[MRRiley]

The safety issue is paramount to me. The safety issue aside, it would seem to be a policy decision whether we allow a resident of public housing to use it in a way that causes excessive wear.

Also, increasingly, landlords are beings sued by tenants who claim damage from second hand smoke which allegedly penetrates their apartment from the neighbors. I've defended several of these. Who wants that trouble?

The safety, health and damage (wear) issues would apply regardless of whether it is private or public property... The only difference is that the government cannot generally forbid legal behavior and acts on public property or in public spaces. Converely, a private property owner can often forbid/restrict/limit even legal behaviors on his property...

Don't you have to earn enough to pay taxes in order to have a "stake" in it?

Being bad and I admit it.

As an American citizen (assuming they are not aliens (legal or illegal), they still have a stake in all public property.

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 06-14-2011 at 06:30 PM.

[GeneV]

Don't you have to earn enough to pay taxes in order to have a "stake" in it?

Being bad and I admit it.

I'd say uninformed. First, these are mostly elderly who have lived a lifetime of paying taxes, and perhaps even putting their lives on the line for their country. Second, all they have to do is spend money to contribute financially from the state side, since much of the state funding is through gross receipts and property tax. Third, housing costs in Santa Fe are very difficult for hardworking families. Wages have historically been low, but it is a beautiful city where the very wealthy have bid real estate prices through the roof, and water issues limit housing growth.

[JohnInIndy]

The "editorial you" also includes you, whether you believe it or not. So, I agree that some of "you" can't think for yourself.

They just keep proving me right:

While chocolate milk’s supporters insist the health benefits of milk outweigh any possible harm from extra sugar, its foes allege that chocolate milk is just like soda or candy. Meanwhile, as school funding shrinks, and costs for food, fuel and labor continue to rise, the chocolate milk battle divides advocates, just when it is most important that they join forces and work together.
To recap the battle thus far: flavored milk accounts for about 70% of the milk served in US schools. Some schools offer it for both breakfast and lunch, others only at lunch. Some schools have banned flavored milk altogether, but studies sponsored by the dairy industry show that when this happens, milk consumption overall drops about 37%.
Flavored milk’s foes say that such studies are biased. If only plain milk is offered, they say, children will happily drink it; thus far there have been no studies produced to back up that claim. Foes of sweetened milk also link its consumption with increased obesity, but again there have been no studies done to provide support for that view. Studies of the role “sweetened beverages” play in obesity have focused on soda, sweetened teas, juice drinks, and sports drinks, not flavored milk.
Many parents, including many well informed parents who are not in the pay of the dairy industry, feel that their kids will only drink milk if the taste is masked by something sweet. They would rather their children get the nutritional benefits of milk, even if it means they also get some sugar. School food directors worry that with flavored milk off the menu, fewer students will eat school meals. The fixed expenses of labor and overhead eat up more than half of a school’s nutrition budget, so any drop in the revenue from meals served can result in cuts to the quality of the food for those who continue to eat school meals, typically the poorest students.

So the government doesn't think you are 1: Smart enough to give your kids healthy drinks. 2. You have no control over what your child drinks. 3. One or two chocolate milks a day is really causing obesity.

Could obesity be caused by you letting your kids play video games from the time they get home until they go to sleep? Cold it be because you don't get your kids to go out and play because they're too busy texting and sexting? Or playing games on the computer all day? Will banning chocolate milk in school really control the obesity problem? Will every child now become the perfect weight because they can't get chocolate milk in school? Will not having chocolate milk in school offset the triple deluxe burger your kid is getting from Fast Crap?

Nope. You really CAN"T think for yourselves. You're too stupid. You need Big Brother to control you. You can't control yourself how can you control your child(ren)
These laws prove it.

[shooz]

You really CAN"T think for yourselves. You're too stupid. YOu need Big Brother to control you.

Yes, John.
Just like you.

[JohnInIndy]

Yes, John.
Just like you.

Sorry to disappoint you Shooz but I can think for myself and neither the government nor a union needs to tell me how to run my life or negotiate my salary or really much of anything else. I am fully capable of doing it myself. I know what is good for my body and I, being of free will may choose to drink, eat or smoke whatever I please. Government needs to stay out of parental decisions. Again, the chocolate drink a child may get at school isn't the cause of obesity. Government wants control plain and simple.

[mikemike]

The more control the government has over people the greater its interest and obligation to utilize that to ensure public health.

Food stamps should prohibit purchase of junk food and other overpriced, overprocessed, undernourishing foods.

Public transportation should be designed to make sure people are as physically active as possible to utilize it, like subway systems where stations which require most to go up and down stairs and stand as they ride.

Section 8 renters and public housing residents should be prohibited from smoking.

In fact, anyone whose relying on the government for housing, health care, or nutrition should get a special endorsement put on their government IDs or drivers licenses which prohibits them from even buying cigarettes or alcohol. Both products which are hazardous to your health and are subject to heavy excise taxes.

How can the state justify providing someone with food stamps if that person has a pack a day habit where in some locales they spend more money on cigarettes than the food stamps provide?

[shooz]

Sorry to disappoint you Shooz but I can think for myself and neither the government nor a union needs to tell me how to run my life or negotiate my salary or really much of anything else. I am fully capable of doing it myself. I know what is good for my body and I, being of free will may choose to drink, eat or smoke whatever I please. Government needs to stay out of parental decisions. Again, the chocolate drink a child may get at school isn't the cause of obesity. Government wants control plain and simple.

You're welcome to your illusion, John.
I'm not disappointed at all.

[v5planet]

The more control the government has over people the greater its interest and obligation to utilize that to ensure public health.

I agree with this in principal, as they are essentially investing in their people in a very direct way. There are some practical limitations though... I spent a lot of time hiking through small towns in the rural South last year where many people survive off of food stamps. The reality is that a lot of these towns are little more than a gas station or a Dollar General. There is literally no healthy food to buy in the town, or the adjacent town.

Unless the government started supplying people dependent on food stamps for sustenance with issued rations balanced nutritionally (which wouldn't happen because big-Agri would just lobby to get its corn syrup into mass produced rations), people would not be able to find 'healthy' food in a lot of these communities. And at that point you've completely stripped all dignity from these people...which... has its own problems and implications.

[JohnInIndy]

The more control the government has over people the greater its interest and obligation to utilize that to ensure public health.

Food stamps should prohibit purchase of junk food and other overpriced, overprocessed, undernourishing foods.

Public transportation should be designed to make sure people are as physically active as possible to utilize it, like subway systems where stations which require most to go up and down stairs and stand as they ride.

Section 8 renters and public housing residents should be prohibited from smoking.

In fact, anyone whose relying on the government for housing, health care, or nutrition should get a special endorsement put on their government IDs or drivers licenses which prohibits them from even buying cigarettes or alcohol. Both products which are hazardous to your health and are subject to heavy excise taxes.

How can the state justify providing someone with food stamps if that person has a pack a day habit where in some locales they spend more money on cigarettes than the food stamps provide?

Taking it a bit more down the line anyone getting government assistance should also be tested for illegal drugs. If you can afford the illegal stuff you really don't need assistance now do you?

[shooz]

More of your illusions, John?

Bet you still think the Boston tea party was over taxes, don't you.

[JohnInIndy]

I agree with this in principal, as they are essentially investing in their people in a very direct way. There are some practical limitations though... I spent a lot of time hiking through small towns in the rural South last year where many people survive off of food stamps. The reality is that a lot of these towns are little more than a gas station or a Dollar General. There is literally no healthy food to buy in the town, or the adjacent town.

Unless the government started supplying people dependent on food stamps for sustenance with issued rations balanced nutritionally (which wouldn't happen because big-Agri would just lobby to get its corn syrup into mass produced rations), people would not be able to find 'healthy' food in a lot of these communities. And at that point you've completely stripped all dignity from these people...which... has its own problems and implications.

If those towns are little more than a gas station or dollar general how long do you think they'd exist without the government handouts? People would move out to find work elsewhere wouldn't they? Of course they would. So government money brings forth the entitlement lifestyle for generations to come.

[JohnInIndy]

More of your illusions, John?

Bet you still think the Boston tea party was over taxes, don't you.

At least I am not a union worker.

Shooz how many people do you employ anyway? How many people have you ever employed?

Just for you

Facts you may not know about the Tea Party

An error in the list of participants?

The most commonly reproduced list of the participants arguably has an error. One of the participants in this list is Thomas Young. But according to a historic document that describes the proceedings at the Old South Meeting-House during the time when the destruction of tea occurred, Mr. Young was addressing the crowd lecturing about the medicinal risks of drinking tea.
A cup of ‘Balsamic hyperion’ anyone?

While boycotting British imports, the Americans relied not only on smuggled goods but also attempted to find substitutes made from native products. These included ‘Labrador tea’, which was made from the leaves of a plant that flourished in the colonies, and ‘Balsamic hyperion’, made from dried raspberry leaves.
William - the fourth tea ship that never made it to Boston

In the autumn of 1773 there were four not three ships sent to Boston with the tea cargo, Dartmouth, Eleanor, Beaver and William. But William never reached Boston. It had run aground and was stranded near Cape Cod. Read more about the Tea Party ships.
Tea smuggling also flourished in Britain

One may think that in 1770s only the colonies were getting robbed by the East India Tea Company monopoly. In fact tea drinkers in Britain were getting the same deal with East India being the only legal importer. As a result, tea smuggling flourished in Britain as well as in the colonies.
The ships were not British, only the tea was

In many texts the Beaver and the Dartmouth are called “British ships”. In fact both were owned by the Rotch family from Nantucket whose offices were located at the foot of Main Street in the brick building now called The Pacific Club.
Protesters swept the docks afterwards

The destruction of tea was not a violent protest. The ships’ crews attested that nothing had been damaged or destroyed except the tea - and the protesters swept the decks clean afterwards. The Massachusetts Gazette even reported that when it was realized that a padlock that had been broken was the personal property of one of the ships’ captains, a replacement was procured and sent to him.
Inland Tea Party

The actual location of the B.T.P. was not where the official Boston Tea Party ship museum is located. Because of the massive landfill projects in the Boston Harbor, the most likely location is now the intersection of Congress and Purchase streets.
Most participants left Boston shortly after the protest

Most of the participants had to leave Boston to avoid being arrested. Not that the Mohawk disguise was not good, but the Suns of Liberty organization that most conspirators belonged to had a British spy as one of its top leaders.
The destroyed tea was from China, not India.

The tea destroyed in Boston Harbor that was imported by the East India Tea Company was not actually from India but … from China. The destroyed tea was of a so-called “Bohea” type, which was used for the black tea grown in Mountains in Fujian Province, China.

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea coming into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.
The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.

"No taxation without representation" is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution. In short, many in those colonies believed the lack of direct representation in the distant British Parliament was an illegal denial of their rights as Englishmen, and therefore laws taxing the colonists (one of the types of laws that affects the majority of individuals directly), and other laws applying only to the colonies, were unconstitutional. However, during the time of the American Revolution, only one in twenty British citizens had representation in parliament, none of whom were part of the colonies. In recent times, it has been used by several other groups in several different countries over similar disputes, including currently in some parts of the United States

[cardinal43]

Sometimes it does include me. But not this time. I see full well what they are doing. Wish you would take off the blinders and see also. Maybe you just need to remove the cataracts

Trust me, my eyes are wide open, and I see things very well, thank you very much. The simple fact that I don't agree with you does not mean I have blinders/cataracts. It simply means we don't agree. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

[shooz]

John discovers google......
It's a revelation.

Just had to toss in a union insult though, didn't you John?

You still know nothing about them. Just what you've heard.
You prefer monopoly business, in bed with the government.

Just like the founders fought.

[JohnInIndy]

John discovers google......
It's a revelation.

Just had to toss in a union insult though, didn't you John?

You still know nothing about them. Just what you've heard.
You prefer monopoly business, in bed with the government.

Just like the founders fought.

Sorry Shooz, unions ARE the insult.

I know quite a bit about them.

John's known about google a long time Shooz. I also can read. Can you? I can also go to my personal library and look the stuff up if you want but then I don't really want to do all that typing.

Monopoly business. Tell that to Bill Gates. Remember how the government went after him? Noticed it stopped once he started to pay for lobbyists?