Posted on 02/09/2012 11:44:23 AM PST by Mount Athos
The age-old hobby of tossing a football or Frisbee on the beach on a beautiful summer day in Los Angeles will cost you a cool $1,000 thanks to a new ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors Tuesday.
Claiming that such activity could be dangerous to other beachgoers, the Supes outlawed "any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll any ball, tube, or any light object other than a beach ball or beach volleyball” on or over a beach.
But it is idiotic to not also realize the common societal trends.
Smokers, as a group, are litterbugs. Glad you are not.
Smokers, as a group, are less wealthy. Which by any measure is not as good as being ABOVE the poverty line.
Smokers, as a group, are less educated. Dey ain't not got much o’ dat “book learning”.
Are there exceptions? Absolutely. Exceptional exceptions.
But as general good parenting - letting your child associate with groups whose behaviors predispose them to poverty and ignorance is not a good outcome.
“Don't get a grandson with a dog collar.” to quote a contemporaneous commercial.
Now we get to the real cerebral part of the calculation.
At least your socialist blabberings are not censored like SFGate, the Mercury News, and the other sorted liberal tv and news broadcasters who insist they are listening to all sides; I have been banned everytime I speak my mind, no matter how many email addresses I change to get new identities. Socialist be damned along with your anti-smoking rant-—I see right through your rhetoric, you are one of them.
California is quickly becoming like England, where they assess HUGE fines for very minor offenses (like not sorting garbage properly).
Essentially it’s a taxation system, as the fines go far beyond what’s needed for deterrent. In fact, it seems to violate the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause...not a problem for England, but those fines could get struck down in California...if anyone cares to fight them.
YOU ARE ONE OF THEM.
And by “them” I mean a smoker.
And by a smoker I mean predisposed to being less educated and low class and a litterer.
You’re projecting and it always shows.
If you think that we can’t see past your sarcasm to see your statism, you are mistaken.
Easy, now. If it weren't for the fact that a bunch of anti-smokers took away any place to smoke indoors and any place to deposit the butts outdoors, you wouldn't have a complaint - other than the fact that some people smoke and will continue to do so.
Rant on until you get the revolution you want.
Now they say they are only going to enforce it if you are acting poorly! LOL selective enforcement means if you are white and have a job, you will be getting a ticket! You should read some of the comments from the Daily Breeze!
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_19927318
The law is still there but go ahead and have fun!
That is not a statist argument.
It is a statistical argument.
Smokers being predisposed to being less educated and less well off.
As well as less healthy.
And increased impotence.
No wonder you guys are so angry!
;)
Lighten up Francis.
Or light one up Francis.
It might calm you down some.
I am not an anti-smoker.
I let my guests smoke in my place. They say they don't even smoke inside their own place and smoked on my porch.
I am an anti-litterer!
I am also anti WILD FIRE, so many of which start because people throw them out of their cars rather than use the ash tray provided.
And I don't think any responsible parent should let their child smoke. All the bad kids in school smoked. I know because they were my friends. I was a bad kid. But I didn't smoke.
The term is "lowlifes" for future reference. However, smokers are not.
Your parents were right about the littering, wrong about the rest of your comment.
So, your parents taught you everything that should be right with the world, except how to spell and accept society for what it is.
Interesting.
Do your parents know you're using their computer?
Does accepting society for what it is mean turning a blind eye to litter and forest fires and statistical trends within society?
If your daughter brings home a boyfriend and he smokes - that is not a good sign.
He died at the age of 99 years, 7 months, 359 days. He smoked at least 3 packs of cigarettes a day plus a cigar on every Saturday and Sunday since he was 9 years old.
Drank as much beer and whisky as he could afford, sired 6 children, 14 grandchildren, I can't even remember the number of great- or great-great grandchildren. His daily diet was rare beef and fried eggs at every meal.
All men dream of that.
Carry on with your campaign against smells. That's what metrosexuals do while the men defend against the political and physical enemies of this country.
Godspeed.
They understand the value of anecdotes against statistics.
I am not on a campaign for anything. I started out saying I would be against bans on smoking in public places IF smokers were not such litterbugs.
I actually defended our nation in the Armed Forces.
But I understand your defensiveness - what with smoking often causing impotence.
Smoking is not manly.
Dying early is not manly.
Major health problems are not manly.
Being impotent is not manly.
Being less educated is not manly.
Being below the poverty line is not manly.
Smokers are statistically more likely to die early, have major health problems, including impotence, have less education and less wealth.
Statistics.
ROTFLOL
Apparently it takes more than forty years of smoking for the slightest sign of that to occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.