangerous. My cousin used to race circle-track cars, which is (obviously) dangerous. Heck...for that matter, one of the dudes I work with commutes to work 75-100 days/year on a little 250cc motorcycle (65MPG versus 20 for his truck). That might actually be the most dangerous activity of the three.
Last edited by Jarlaxle on Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Big RR wrote:And no reason to think they're the same either; Californiansseem to be a lot more willing to conform than those in other states. They were one of the first states to ban smoking in restaurants, e.g., and it worked well. not so in a lot of other states where the people fought it tooth and nail. People accepted mandatory seat belt laws a lot easier in CA as well. Bandwagon approaches work there.
Also, California is big, and most of the population centres are on the coast, and therefore, not near other states. Most eastern states are smaller, and have population centres much closer to the state lines. Ergo, high cigarette taxes in, say, New York are much easier to get around than high taxes in CA: all someone has to do is go over the line to CT, PA, NJ, MA, or VT.
Big RR wrote:Andrew--while there are certainly some who flout the law, I see many having the required number (or more) of passengers in the bay area; much more than I ever saw in NJ. And when I used them I never had a problem cutting back into the nonHOV lanes to exit--there were a lot of problems in NJ with that (so many they abolished the lanes). Likewise, I have seen people picking up strangers before the bay bridge to use the faster toll lanes and pay reduced (I think) tolls--I doubt you'd see that in NJ. FWIW, I have seen 4 way stop signs work in downtown San Francisco--try that in NYC--even lights don't work all that well.
Whether the lanes are more or less environmentlly advantageous, I haven't seen the data so I will reserve judgment.
oldr--if I recall the HOV lanes on the LIE are limited access and egress, solving the problems of getting off the road, correct?
Can't speak for that, but they are in Boston. One is an express lane connecting the Southeast Expressway (I-93) to the airport via the Ted Williams Tunnel (I-90), others are a (theoretically) faster run down the Expressway or the highway north of the city, at the cost of being unable to use certain exits.
In a remarkably stupid decision, buses (and large passenger vans, though that is not enforced) are not permitted to use the HOV lane on the Southeast Expressway. (The official restriction is no vehicles over 2.5 tons.)
Andrew D wrote:The best way to deal with HOV lanes is to drive in them even when you are driving all by yourself. They are like speed limits: If almost everyone is violating them, almost no one gets cited for violating them.
At least in Boston, they will cite you for it...I recall the third (maybe fourth) ticket means the car is towed & your licence is suspended. Also ,it IS a moving violation, so look for your insurance rates to double. It's easy to get violators: there are police officers watching each end...the guy at the entrance radios ahead with your car description and plate number.
From today's business section of the SF Chronicle:
"Hank Cardello, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. on how U.S. consumers are cooling on triple-decker bacon cheeseburgers in favor of lower -calorie food. A new study by the institute, using NPD group data on 21 large restaurant chains, finds that the demand for main courses of more than 500 calories dropped 28 percent. That means fewer Whoppers (630 calories) and Sonic Burgers ( 640 calories) and more McRib sandwiches (500 calories) and egg McMuffins (300 calories).
Simply put, tobacco addicts need to quit (preferably cold turkey,) and food addicts need to eat a lot less... and healthier (no sugar.) Problems solved.
Next conundrum, please.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
RayThom wrote:Simply put, tobacco addicts need to quit (preferably cold turkey,) and food addicts need to eat a lot less... and healthier (no sugar.) Problems solved.
Next conundrum, please.
We need a law banning all those things because us "regular people" do not know what is good for us. Only the gov knows.
I went to buy a gas can and you know you can't buy a regular gas can in the USA anymore. You have to buy some can that has this spout thingy so no gas can leak out and you have to jam it into the tank you are filling and push this tab against the rim of the filling hole and only then will the gas come out of the can. Only problem is that many of the plastic tanks on your lawn mower/snowblower won't hold up to the pressure needed to get gas to come out of the can. Forget about trying to fill your weedwacker or leaf blower.
I spilled more gas on the driveway trying to fill the snowblower than I got into the tank this weekend.
Another stupid restriction (for our own good) from our stupid legislators.
ETA
But I did find a way to bypass the stupid "push" collar on the can so now It's just like an old time gas can.
I'll be attending garbage sales in the hope of finding an old style gas can. In the mean time, like I said, I have "fixed" my new one.
Seems the one I bought has a spring that collapses behind the spout collar. I got that out and now can push the collar down before pouring (eliminating the need to force the collar against whatever I am filling) then can pull the collar up afer filling sealing off the can (no evap of gas). Still a pain but better than the solution congress has stricken upon us.
Now if I can find the same solution for light bulbs.
