Dea crack down in florida

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad :)
In WI, we don't have that many issues with pill mills. We just got 2 of the Milwaukee area's dubious physicians' licenses revoked. I can only think of about 4 bad prescribers left and everyone knows who they are. The physician will always give a "legitimate" reason for the rx.
 
Sparda29 said:
Sigh, more ****ing big government interference.
Click to expand...

Exactly, at least Big Brother is messing with Wags in this case. For the most part this business about trying to police what MD's and patients want prescribed for the patient and his or her's own body is just an excuse to bully independents to try and get them out of the game, total bull**** big government influence. I'm just shocked that they are touching the big corporations at all...
 
Sparda29 said:
Sigh, more ****ing big government interference.
Click to expand...


Big gov't does get it right sometimes. Banning indoor smoking has resulted in lower cancer rates in the states where it was passed. The war against drug abuse cannot be won but it has to be fought to at least contain the problem. The DEA is right in fighting it at all levels.
 
Unchained said:
Big gov't does get it right sometimes. Banning indoor smoking has resulted in lower cancer rates in the states where it was passed. The war against drug abuse cannot be won but it has to be fought to at least contain the problem. The DEA is right in fighting it at all levels.
Click to expand...

Wrong on both counts. Indoor smoking is a property rights issue and should be left up to the owners and patrons who choose to be in said establishment -- they can decide on the risk/reward of their own decisions. Furthermore, last time I checked there was nothing in the Constitution about policing what people of their own volition choose to ingest (in their own bodies for crying out loud!). The flipside is they need to accept the consequences of their decisions without expecting Big Brother to bail them out.
 
Your rights end when you infringe on others rights. If smoking only affected those who smoked then it would not be an issue. The smoke never stayed in the smoking section. The drug abuse epidemic has a great impact on our entire society. You benefit indirectly from the war on drug abuse.
 
Unchained said:
Your rights end when you infringe on others rights. If smoking only affected those who smoked then it would not be an issue. The smoke never stayed in the smoking section. The drug abuse epidemic has a great impact on our entire society. You benefit indirectly from the war on drug abuse.
Click to expand...

Youre missing the point, nobody forced the people to go into a smoking establishment in the first place, they voluntarily made that decision.
 
auburnO5 said:
Youre missing the point, nobody forced the people to go into a smoking establishment in the first place, they voluntarily made that decision.
Click to expand...

I think freedom to go to gov't or private establishments trumps freedom to give others cancer and asthma exacerbations. Are you guys really healthcare professionals or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Smoke free of course.
 
Unchained said:
I think freedom to go to gov't or private establishments trumps freedom to give others cancer and asthma exacerbations. Are you guys really healthcare professionals or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Smoke free of course.
Click to expand...

I assure you that I am more of a health care professional that you.

Doctors can believe in the constitution too. The notion that the government can tell us whether or not we can smoke in a private establishment/building is absolutely ridiculous.
 
auburnO5 said:
Youre missing the point, nobody forced the people to go into a smoking establishment in the first place, they voluntarily made that decision.
Click to expand...

I agree:

Nobody is putting a gun to my head telling me to go that bar or rest where smoking is allowed. If i saw people smoking inside, I would just leave. Likewise, if you choose to ingest a 30mg oxycodone that was not prescribed to you cause your friend said it was cool, and you are 23 years old, then maybe you need a hard lesson in life while being driven to the ER with a drug overdose. No one put a gun to their head and said, ingest this oxy or else. The Govt has it wrong. Just make the drug for cancer patients in cancer establishments...and like my bus partner said, force physicians to have 5+ year residencies in pain management to be able to prescribe the drug...Not some ob/gyn ousted from his job who needs a job writing oxy.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Let me simplify this. Freedom to breathe clean air trumps freedom to give others cancer. Your freedom ends when you swing your fist around and it hits someone else's nose. If you are performing a "freedom" which raises the overall cost of healthcare greatly and thus raises my insurance premiums then I think you should be sin taxed, pay higher insurance premiums and be coerced into quitting said activity. You are still free to smoke in your own home if you so choose. I can't tell you how many patients I have had walk into my pharmacy tired of the cost of cigarettes, the new restrictions and the higher premiums they have paid and decided to quit with the assistance of Chantix and Nicoderm CQ. This is a net positive for everyone.
 
Our problem prescribers are not true pain docs. I've never had any problems with the physicians and PAs from the prominent pain clinics in town. All of our problem physicians are either family med or internal med.
 
Unchained said:
Let me simplify this. Freedom to breathe clean air trumps freedom to give others cancer. Your freedom ends when you swing your fist around and it hits someone else's nose. If you are performing a "freedom" which raises the overall cost of healthcare greatly and thus raises my insurance premiums then I think you should be sin taxed, pay higher insurance premiums and be coerced into quitting said activity. You are still free to smoke in your own home if you so choose. I can't tell you how many patients I have had walk into my pharmacy tired of the cost of cigarettes, the new restrictions and the higher premiums they have paid and decided to quit with the assistance of Chantix and Nicoderm CQ. This is a net positive for everyone.
Click to expand...

Your "freedom" argument makes absolutely no sense at all and still ignores property rights. You still have the freedom to breathe clean air -- smokers in one public establishment are hardly going to destroy the atmosphere to the point that you can't breathe clean air at an establishment that chooses to be a non-smoking establishment. YOU can be the one to move your own nose somewhere away from the smoke if it bothers you -- let the market work. You and/or any government agency for that matter have absolutely no right to infringe on another's freedom -- and the flipside is they should have absolutely no right to insurance at a rate that is not actuarially fair for their chosen behavior in relation to those who choose not to engage in that behavior.

If you don't care about liberty and the Constitution and true freedom and all the other stuff that made our country great and differentiated from the rest of the globe -- you can look at it pragmatically this way -- more narcotics and more patients smoking means more prescriptions and more pharmacist jobs, which just happens to be the most important point here!
 
Well Steve I don't know if you haven't been paying attention but we are not actually "great"anymore. I think we are meerly good. Examples of countries outperforming us would be Brazil, India and Germany. The Chinese are more capitalist than we are but their human rights record is atrocious. We are sort of like the Roman Empire in the late stages. We have a debt which we will not be able to pay down. Politicians who are only interested in being reelected. Default ala South America in the 70's is likely which wouldn't be the end of the world. A major contributor to our problem is healthcare costs. We have an aging population and an unhealthy one. Obesity here is of epidemic proportions. Is this a side effect of rampant capitalism? I don't know. We can check with China in 50 years. Fact is these countries are younger and healthier than we are. I would like to be part of the solution by promoting healthy living. I'm sure most other providers entered the field for the same reason. If this means less pharmacists in the future I'm sure I will be able to find something else to do. I will do it knowing I did my small part to help our country stay competitive in the future.
 
As a retired dentist, I like to offer my sincere appreciation to the Pharmacy profession. I have known several Wags and Walmart pharmacists friends that gave me early headups with regarding the presence of numerous dea agents in the Las Vegas area. Las Vegas is well known for the slogan "what happened in Vegas, stays in Vegas..:D"I usually did alot of full mouth extraction in my private practice, hence prescribed alot of vicodin ES to my patients post-op prior to 2004. That all changed since of course,motrin only, with the friendly warning from my pharmacists,...:thumbup:
 
Speaking of smoking, I'm hate how all the hospitals are making you walk all the way off hospital campus if you wanna smoke. Really makes it hard to take a cigarette/hookah break. (I found a minature/handheld hookah that I can take with me anywhere. Pretty much fits in my pocket.)

NYC is getting annoying with the smoking regulations. There are some legislators that wanna put an end to hookah lounges. Hookah lounges also have food, but people go there to smoke. If you want Persian food but don't like hookah, then go to a Persian restaurant without hookah.
 
Unchained said:
Well Steve I don't know if you haven't been paying attention but we are not actually "great"anymore. I think we are meerly good. Examples of countries outperforming us would be Brazil, India and Germany. The Chinese are more capitalist than we are but their human rights record is atrocious. We are sort of like the Roman Empire in the late stages. We have a debt which we will not be able to pay down. Politicians who are only interested in being reelected. Default ala South America in the 70's is likely which wouldn't be the end of the world. A major contributor to our problem is healthcare costs. We have an aging population and an unhealthy one. Obesity here is of epidemic proportions. Is this a side effect of rampant capitalism? I don't know. We can check with China in 50 years. Fact is these countries are younger and healthier than we are. I would like to be part of the solution by promoting healthy living. I'm sure most other providers entered the field for the same reason. If this means less pharmacists in the future I'm sure I will be able to find something else to do. I will do it knowing I did my small part to help our country stay competitive in the future.
Click to expand...

promote whatever you wish. Again, no one is putting a gun to anyones head. Narcotics are part of the job and all the DEA needed to do was shut these doctors down. I cant tell you how many people in Pinellas Park are on Oxy. They chose to take the drug and I for one did not force them to swallow a god damn pill. Take the prescribing right away from some of these docs, and these people have no where else to go. Instead the DEA disrupted the supply chain and are holding us pharmacists responsible which is sooooo totally asinine to a degree i cannot fathom. So you have these addicts with oxy prescriptions in hand begging to get the drug from pharmacies that cant even order the damn drug. The despair in their faces, some people crying, some begging; it gets old and we have very little sympathy. Just restrict the damn drug all around...

I went to a DEA CE in west palm beach and they played a video of a 15 year old kid that overdosed on oxy 30 he got from a friend. DEA deputy admin next said our kids are dying blah blah blah and i thought to myself : So im suppose to feel bad that this kid OD on a drug he got from a source other than a legit source and he OD and died? No one prescribed and dispensed it to him. Where did he get it from? A drug dealer? His parents cabinet? I do not know. My point is people (kids, adults etc etc) are gonna do what they wanna do. all you can do is educate. You cant force them to stop and you cant force them to get help. It is what it is. You want oxy 30, you are gonna get it on the street or turn to heroin. I felt bad that the kid died, because such a young life was lost, but he made a decision that i could not in 1 million years control. I will never understand why we as pharmacists should feel bad if a patient decided to overdose on a combination of drugs that a doctor prescribed and a pharmacist counseled and dispensed. I warn every patient that gets oxy or methadone from us as to the dangers of these drugs. They all say, yeah yeah, blah blah blah....
 
Last edited:
The honest truth is I hope they do away with the drug altogether. Bad press, bad outcomes, bad everything....
 
Doctor M said:
The honest truth is I hope they do away with the drug altogether. Bad press, bad outcomes, bad everything....
Click to expand...

I hate the drug anyway. I had knee surgery to reconstruct my ACL and some microfracture surgery to induce rebuilding of cartilage a couple of years ago. Painful recovery. Doc prescribed me Oxycodone 20 mg BID. It did nothing for me at all. Even after increasing the dose to Oxycodone 60 mg BID, I barely got relief.

Finally after I was bitching about the pain to my surgeon did he put me on Hydromorphone. Took 4 mg and was pain free.
 
Sparda29 said:
Speaking of smoking, I'm hate how all the hospitals are making you walk all the way off hospital campus if you wanna smoke. Really makes it hard to take a cigarette/hookah break. (I found a minature/handheld hookah that I can take with me anywhere. Pretty much fits in my pocket.)

NYC is getting annoying with the smoking regulations. There are some legislators that wanna put an end to hookah lounges. Hookah lounges also have food, but people go there to smoke. If you want Persian food but don't like hookah, then go to a Persian restaurant without hookah.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.. I'm a non-smoker but ever since my hospital went "smoke free" it's become a huge nuisance. We used to have a designated smoking area, it was outside in an isolated area. Never ONCE saw anyone smoking outside of that area, never once smelled smoke. Now that they decided to go smoke-free there's patients/employees hiding behind bushes, hanging around nearby businesses smoking, cigarette butts all over the place. Seriously makes me mad thinking about it. It was never a problem before, they just wanted the publicity of going smoke-free since a lot of other places in town were doing it.
 
auburnO5 said:
I assure you that I am more of a health care professional that you.

Doctors can believe in the constitution too. The notion that the government can tell us whether or not we can smoke in a private establishment/building is absolutely ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I assure you that your an effin j a c k a s s
 
The smoke-free restaurant thing is wonderful. I was young enough when the law happened that I really take it for granted, and it's pretty disgusting when you go on vacation and people are puffing away while you eat. Sure there's a choice not to go to those restaurants, but pretty much every restaurant allowed it (with the exception of like McDonalds, BK, Wendy's). If you're a business owner, you're going to allow it since the alternative cuts down on your potential patrons. It's in the best interest of your area to choose independently owned establishments over chains and franchises, not to mention better food, so you really have no "choice" to go elsewhere. It's kind of like saying "I don't like paying all these taxes" "Well move to another country then!" It's just not a reasonable choice to make, given the minor inconvenience, so you suck it up (figuratively, but in the case of smoke, literally). You can't eat at a fast food chain for every meal out, so eventually you'll go to a restaurant where smoke is being blown in your face.

That doesn't take into account all the data about children who are exposed to smoking are more likely to smoke. Growing up seeing people smoking around you all the time certainly normalizes it for you, and that has obvious public health concerns.
 
Ackj said:
The smoke-free restaurant thing is wonderful. I was young enough when the law happened that I really take it for granted, and it's pretty disgusting when you go on vacation and people are puffing away while you eat. Sure there's a choice not to go to those restaurants, but pretty much every restaurant allowed it (with the exception of like McDonalds, BK, Wendy's). If you're a business owner, you're going to allow it since the alternative cuts down on your potential patrons. It's in the best interest of your area to choose independently owned establishments over chains and franchises, not to mention better food, so you really have no "choice" to go elsewhere. It's kind of like saying "I don't like paying all these taxes" "Well move to another country then!" It's just not a reasonable choice to make, given the minor inconvenience, so you suck it up (figuratively, but in the case of smoke, literally). You can't eat at a fast food chain for every meal out, so eventually you'll go to a restaurant where smoke is being blown in your face.

That doesn't take into account all the data about children who are exposed to smoking are more likely to smoke. Growing up seeing people smoking around you all the time certainly normalizes it for you, and that has obvious public health concerns.
Click to expand...

^This
 
Ackj said:
The smoke-free restaurant thing is wonderful. I was young enough when the law happened that I really take it for granted, and it's pretty disgusting when you go on vacation and people are puffing away while you eat. Sure there's a choice not to go to those restaurants, but pretty much every restaurant allowed it (with the exception of like McDonalds, BK, Wendy's). If you're a business owner, you're going to allow it since the alternative cuts down on your potential patrons. It's in the best interest of your area to choose independently owned establishments over chains and franchises, not to mention better food, so you really have no "choice" to go elsewhere. It's kind of like saying "I don't like paying all these taxes" "Well move to another country then!" It's just not a reasonable choice to make, given the minor inconvenience, so you suck it up (figuratively, but in the case of smoke, literally). You can't eat at a fast food chain for every meal out, so eventually you'll go to a restaurant where smoke is being blown in your face.

That doesn't take into account all the data about children who are exposed to smoking are more likely to smoke. Growing up seeing people smoking around you all the time certainly normalizes it for you, and that has obvious public health concerns.
Click to expand...

Don't go out to eat then if you can't find a suitable place -- no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to eat out. You can't ignore the property rights of the business owner and disregard the Constitution just because you don't like smoke. You can hardly equate that to the taxation issue -- sure the US is overtaxed from the left and their welfare state and the right and their warfare state, but some level of tax no matter how you apply it is necessary to keep the government running at even a minimal capacity...

I will concede the children issue to you as a valid argument (the direct exposure for 18 years and 9 months, not necessarily the normalizing effect as that would negate the freedom of the child to choose when they become an adult). Smoking around children and while pregnant is very close to a form of child abuse as far as I'm concerned... you see those poor little kids on multiple inhalers b/c their parents are useless pieces of **** with no self control (and usually sucking the welfare nip too, big surprise there)... ****ing pisses me off.
 
Steve how about those people working in those environments? Should they just go and find another place to work? I believe they have rights also. Hell let's just roll everything back to the 1930's where workers were exposed to all sorts of chemicals at work and died as a result of it. Let's allow smoking on airplanes because you don't have to fly you could've drove. Those $100 tickets you bought to that sporting event you can't enjoy because you can't breathe? Too bad you didn't have to go. The more education you have the less likely you are to smoke. Smoking is unintelligent. Obviously property rights are not as important or all of these laws wouldn't have been passed in multiple states. The Constitution is not being trampled as you suggest.
 
Steve Perry

last time I checked there was nothing in the Constitution about policing what people of their own volition choose to ingest (in their own bodies for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

Yes I know supply and possession are completely different areas but what you are trying to say is, if you don't supply and are not in possession but take an oxy offered to you this is OK? Utter rubbish. It may not be in the constitution but it is certainly against the law to ingest a material such as this, so you are not really free to carry out this practice as you suggest.
 
Last edited:
Unchained said:
Steve how about those people working in those environments? Should they just go and find another place to work? I believe they have rights also. Hell let's just roll everything back to the 1930's where workers were exposed to all sorts of chemicals at work and died as a result of it. Let's allow smoking on airplanes because you don't have to fly you could've drove. Those $100 tickets you bought to that sporting event you can't enjoy because you can't breathe? Too bad you didn't have to go. The more education you have the less likely you are to smoke. Smoking is unintelligent. Obviously property rights are not as important or all of these laws wouldn't have been passed in multiple states. The Constitution is not being trampled as you suggest.
Click to expand...

1. Are you suggesting that NO establishments, airlines, sporting events, places to work, etc. would provide smoke-free environments at the discretion of the owner? I find that verify difficult to believe, this whole notion that the market would not provide for other alternatives without the ever-intrusive government overstepping their boundaries. If smokers wanted to sue an airline or a restaurant for not letting them smoke, I would again side with the business in that it is their discretion what to allow or not allow in their place of business. There are only two positions you can have on freedom and liberty in this case -- it is just like the two positions you can have on freedom of speech. You are either for it or you are against it -- whether you agree with the actual merits of the specific case in question or not. Yeah, smoking is dumb as hell, but neither you nor I have absolutely any right whatsoever to push that belief onto a smoker or an owner of a business -- their body, their place of business, NOT yours.

2. You suggest that property rights and the Constitution are not important anymore. This comes a few posts after you claim the United States is "not actually great anymore." Hmm, oh how I wonder if the two could be tied together at all? :smuggrin:
 
Hello2000 said:
Yes I know supply and possession are completely different areas but what you are trying to say is, if you don't supply and are not in possession but take an oxy offered to you this is OK? Utter rubbish. It may not be in the constitution but it is certainly against the law to ingest a material such as this, so you are not really free to carry out this practice as you suggest.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you came up with that line of reasoning, but I'll take it one step further... there were no laws against this until the early 1900's and these laws should have never been applied, period. The "War on Drugs" has been an absolute failure, plagued with hypocrisy on every front, not to mention being flat out classist/racist. You can't even blame this on a particular agency, they are just doing the job that has been handed down to them by the politicians and backwards-thinking constituencies, many of which were manipulated into believing they were backing a noble cause, that voted these toolbag politicians into office. I mean, look at the discussion from another thread about kids distilling hand sanitizer. Should we make hand sanitizer a freaking CII or just plain outlaw it? As long as there are societal conditions that make a segment of the population want to abuse substances, this segment will continue to find substances to abuse, period. How is increasing the bargaining power of the black market suppliers for the more highly sought substances helping the matter any? Prohibition did that and was a great success, remember? But even given where we are at now with all the unnecessary laws, there is no reason to be harassing healthcare professionals and getting in the way of them caring for their patients. As a pharmacist, if you don't like or trust a prescriber's judgement, don't fill prescriptions from them. Simple concept, it really is. Dr. M is from a place that sounds like the epicenter of the Florida fiasco and he follows this logic, sounds like he's doing pretty well for himself and is at peace with the way he conducts his business. It goes back to property rights again and misguided people wanting to push their personal beliefs onto others.

Obviously I still advocate playing by the rules 100% as they stand, however asinine these rules and the well-intentioned but misguided beliefs of the people who support them are...
 
StevePerry said:
Don't go out to eat then if you can't find a suitable place -- no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to eat out. You can't ignore the property rights of the business owner and disregard the Constitution just because you don't like smoke. You can hardly equate that to the taxation issue -- sure the US is overtaxed from the left and their welfare state and the right and their warfare state, but some level of tax no matter how you apply it is necessary to keep the government running at even a minimal capacity...

I will concede the children issue to you as a valid argument (the direct exposure for 18 years and 9 months, not necessarily the normalizing effect as that would negate the freedom of the child to choose when they become an adult). Smoking around children and while pregnant is very close to a form of child abuse as far as I'm concerned... you see those poor little kids on multiple inhalers b/c their parents are useless pieces of **** with no self control (and usually sucking the welfare nip too, big surprise there)... ****ing pisses me off.
Click to expand...

Unchained said:
Steve how about those people working in those environments? Should they just go and find another place to work? I believe they have rights also. Hell let's just roll everything back to the 1930's where workers were exposed to all sorts of chemicals at work and died as a result of it. Let's allow smoking on airplanes because you don't have to fly you could've drove. Those $100 tickets you bought to that sporting event you can't enjoy because you can't breathe? Too bad you didn't have to go. The more education you have the less likely you are to smoke. Smoking is unintelligent. Obviously property rights are not as important or all of these laws wouldn't have been passed in multiple states. The Constitution is not being trampled as you suggest.
Click to expand...
Being a shut in for the sake of safety makes no sense. Laws are there to protect us. What if it was okay to shoot guns nonstop in public? If you don't want to get hit by stray bullets, just stay home! No, laws protect citizens and allow them to enjoy life while minimizing fear of ill effects.

The "owner's discretion" argument, as I previously stated, is a major disadvantage to the business. 20% of Americans smoke, so you immediately turn away 20% of your business. We all know how difficult it is to "make it" as a restaurant, so that 20% could be a big difference. Of course when it's mandated that you can't smoke, the smokers will eat there, but if they had a choice, they would go to somewhere that they could. The non-smoking establishment would certainly have hostile situations too, since the smokers assume they can smoke because "everywhere else lets me" and then you have employees confronting them and making them stop.
 
Ackj said:
Being a shut in for the sake of safety makes no sense. Laws are there to protect us. What if it was okay to shoot guns nonstop in public? If you don't want to get hit by stray bullets, just stay home! No, laws protect citizens and allow them to enjoy life while minimizing fear of ill effects.

The "owner's discretion" argument, as I previously stated, is a major disadvantage to the business. 20% of Americans smoke, so you immediately turn away 20% of your business. We all know how difficult it is to "make it" as a restaurant, so that 20% could be a big difference. Of course when it's mandated that you can't smoke, the smokers will eat there, but if they had a choice, they would go to somewhere that they could. The non-smoking establishment would certainly have hostile situations too, since the smokers assume they can smoke because "everywhere else lets me" and then you have employees confronting them and making them stop.
Click to expand...

Going with your statistics, if the other 80% feels so weakly about the issue that not even 1 out of 4 non-smokers would quit patronizing establishments that allow smoking to patronize establishments that differentiated themselves in the marketplace by not allowing smoking... then why the hell should it be a law? The implication in this case is that you are supporting and enacting a law solely because of the whiny, vocal non-smokers that comprise less than 20% of the total population. The 20% smokers obviously hate it, and based off your assertion over 75% of the non-smoking population (60% of total population) doesn't give enough of a **** if a business allows smoking or not to support non-smoking businesses over businesses that allow smoking. Otherwise the marketplace would solve the issue without government interference. Enforce property rights and let the market work.
 
StevePerry said:
1. Are you suggesting that NO establishments, airlines, sporting events, places to work, etc. would provide smoke-free environments at the discretion of the owner? I find that verify difficult to believe, this whole notion that the market would not provide for other alternatives without the ever-intrusive government overstepping their boundaries. If smokers wanted to sue an airline or a restaurant for not letting them smoke, I would again side with the business in that it is their discretion what to allow or not allow in their place of business. There are only two positions you can have on freedom and liberty in this case -- it is just like the two positions you can have on freedom of speech. You are either for it or you are against it -- whether you agree with the actual merits of the specific case in question or not. Yeah, smoking is dumb as hell, but neither you nor I have absolutely any right whatsoever to push that belief onto a smoker or an owner of a business -- their body, their place of business, NOT yours.

2. You suggest that property rights and the Constitution are not important anymore. This comes a few posts after you claim the United States is "not actually great anymore." Hmm, oh how I wonder if the two could be tied together at all? :smuggrin:
Click to expand...

False dichotomy, bro. There's middle ground you seem to be ignoring. I am for free speech, however, you can't say bomb on a plane or fire in a crowded theatre. It can incite panic and harm people. No one will argue that banning that behavior is a violation of free speech. Same thing with smoking.

You seem to be making this a property rights issue. It's not. It's a workers rights issue. The workers have the right to not be exposed to carcinogen all day if preventable.
 
eagles22 said:
False dichotomy, bro. There's middle ground you seem to be ignoring. I am for free speech, however, you can't say bomb on a plane or fire in a crowded theatre. It can incite panic and harm people. No one will argue that banning that behavior is a violation of free speech. Same thing with smoking.

You seem to be making this a property rights issue. It's not. It's a workers rights issue. The workers have the right to not be exposed to carcinogen all day if preventable.
Click to expand...

They also have the right to seek employment elsewhere at say... a non-smoking establishment. Somehow you try to come up with the silly notion that workers rights should completely negate property rights in this case. Wrong -- still a property rights issue, bro.

And the free speech I clearly was referring to was within the context of displaying expression, no matter how reprehensible, etc. which is still far from universally practiced. Thanks though for pointing out the obvious limits that have probably never been debated in the course of modern history and really don't come to mind when you discuss the framing of that debate -- of course you can't directly and intentionally incite panic or directly threaten people's lives and whatnot under the guise free speech. It's like pointing out the middle ground on carrying a firearm because you can't "carry" it down the street while pointing it at random people.

Irregardless, trying to make the argument that property rights should be utterly disregarded in the restaurant industry, which is possibly one of the most splintered industries with regards to market share, is completely well-intentioned but misguided at best.
 
My arguments:

smoking is bad

Always ask your patients if they've thought about quitting

Since laws have passed banning smoking, the number of active smokers has declined

Treating complications from smoking is costly

Second hand smoke can induce asthma attacks in sensitive people

Drinking out on the street is prohibited except for select cities..why not do the same for smoking?

Throwing your beer in someones face would be the equivalent of secondhand smoke :D

If companies want smoke free campuses, they should provide free smoking cessation programs to their employees. It's only fair.
 
StevePerry said:
They also have the right to seek employment elsewhere at say... a non-smoking establishment. Somehow you try to come up with the silly notion that workers rights should completely negate property rights in this case. Wrong -- still a property rights issue, bro.

And the free speech I clearly was referring to was within the context of displaying expression, no matter how reprehensible, etc. which is still far from universally practiced. Thanks though for pointing out the obvious limits that have probably never been debated in the course of modern history and really don't come to mind when you discuss the framing of that debate -- of course you can't directly and intentionally incite panic or directly threaten people's lives and whatnot under the guise free speech. It's like pointing out the middle ground on carrying a firearm because you can't "carry" it down the street while pointing it at random people.

Irregardless, trying to make the argument that property rights should be utterly disregarded in the restaurant industry, which is possibly one of the most splintered industries with regards to market share, is completely well-intentioned but misguided at best.
Click to expand...

Way to backpedal, I'm pretty said you're either for or against it when in fact there are shades of gray.

At what point do worker's rights take precedence? Employers can present whatever dangerous situation they want, and your argument is "just get another job"?
 
Steve, your property rights argument is so 2006. It's over man. You're losing the battle. The founders could not have anticipated issues that would've come about hundreds of years down the road. Example gay marriage. Their wording would not allow us entirely accurate meaning by interpretation. Overall it is a very sensible law. I think we are all open to sensible solutions to our very advanced problems in our country. This is why it has passed in 35 states and counting. You will look back in 10 years and agree with me.
 
Unchained said:
Steve, your property rights argument is so 2006. It's over man. You're losing the battle. The founders could not have anticipated issues that would've come about hundreds of years down the road. Example gay marriage. Their wording would not allow us entirely accurate meaning by interpretation. Overall it is a very sensible law. I think we are all open to sensible solutions to our very advanced problems in our country. This is why it has passed in 35 states and counting. You will look back in 10 years and agree with me.
Click to expand...

So 2006? You follow the news at all? This line of thinking is gaining traction and is more popular than possibly ever in recent history. Sure it is an uphill battle started almost from scratch unfortunately because of pre-conditioned, well-intentioned people not acting with reason. People disillusioned by both sides of the aisle are coming together over things like property rights and less government intrusion across the board. Socialism was considered a "sensible solution" not that long ago in Europe. You take a look at how the EU has been changing recently regarding that broheim?

As for the gay marriage issue, the founders did just fine with that by not addressing issues such as that in the Constitution. People regardless of orientation should be allowed to do what they want regarding marriage and call it whatever the hell they want. It is nobody else's business, and that includes the government's. Getting married should be like joining a ****ing club. Leave it at that.

Once you start mandating that property rights be discarded because something like smoking is bad and costly and may inconvenience people's restaurant choices to patronize and work at and blah blah blah, where do you draw the line? What, no more Big Mac's next b/c the nation's LDL is too high?

IRL I'm a pragmatist and could give two ****s about the actual issue itself, but issues like this annoy the hell out of me on an intellectual level.
 
Last edited:
eagles22 said:
Way to backpedal, I'm pretty said you're either for or against it when in fact there are shades of gray.

At what point do worker's rights take precedence? Employers can present whatever dangerous situation they want, and your argument is "just get another job"?
Click to expand...

LOL, I assume when I'm talking on a message board with college-educated individuals that they should be able to discern the modern, contextual limits of the absolutes I put forward regarding an argument in discussing an issue. Obviously, you are not capable of such critical thinking, so "my bad" for making that assumption, bro.

The restaurant industry is about as far from a monopoly as just about any industry in the States is. So yeah, let the market decide the smoking preference of an individual restaurant or chain of restaurants. We're not talking about robber barons of centuries past that were largely put in place with government intervention here. Then you would have an argument because there was a free marketplace breakdown due to government intervention along the line that needed balanced out in some fashion. We're talking about Joe's ****ing Bar and Grill in 2012 being able to decide on their own smoking policy as the market dictates. :smuggrin:
 
rxlea said:
My arguments:

smoking is bad

Always ask your patients if they've thought about quitting

Since laws have passed banning smoking, the number of active smokers has declined

Treating complications from smoking is costly

Second hand smoke can induce asthma attacks in sensitive people

Drinking out on the street is prohibited except for select cities..why not do the same for smoking?

Throwing your beer in someones face would be the equivalent of secondhand smoke :D

If companies want smoke free campuses, they should provide free smoking cessation programs to their employees. It's only fair.
Click to expand...

That is another intelligent argument that I actually agree with considering that the street is public, along with the children argument someone else put forth earlier in the thread. I don't doubt the pragmatism of the other arguments mentioned, just the underlying principle.
 
I love the "where does it all stop?" argument. Next you'll say something like "They're gonna come take all our guns" in a southern accent. Politicians love to play this card to stir up the base even though they know it is never going to happen.
 
Unchained said:
I love the "where does it all stop?" argument. Next you'll say something like "They're gonna come take all our guns" in a southern accent. Politicians love to play this card to stir up the base even though they know it is never going to happen.
Click to expand...

I love the whole "I'm going to try to purposely misattribute motives and incorrectly extrapolate the positions of others because my own argument is complete garbage" argument. Generally ignorant people with a lack of knowledge of the issues love to play this card.
 
[
Once you start mandating that property rights be discarded because something like smoking is bad and costly and may inconvenience people's restaurant choices to patronize and work at and blah blah blah, where do you draw the line? What, no more Big Mac's next b/c the nation's LDL is too high?

IRL I'm a pragmatist and could give two ****s about the actual issue itself, but issues like this annoy the hell out of me on an intellectual level.[/QUOTE]

You mean they could take away my Big Macs? They are the reason I came to America. They outlawed them in my home country of Krakosia. I want to be an obese consumer capitalist. I am creating jobs for Drs, pharmacists, hamburger flippers and eventually surgeons. Post coming from Steve shortly with long words ending in "ly".
 
Unchained said:
[
You mean they could take away my Big Macs? They are the reason I came to America. They outlawed them in my home country of Krakosia. I want to be an obese consumer capitalist. I am creating jobs for Drs, pharmacists, hamburger flippers and eventually surgeons. Post coming from Steve shortly with long words ending in "ly".
Click to expand...


Dude, you should do standup comedy or like, write romantic comedies or something. Priceless. It is so clear that your fresh, non-recycled humor and talent are soooo wasted as a pharmacist / economist-extraordinaire.

-ly
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

B
dea 222 forms
Replies
8
Views
714
CetiAlphaFive
CetiAlphaFive
C
lost dea form 222
Replies
21
Views
1K
CetiAlphaFive
CetiAlphaFive
M
DEA to process rx from the veterinarian clinic
Replies
12
Views
711
CetiAlphaFive
CetiAlphaFive
J
Live CE's for Florida
Replies
4
Views
447
jmail
J
J
Florida CE's for license renewal
Replies
1
Views
448
yovee
Y
Top