Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly.

Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Ban of fast food restaurants, in low income areas

8% (4)

Ban on smoking in your own home.

6% (3)

Ban on text-walking in Chicago

6% (3)

Ban on foie gras - again in Chicago.

2% (1)

All of the above.

69% (32)

Other... please explain.

6% (3)

Total Votes : 46

(last vote on : 8/1/2008 6:06:26 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Thadius -> Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 3:52:15 AM)
In light of the many recent bans on things, I started thinking about just how silly they are. I mean the fact that legislators find a need to protect folks from certain things, for their own good, is becoming whacky at best... In that light, I was wondering which of the recent bans do you find to be the silliest method of dealing with the underlying issue for whatever reason... And the Nominees are.

Lucylastic -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:14:58 AM)
Silly??? thats awfully polite Thadius, and they just keep on coming too, thats what is so amazing. Lucy

Thadius -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:21:10 AM)
Well what spurred me to even write this was watching the news and seeing the Chicago ban on text-walking... Then again anything that the Daley machine pushes through shouldn't surprise me. I try to be polite... I did flirt with the idea of "Bullshit bans on the rise" for the title [;)]

christine1 -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:41:37 AM)
i hadn't heard about the ban on text walking...can't say i'm really surprised though. i have to say i was surprised when several months ago i read about a california congress woman or some sort of representative that wanted to push through a bill that would require all new homes to have government controlled thermostats. [&:]

housesub4you -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:44:00 AM)
I think the funnest part on the ban in Chicago on foie gras in most of the places that use to sell it they now include it for free with your meal if you request it. There is no ban on giving it away

LadyRainfire -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:47:49 AM)
My vote is for the title "Bullshit bans on the rise"..... So true, so true. I can see a certain amount of legislation for protection but there comes a point when it crosses a line and becomes ridiculous. Ummm, it crossed that line a long time ago. [8\|] Last time I checked my brain, I have the intelligence and ability to decide for myself what to eat and whether I choose to smoke or not. Or drink. I haven't heard about this "text walking".... I need to look that one up. Though if it's what I think it is, it sounds like something I've done. Frequently.

petdave -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:48:51 AM)
Becoming? No. Have been for a long time. i'd say it kicked into high gear during FDR's administration, and has just been snowballing ever since.

Thadius -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 4:51:18 AM)
I think I read recently that the foie gras ban had been lifted through a vote in the city council... found it. quote: From a Tribune article: With Mayor Richard Daley running the vote, the Chicago City Council on Wednesday repealed its controversial ban on foie gras. Over the shouted objections of Ald. Joe Moore (49th), the ban's sponsor, the council used a parliamentary manuever to put the ordinance on the floor for a vote. The council voted 37-6 to repeal the two-year-old ban, which critics argued had made Chicago--and the City Council--a national laughingstock. Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th), a restaurant owner,forced the vote on the measure that prohibits restaurants in the city from serving the delicacy made from the engorged livers of ducks or geese. Glad to see that politics haven't change much in the Windy City (so named for the hot air of it's politicians, not because of excessive winds).

Aynne -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:07:01 AM)
Thadius isn't the ban on smoking not really in your "own" home, but mainly legislated to inlude apt's and condos where you share common walls? I own a single family home, I hardly think anyone is going to say that I can or cannot smoke in it. However if I were a renter and my neighboring tenant caused my place to stink because of their heavy smoking, I would be rather upset. Whenever I rented prior to buying a home, there were always smoking rules, even back in the early 90's. Nothing new really.

housesub4you -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:15:22 AM)
Aynne I know when they passed this in Chicago, they went for everything, no smoking in your car, in your home, outside, inside, with cigrettes, no smoking with play cigs, they pushed for everything and made it seemed like they where willing to ease some restrictions. In truth, they got what they wanted and people "kept" the right to smoke in their own home, and they felt like they won something. But when it was first brought up smoking in any home would have been banned also. I would have gone to city hall and shot my handgun into the air in protest but they banned handguns a long time ago

Thadius -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:16:56 AM)
From what I understand it would apply to only homes that had a common wall (ceiling -floor). This would also include Townhomes that may share a common wall, but have seperate entrances. How can you legislate what somebody that owns their home can do in it? Or prevent an apartment owner from choosing to rent to smokers? This is where it becomes silly, and to put it bluntly bullshit. If the argument is that the walls are paper thin, then think about the other disturbances that could be legislated against... gas lawn mowers, people living on a second floor or higher that use walkers... the list goes on. I also haven't seen a ban on cats, ammonia is not that pleasant a smell and I am not quite sure about the health benefits. See what I mean?

Lucylastic -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:25:12 AM)
certain cooking smells make me queasy and quite ill, cant we ban food smells tooo? what about snoring from the neighbours???

LadyRainfire -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:28:28 AM)
Aynne, here in Ontario, there's talk about going after parents who smoke in their own homes if they have children. Regardless of whether the children are present or not. So here at least, yes, there are people who will say whether or not you can smoke in your home, whether you own or rent. [8\|]

housesub4you -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:28:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic what about snoring from the neighbours??? LMAO When I was growing up I could hear my neighbor snoring, after it woke me up I coould never fall back asleep. Then I tried calling their house because I knew the phone was in the kitchen (long before cell phones) Then I would fall asleep when he went to answer the phone and was awake.

housesub4you -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:29:57 AM)
That is the same route Chicago was taking, but it failed to pass

LadyRainfire -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:35:06 AM)
[>:] Eh, they've got some serious anti-smoking nazis up here, housesub. It's hard to say though, it may not even be passed as a law but if they use it as a case for children's welfare saying it's endangering children..... Who knows? [sm=dunno.gif]

housesub4you -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 5:37:22 AM)
They still allow smoking at hockey games don't they? Jeez, next they will say you can't fish and drink beir.

DomMeinCT -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 6:25:37 AM)
Imagine all the "true" issues the Chicago City Council would have to confront and solve if they didn't have themselves mired in silly bans.

Lucylastic -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 6:25:39 AM)
Well Rain they've banned it from everywhere else in toronto/ontario, its only a matter of time. The enforcement of it is next to impossible .... unless they rely on snitches, which..... yeah I can see happening, people getting snitched on cos they piss off their neighbour with a noisy dog or a smoky barbeque, parties, etc... they have young kids, ..... endangerment, endangerment will robinson. And just for the record, I smoked outside for two weeks back in january and feb, and ended up with drug resistant pneumonia... Bugger that for a game of soldiers, I will not do that again.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Bans to protect us... becoming overly silly. (7/31/2008 6:33:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Silly??? thats awfully polite Thadius, and they just keep on coming too, thats what is so amazing. Lucy I wouldn't call it silly. The word Communistic is what comes to my mind...

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875