Political Discussion

Joe Mac said:
I agree. I think we need to look more at whether you are causing someone else harm. For example I’d be unequivocal in my support for a ban on indoor smoking as I’d consider forcing someone to repeatedly inhale your carcengenic smoke in an enclosed area where it’s slower to disperse as a form of assault. If you want to go outside and cause yourself harm, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
Most places in the US ban smoking indoors. In my home state only limited venues may have indoor smoking and only if they are age restricted to over 21. Very few that can offer it do. So you have to absolutely choose to patronize those venues.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
This discussion easily spirals out into one about how all kinds of laws are paternalistic under that rubric, which I don’t think you’d disagree with, but many of them I think would be more popular with most of us because they’re already codified into the fabric of what we think of as the background for the general welfare. This one is only different in that it’s new, not in its sort of philosophical underpinnings.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree with that assessment. Where I think this subject differs somewhat is how targeted it is in its framing and application. I’m still puzzled a bit by it considering the lower smoking rates amongst the targeted demo. Apparently the ACLU is as well as they are coming out against the proposed menthol cig ban being proposed by the Biden administration.
 
Bloomington borders Minneapolis to the south and is home to the airport and mall of america, which is an important source of all kinds of tax revenue. It was 74% white as of the 2010 census and is likely to be less white when the 2020 census #s are fully published. There are wealthier and more white suburbs to the west. Tobacco shops in minnesota are almost exclusively associated with lower income neighborhoods. these are essentially bodegas in most of the twin cities (an anecdotal observation on my part).

There are likely a few things going on here. A perceived changing of community demographics and stereotyped clientele associated with vaping retailers, legit smoking health concerns, and suburban culture war fears being put into policy at the city level. The Bloomington city council, as has been the case in several communities, have been taking steps to address inequity (including inequitable health outcomes) after facing increasing pressure to do so. I suspect this is all part of that (likely) box-checking exercise. In the same city council meeting they also banned conversion therapy practices but the tobacco thing is getting all of the press. A mosque in bloomington has been attacked multiple times including a bombing plot, the TCs are at the epicenter of racial and economic inequity that's fueling media and culture warriors, and the protests and white supremacist attacks over the past year have led to gov't types feeling the need to "do something."

Whether or not this is all pointless, virtue signaling, government overreach, or whatever label that's being applied to it the 4 council members who voted for it (out of 6) almost certainly did so because their constituents supported the idea. These people are not willy-nilly making these choices and they're too small and insignificant to be part of some major lobbying campaign on conspiracy. These are people who likely believe they are doing something positive or useful that their suburban "won't somebody think of the children constituents" want. Is everybody involved here stupid or short-sighted - maybe, but if the people don't want these things they'll replace the council members and change the ordinances. Minnesotans vote at a higher rate than the rest of the country and voting is the perfect exercise to meet the demands of their passive aggressive, MN nice, Lutheran shunning culture.
 
jaycee said:
Bloomington borders Minneapolis to the south and is home to the airport and mall of america, which is an important source of all kinds of tax revenue. It was 74% white as of the 2010 census and is likely to be less white when the 2020 census #s are fully published. There are wealthier and more white suburbs to the west. Tobacco shops in minnesota are almost exclusively associated with lower income neighborhoods. these are essentially bodegas in most of the twin cities (an anecdotal observation on my part).

There are likely a few things going on here. A perceived changing of community demographics and stereotyped clientele associated with vaping retailers, legit smoking health concerns, and suburban culture war fears being put into policy at the city level. The Bloomington city council, as has been the case in several communities, have been taking steps to address inequity (including inequitable health outcomes) after facing increasing pressure to do so. I suspect this is all part of that (likely) box-checking exercise. In the same city council meeting they also banned conversion therapy practices but the tobacco thing is getting all of the press. A mosque in bloomington has been attacked multiple times including a bombing plot, the TCs are at the epicenter of racial and economic inequity that's fueling media and culture warriors, and the protests and white supremacist attacks over the past year have led to gov't types feeling the need to "do something."

Whether or not this is all pointless, virtue signaling, government overreach, or whatever label that's being applied to it the 4 council members who voted for it (out of 6) almost certainly did so because their constituents supported the idea. These people are not willy-nilly making these choices and they're too small and insignificant to be part of some major lobbying campaign on conspiracy. These are people who likely believe they are doing something positive or useful that their suburban "won't somebody think of the children constituents" want. Is everybody involved here stupid or short-sighted - maybe, but if the people don't want these things they'll replace the council members and change the ordinances. Minnesotans vote at a higher rate than the rest of the country and voting is the perfect exercise to meet the demands of their passive aggressive, MN nice, Lutheran shunning culture.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the local perspective. It helps separate things a little for me as I realize I was bundling it in with what’s also coming out of the federal government at the moment as well.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
On the other hand, if we’re not going to provide universal healthcare, then the poorest among us being one of the likeliest groups to do something that will also make them the sickest among us, creates a drag on all of us. These are after all also the groups who are the least likely to be insured, or are underinsured. That puts strain on medical services, increases costs, and so on.

Not coming down either way here, just pointing out that the impact of a person’s decision to smoke is not *solely* limited to their own body.
Click to expand...
Yep, yep, yep.
But let me reframe this. Say there is a company with a highly addictive product and that company hooks people on their product. They make a ton of money selling a highly addictive product. This product, as it turns out, has a huge societal cost and it causes disease in enough people that use the product that it is obvious the product is causing the disease. What is that company's responsibility to their consumers? If they make a ton of money off of tobacco and shield their profits so they don't have to pay as many taxes--which then leads to lower tax revenue for which to fun Medicaid/Medicare.

We've already decided that Opioids are highly addictive and we are suing companies in order to fund relief efforts in places that were worst hit by the opioid epidemic. We have already determined in court that tobacco is also a highly addictive substance that causes disease. They've already paid out millions over it, and are now doing the same crap they did here, but in places with lower regulations.

While I think it is a personal choice to smoke, I also think that much of what we think of as personal choice is us being highly manipulated by our advertising environment. I think that these companies use behavioral science to trick us into buying more, reap the benefits of the profits and then tax shelter their way out of paying much of anything for taxes. In fact, I think these guys are more of a drag on society than any sick, poor smoker because at least the sick, poor smoker pays taxes. And the reason these folks aren't insured....well, that also has a lot to do with these same people because they don't want to have to offer health insurance to "low skilled" workers.
Joe Mac said:
For the record having grown up in the U.K. I’m enormously in favour of universal healthcare free at the point of access. But smokers and drinkers pay huge amounts in alcohol and cigarette tax and duties to help fund it.
Click to expand...
See the same thing happens here.
Here in LA, a pack of cigarettes is about $8, and about $4 of that is taxes. These taxes go mainly to fund schools, but public municipalities use tobacco tax revenue for a lot of things. Smokers actually pay a lot more taxes. It makes sense to put it into a fund to help pay for their healthcare later, that wouldn't be bad. But instead, they fund a lot of other social services. Why is it that these people are seen as awful drags on society when our school system relies on their revenue? Wait, are these people really dregs on society at all given that they fund local systems?

When we talk about tobacco, it's easy to start labeling users as one thing or another, but we never label the companies they work for that don't give them health care, we don't label the extra tax dollars they pay above and beyond non-smokers, and we don't label the manipulative advertising of companies designed to get people addicted. I hate when the war on smoking becomes the war on smokers, but that's exactly what happens.
 
nolalady said:
See the same thing happens here.
Here in LA, a pack of cigarettes is about $8, and about $4 of that is taxes. These taxes go mainly to fund schools, but public municipalities use tobacco tax revenue for a lot of things. Smokers actually pay a lot more taxes. It makes sense to put it into a fund to help pay for their healthcare later, that wouldn't be bad. But instead, they fund a lot of other social services. Why is it that these people are seen as awful drags on society when our school system relies on their revenue? Wait, are these people really dregs on society at all given that they fund local systems?
Click to expand...

I mean it’s general taxation so if essentially is going to the exchequer to distribute among its spending priorities. I don’t think there is really a way to actually ring fence specific tax for specific purpose. Suffice to say that the NHS takes an enormous chunk of the U.K. National spend. On top of the fact that healthcare is an expensive business it’s also the worlds third largest employer, only the Chinese Red Army and the Indian Railways employ more people.

Edit: it’s 6th and the Indian railways people are down to 8th. My information must have been oooooold. Also let’s forget the armies, Walmart and McDonald’s employ a lot of criminally underpaid staff! 1.9 million people employed in a country of 80ish million is a lot all the same!
 
Last edited:


Facebook is combatting Apple's new privacy features which allow people to be opt out of being tracked in every way possible. Scare tactics including saying you will may need to pay for Facebook/Instagram and filing antitrust lawsuits in various countries.

ATT adds a new permission layer to iOS. Like location data, camera and mic access, tracking is now included in the permission layers. iPhone owners must grant an app permission to track you.

This means apps can no longer track you and sell your data without your consent. Great for privacy. But really hurts social media platforms where you are the product they sell.
 
www.cnn.com

CNN Poll: Americans are divided on what causes problems in US elections

Amid a flurry of changes to voting rules and regulations across the country, the American public is divided over whether the bigger problem with elections in America is that it is too hard to vote or that it is too easy to cheat, according to a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

70% of registered republican voters believe that biden didn't have enough votes to win the election.

50% say there is solid evidence that biden didn't win the election.

This means 30% of everyone in America still believe that biden isn't a legitimate president.


Wow, this is absolutely mind boggling.

My faith in humanity is ever declining.
 
Social media has just amped up the ability to spread bullshit at the drop of a hat. Take the Kamala Harris book story. 70% of registered republicans believe it because YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Fox News and others will feed them the nonsense and outrage they so desperately seek.
 
mdmost said:
Social media has just amped up the ability to spread bullshit at the drop of a hat. Take the Kamala Harris book story. 70% of registered republicans believe it because YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Fox News and others will feed them the nonsense and outrage they so desperately seek.
Click to expand...
Very true. I mean look at how many people still believe the “Russian collusion” conspiracy theory.
 
More and more states continue to pass new voter ID bills, restrictions on mail in and absentee ballots and changes to voter registration deadlines.

This is all being driven by the "Big Lie". And Republicans are making changes they say are needed to keep the elections safe and secure into the future so that voters can continue to have confidence in the system.

This comes despite the fact that elections agencies say 2020 was the most secure election ever and there were no cases of voter fraud.
 
Chucktshoes said:
Click to expand...

Nothing like hearing Noam Chomsky quoted on Hill.TV. Also, the story about the story is ridiculous. It takes the opportunity to critique the media and polarizes the matter further as opposed to reporting the issue straight (the very thing it’s accusing the MSM of). I don’t think the Jeopardy! Dude deserves to get shat on like this but that has more to do with the hyperbolic nature of social media than anything the MSM did. However we got here regarding the “Okay” hand gesture it is a bummer but we are where we are. I don’t believe this guy was doing it purposely to make a statement but the symbol does now unfortunately have underlying connotations. Just like certain words used to be fine to say but have been removed from our cultural lexicon due to the fact they are now perceived a hurtful, so will that hand gesture. As time passes, it will become more and more obvious that people making the gesture are doing it purposely as the plausible deniability of ignorance becomes less and less possible. All that to say, this guy apologized which I feel is a completely reasonable response. Unfortunately, social media needs to be outraged about something and this was the thing over the weekend, thankfully it is fickle and will move on to its next victim soon enough. I doubt most reasonable people will think this dude is a Three Percenter, unfortunately I don’t know how many reasonable people are left.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top