325 - with Links!
1. Free Mooninites
Peter Berdovsky, & Sean Steven, the two "artists" hired to promote the Aqua Teen Hunger Force Movie by hanging up those LED night-lights that caused so much trouble in Boston a few months ago, have finally had all charges against them dropped. Each man spent 80 hours of community service painting a mural in children's hospital and apologized for the panic they supposedly caused. I'm sure the two million bucks that Turner ponied up didn't hurt either. |
2. Second Hand
The eCigarette is a new nicotine delivery device which allows "smokers" to get the wanted buzz from smoking without the need for the dangerous tar and smoke accosiated with traditional cigarettes. What is this going to do to all the unconstitutional anti-smoking laws that have been popping up lately? |
3. Optimism
Are these glasses half full or are they half empty? |
4. Oh Yeah!
Kool-Aid flavored pickles: All the rage in Greenville, Mississippi where it is apparently legal for old women to sell weird food to children out of their kitchens or on their front porches. |
5. Be Prepared
The top ten most useful knots with pictures and diagrams on how to tie them. |
9 comments:
what do you mean unconstitutional?
i'm SURE there are ordinances in cities that really, really border on being unconstitutional, but smoking laws seem to fit firmly on the constitutional side of things.
also, i think people have a constitutional (nay, a god-given!) right to sell shit to children from their front porches!
rachel thought i would like those pickles for some reason.
i have no desire to try one...but i wouldn't not try one.
As you know, I'm not a fan of smoking. I am however a fan of personal liberty and the free market.
A private business owner should be free to determine if he will allow smoking or not. If he feels that he can attract more customers that smoke, than ones that do not, then he is catering to his market. Regardless, I feel confident that eventually unofficial smoking bans would happen naturally with the majority of businesses choosing to become smoke free without government interference. An establishment adopts a smoking/non-smoking policy. The consumer then is allowed to make a choice whether or not to risk his health by patronizing a pro-smoking business.
Some of these ordinances prohibiting smoking in any public building but allow smoking outdoors. Others extend the nonsmoking area to include outdoor areas withing 25-50 feet of nonsmoking buildings. More strict ordinances include all public spaces even the outdoors. I have heard, although I can't find any references, that a small town here in Illinois banned smoking everywhere including private homes.
Like the bible, the constitution can be interpreted to support either side of any given debate. In this instance I feel the personal liberty side wins over the public health side.
you have a valid argument.
well, i guess you could also look at it from a different angle.
let's say, the private business owner is also an employer.
employees at an establishment that allows smoking are exposed to second-hand smoke for hours at a time.
employers are usually responsible for maintaining a safe work environment for employees.
this alone seems like it could be cause for banning cigarettes, but let's say it's not.
say, instead, that this is cause for insurance companies to refuse to pay for cases of heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema, etc. where the claimant knowingly exposed themselves to second-hand smoke.
would that be constitutional?
i say, sure.
now, let's say that these employees have to go on public assistance for medical care.
is it a right of non-smoking, non-smoke-exposed americans to claim tax exemptions for not smoking?
i shouldn't have to pay for somebody elses self-inflicted illnesses, right?
anyway, all of this is academic.
the real targets of smoking laws should be the multi-billion dollar, multi-national cigarette companies.
how does that glass filling trick work?
Although employers are expected to provide a safe work environment, some jobs have inherent risks attached to them. By choosing to work in a job that has these risks, the employee accepts them.
If that person then needs to use public assistance, should you then be financially responsible for his health care? Of course not. But why should you be responsible for paying for anyone's medical problems whether they are self inflicted or not?
I'm assuming those glasses have a clear divider cutting them into two halves. The half facing away from the camera is previously filled with clear water. The half facing the camera gets filled with the white liquid.
In fact, I think you can see the top of the divider around the 1:22 minute mark as the second glass is being poured.
I would try those pickles. in fact, I have been thinking about making a batch to sell during our garage sale in june.
no food sales at the garage sale.
smoking is for suckers who want to be literally controlled by a corporation.
also, i read somewhere that women who smoke are engage in oral sex more often than women who do not.
Post a Comment