|
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
I don't mind, then again I'm in Pierce County, but I'm gunna be moving to Seattle at the end of next month.
The no smoking is fine, its a shitty dirty habit and anyway to punish people who are stupid enough to do it is fine by me.
The alcohol laws arnt even that bad, and they only affect areas where there has been problems with vagrants and such which is fine by me (we have the same sort of laws in Tacoma).
Who the fuck cares about strippers... lol... come on...
Now, the smoking law is state, coming off a law we had in Pierce County that was overturned then taken to a state vote and passed, so its the majorities will state wide, not just in King County/Seattle.
The drinking honestly is something you really should get in such a snuff about IMO because it to some extent helps keep the bums from passing out on the street or getting drunk and starting fights or other stupid shit.
Stripper laws have been all over the area, we have had them in Pierce County for a while, its just not King County.
If you seriously think that Seattle is getting closer to Salt Lake City then you need to re-evaluate.
The one thing I will agree on is that the all-ages laws for venues in Seattle have gotten a lot tougher, which is sad because they had become so open and friendly to the all ages/18+ crowd since 1995 when it was impossible to even do an all ages night for anything (not just raves, but any concerts really). Then again maybe we are used to it too much and its just falling in line with the rest of the nation (then again that is really sad, the PNW should be better than the rest of this country!).
Anyways, Seattle is probably the most liberal major city behind San Francisco still and it will be hard for it to lose that place for a long time. |
So, you think that just because you don't care about in issue being taken away that nobody else does. I personally don't care about the stripping law either, in fact I havn't even been to a strip club, but you have to ask yourself does that law uphold or contradict the idea of personal liberty?
Or what about the drinking law they are proposing? They are trying to make it illegal for places to sell booze that has a certain alchohol percentage and cost a certain amount per ounce. This isn't prohibition exactly, but it's creating laws based on social status and wealth. Is this the so called liberalism that we take so much pride in? Creating laws of oppresion based on social status?
You say that you don't care about the smoking law and that it's a gross habit. That may be true, but if people want to do it, that's there dicision. To make laws that prevent people from their personal liberties is not liberal. Politcal and social coercion is not liberal.
Also, do you think it's fine that a suberban soccer mom who never goes out should have an impact on whether or not I can smoke and drink certain alchohols in a bar in downtown at midnight?
Liberalism is not whether you agree with other's behavior. The main goal of liberalism should not be personal opinion. Your main goal as a liberal should be whether or not a law coincides with what liberalism entails.
|
