Austin would be ill-advised to ban plastic bags

[paulsjv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

You say businesses are being affected by the smoking ban? Actually fact is businesses are doing just fine and many are making more business with the lack of smokers. I go downtown a lot and I dont see businesses suffering because of the smoking ban. There are several places people can go that still allows smoking so again, they cater to smokers and make business. So where are all these businesses you speak of that are going through hell because of the smoking ban???

I'm not saying that businesses are being effected or not by the smoking ban. I'm saying that the government is infringing on their right to choose if they want to allow smoking or not at their establishment.

Like I said in an earlier post a lot of businesses have built roof tops or out door patios to accommodate the smokers. *shrug* It is what it is. If it were me on city council I would have voted against the smoking ban and the plastic bag ban.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by paulsjv

I see this as an opportunity for a business to get started to deal with the bags instead of the government doing something about it. Besides if they were such a huge problem don't you think that the market would have done something about it by now?

The Federal Government has always been the one to lead the way and encourage new paths for the private sector. Just look at NASA and the military. It was mostly thanks to WWI and WWII that advanced airplane technology. And NASA was instrumental in creating new technologies that lead to computers, etc.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The Federal Government has always been the one to lead the way and encourage new paths for the private sector. Just look at NASA and the military. It was mostly thanks to WWI and WWII that advanced airplane technology. And NASA was instrumental in creating new technologies that lead to computers, etc.

And thanks to the Pentagon, we have the internet. But I'm still on the side against the bag ban.

[Jdawgboy]

IMO if it means getting plastic bags out of our environment or at any rate decreasing the amount, I am all for it. Kevin is right, there are too many poisonous chemicals that are in plastic and they seep into the water and other things, if we are to better our surroundings for healths sake, we need to stop using harmful materials.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

And thanks to the Pentagon, we have the internet. But I'm still on the side against the bag ban.

You might want to check your facts on that HC. Al Core invented the internet. But only because he stole my patent.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by JAM

You might want to check your facts on that HC. Al Core invented the internet. But only because he stole my patent.

I forgot about Al. He also discovered global warming.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by paulsjv

And this happens how much? Technically a smoker could follow you around outside and do this to you right now. Has it happened? I would put money on no. So you're right it is a terrible and silly analogy.

yeah i said that already... but that's because its silly for someone to give the smoker more privilege of polluting the air and poisoning the non-smokers. at least when you say something like, no one is forcing you to be around those smokers, or no one is holding you at gunpoint, you can go elsewhere. why are smokers and smoke being given more privilege than non-smokers and my lungs? why does the non-smoker have to go elsewhere and not the smoker? that line of thinking doesn't really make much sense.

I don't like smoke either. I'm not defending smoke or smokers. What I am defending is the business's right to choose if they want to allow smokers or not.

I mean you have a right in your own home to allow smoking or not. So why shouldn't a business have that same right?

i agree that it's up to the business owners to decide.... but who are we kidding? no business owner has really been affected by the law so why even make a big deal about it? there's no conspiracy being used against them that way gov't can make profit... and i'm sure the business owners would most likely side with the customers if the customers say they don't want smokers smoking inside the building. this is silly to even be debating the issue. the law probably has more positives than negatives. and besides... why the hell would smokers even be so incessant about smoking if its causing such controversy? it seems like we're trying to accommodate them specifically in some elusive way. let's all be good sports and make it fair for everybody. there's outdoor patios which both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy. the law stays and shouldn't bother anybody. there's no logical reason for anyone to be against it.

there are some laws that really aren't that big of a deal.... and i just don't see why we as humans can't come to terms with those laws. if the law says... okay wear a seatbelt. go ahead and wear a seatbelt. i mean, it's best for you anyway. why would you not wanna wear a seatbelt? that's just silly. and trying to over rationalize why the gov't shouldn't impose itself on whether you wear a seatbelt or not... i mean, jesus! just wear that damn seatbelt! who cares?!

know i mean?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

IMO if it means getting plastic bags out of our environment or at any rate decreasing the amount, I am all for it. Kevin is right, there are too many poisonous chemicals that are in plastic and they seep into the water and other things, if we are to better our surroundings for healths sake, we need to stop using harmful materials.

Then the city should ban fertilizing of yards.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by migol24

that's not infringing on my rights so why should they? i really don't care. it's up to the person if they wanna be lazy and play video games all day, but if its forcing me to do it.. then yeah, there should be a law implemented from me being forced to play video games all day and be lazy and grow fat. just like smoke. smoke literally travels and screws with the oxygen that i'm breathing. that is legitimate infringement on my inalienable rights to breathe my god-given oxygen. why would anybody care to ban video games anyways? they're fun. plastic bags aren't. cigarettes aren't either. it's just useless to spend time analyzing if the gov't has any say on the issue. at least, i think so... but i dunno.

Its not infringing on your rights only if you don't pay taxes.

http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid...0163D9FEF1B047

[migol24]

Originally Posted by JAM

Its not infringing on your rights only if you don't pay taxes.

http://www.rti.org/news.cfm?objectid...0163D9FEF1B047

why not get rid of the taxes? why not demand that they pay for their own medical expenses in good libertarian fashion? why should we be implementing arbitrary laws on people doing something when they do not directly affect my rights?

the video game analogy doesn't even vaguely resemble the smokers who poison the air that i breathe, a basic human need, that in and of itself infringes directly on my rights and everyone else's. meanwhile, the boy playing video games, through no fault of his own is being taken the blame for how crappy our healthcare system is. it's a good ol' fashion straw man argument. if we had a problem with paying high taxes because of the costs of medicaid/medicare than we figure out other ways to make it work rather than leaving the kid to blame.

i would only agree with everyone if the businesses are really taking the bad end of it.... and for the most part it would seem like they are, but who's really complaining?

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by JAM

Then the city should ban fertilizing of yards.

Im all for that too lol well the harmful chemical kinds, but a lot of the new fertilizers these days are more natural and don't have the harmful chemicals.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by migol24

why not get rid of the taxes? why not demand that they pay for their own medical expenses in good libertarian fashion? why should we be implementing arbitrary laws on people doing something when they do not directly affect my rights?

the video game analogy doesn't even vaguely resemble the smokers who poison the air that i breathe, a basic human need, that in and of itself infringes directly on my rights and everyone else's. meanwhile, the boy playing video games, through no fault of his own is being taken the blame for how crappy our healthcare system is. it's a good ol' fashion straw man argument. if we had a problem with paying high taxes because of the costs of medicaid/medicare than we figure out other ways to make it work rather than leaving the kid to blame.

i would only agree with everyone if the businesses are really taking the bad end of it.... and for the most part it would seem like they are, but who's really complaining?

The health care system is fine. Its people who don't take of their bodies that is a big contributor to the problem. 80% of health care costs are incurred by 20% of the population, much caused by chronic conditions that can be avoided if one takes care of their body. i.e. less video games, which would lead to less diabetes.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm#diff1

[migol24]

Originally Posted by JAM

The health care system is fine. Its people who don't take of their bodies that is a big contributor to the problem. 80% of health care costs are incurred by 20% of the population, much caused by chronic conditions that can be avoided if one takes care of their body. i.e. less video games, which would lead to less diabetes.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm#diff1

i'm not too informed on this health care issue... so i'm not gonna get into that. but this video game bit is silly. there are plenty other factors that lead to obesity and not just video gaming. there are plenty video gamers who aren't even obese. this isn't really addressing the original issue, in regards to the affect of 2nd hand smokers. it's just not the same thing. it's a straw man argument.

[Jdawgboy]

This whole debate really boils down to political ideology in the end. There are always going to be differences in opinions on that so we need to keep in mind when we discuss issues like these.

It all comes down to Democratic/Liberal ideology verses, Libertarian ideology. Both want a free society but the means to achieve that are different.

Libertarians want little to no government interference and in some cases no government period. Liberals believe government is needed to help achieve freedom of all.

You can agree or disagree all you want about city ordinances and laws and you can agree or disagree about how these ordinances and laws infringe on personal freedoms or help society better itself, but in the end it basically goes to how you feel government should be.

I am a Liberal Democrat as is most of the central core of Austin, and I believe the plastic bag ban is needed and important to better ourselves and our environment. You can disagree with me but that will not change my reasoning nor would I change your reasoning so we can go on and on and argue but what is the point. This thread in the end is pointless unless it is to argue ideology in city politics.

[migol24]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

This whole debate really boils down to political ideology in the end. There are always going to be differences in opinions on that so we need to keep in mind when we discuss issues like these.

It all comes down to Democratic/Liberal ideology verses, Libertarian ideology. Both want a free society but the means to achieve that are different.

Libertarians want little to no government interference and in some cases no government period. Liberals believe government is needed to help achieve freedom of all.

You can agree or disagree all you want about city ordinances and laws and you can agree or disagree about how these ordinances and laws infringe on personal freedoms or help society better itself, but in the end it basically goes to how you feel government should be.

I am a Liberal Democrat as is most of the central core of Austin, and I believe the plastic bag ban is needed and important to better ourselves and our environment. You can disagree with me but that will not change my reasoning nor would I change your reasoning so we can go on and on and argue but what is the point. This thread in the end is pointless unless it is to argue ideology in city politics.

i think that sometimes libertarians are right, and sometimes liberals are right. i don't see why anyone should just support an ideology all just because it is their ideology. the real issue is the human condition over all these political asinine affiliations that we create, i.e. ideologies.

i absolutely and 100% think its best to support common sense over some political affiliation. to argue over a law because its not libertarian is a silly way of taking issue with it. just like arguing over a lifestyle because it's not conservative. you should argue over a law only if it is plain and simply wrong. if the law isn't affecting anybody why even bother taking issue with it? that's how i feel about this plastic bag ban and that's how i feel about this smoking ban. use common sense... neither of these are needed. so who cares?

at some point if we can understand a little more as humans, these types of laws would be obsolete. we probably won't smoke anymore because there is no real need for it other than looking cool. we probably won't use plastic bags either. i mean.... why would anybody defend those types of laws? because it targets businesses? are they being targeted in the droves? is it really a huge issue? if so, then all of us... not just libertarians, but also conservatives and liberals should take issue with this. there are other more important issues at hand. why is this issue in particular a big deal?

this is where i tend to draw the line with libertarians. because i mostly see myself as libertarian... but then i question if i am because most of them argue over any simple mandate that probably doesn't even affect them negatively and that means everyone runs the risk of some injustice because some law may get shot down that would've otherwise protected them.

libertarians mostly follow this ayn rand ideology of to each its own. it just gets way too complicated from there on that i feel no need to go that route. and it also makes you run the risk of looking like an asshole. why bother going that route? and i'm saying this as a young christian fellow raised by a pastor, who views the world liberally but can also lean libertarian. i really don't know what i am politically. but what i try to do is make the most sense i possibly can. aren't we all?

[JAM]

Originally Posted by migol24

i think that sometimes libertarians are right, and sometimes liberals are right. i don't see why anyone should just support an ideology all just because it is their ideology.

Well said.

As far as the video game analogy goes, its a whole slew of things that are related to kids not excising or playing the way they once used to. Keep in mind, just because you're skinny, doesn't necessarily make you healthy. The bottom line is, everyone wants the easy way out, and if they can pop a pill at societies expense, they will. No one made them get that way, but now that they are, they lean on the health care system, complain about its high costs, expect others to foot the bill, and shrug responsibility.

This easily translates to the plastic bag ban, a supposedly health issue. Ban bags, why not ban unhealthy behavior. Plastic bags in my water supply effects others just as much as other peoples health issues (ones that could be controlled by better habits). Both force me to spend extra money on bottled water / or increased taxes.

[Jdawgboy]

Again it comes down to ideolgy. We can argue what defines ideology all we want but it is so varied no one definition is right. I never said nor do I follow one hard core line but I did say I was a liberal democrat. There are all sorts of people that would consider themselves in that catagory that dont agree with each other on a whole host of issues and same goes for any other type of political affiliation. And yes, its good to look at all points and angles so by doing so you can deduct your own view.

[paulsjv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Again it comes down to ideolgy. We can argue what defines ideology all we want but it is so varied no one definition is right. I never said nor do I follow one hard core line but I did say I was a liberal democrat. There are all sorts of people that would consider themselves in that catagory that dont agree with each other on a whole host of issues and same goes for any other type of political affiliation. And yes, its good to look at all points and angles so by doing so you can deduct your own view.

I'm fairly all over the board too. I just lean more towards libertarianism (shocker right?). One good thing about local control is that I can vote with my feet! lol My big beef is the federal government. Eek!

[migol24]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Again it comes down to ideolgy. We can argue what defines ideology all we want but it is so varied no one definition is right. I never said nor do I follow one hard core line but I did say I was a liberal democrat. There are all sorts of people that would consider themselves in that catagory that dont agree with each other on a whole host of issues and same goes for any other type of political affiliation. And yes, its good to look at all points and angles so by doing so you can deduct your own view.

well then my ideology is common sense. not that i'm always on top of it, but i try my best.

[The ATX]

What kind of bag I use shouldn't matter to anyone else any more than their sexual orientation should matter to me. It's all personal freedom and nobody should legislate against it.