Political Discussion

The state has made sure of that with strict video monitoring of all inspections sites and the whole inspection process is now computerised. It's the states inspection centers computers that determine if a car passes or fails each part of the inspection process. All the mechanic has to do is pull the car in the garage, hook up the car's computer fo the states computer and let it run. The computer will know what types of lights your car is equipped with, and turn each one on and off in every mode. Sensors around the garage will detect if the lights are working and what not.
I really wonder what the ROI on this is.
You've gone and put a new digital inspection process that hooks into a main computer that runs the assessment. How much did this cost to put in? How much does it cost each year to keep going? And do those dollars translate to safer roads? Basically, do an analysis on the number of car crashes and car jams from one year to the next (taking out Covid of course because that was highly unusual) and figure out if it is statistically significantly different from the manual inspection years. My guess is that this has little impact on traffic and is probably a huge waste of money. Think about the road improvements or public transit investment they didn't make with this money.
 
I really wonder what the ROI on this is.
You've gone and put a new digital inspection process that hooks into a main computer that runs the assessment. How much did this cost to put in? How much does it cost each year to keep going? And do those dollars translate to safer roads? Basically, do an analysis on the number of car crashes and car jams from one year to the next (taking out Covid of course because that was highly unusual) and figure out if it is statistically significantly different from the manual inspection years. My guess is that this has little impact on traffic and is probably a huge waste of money. Think about the road improvements or public transit investment they didn't make with this money.

And like Red Light Cameras I bet there is a third party company that stands to profit big time.

This is also how the "malware" attack was able to bring state inspections to a stop for a whole month.

I to wonder about their effectiveness. Sure I get emissions as part of saving the environment. And I get failing cars that have serious safety issues. But this goes above and beyond. I also wonder, if the State stands to make money on them. As it's $35 charged for each and every inspection. And it has to be done annually.
 
And like Red Light Cameras I bet there is a third party company that stands to profit big time.

This is also how the "malware" attack was able to bring state inspections to a stop for a whole month.

I to wonder about their effectiveness. Sure I get emissions as part of saving the environment. And I get failing cars that have serious safety issues. But this goes above and beyond. I also wonder, if the State stands to make money on them. As it's $35 charged for each and every inspection. And it has to be done annually.
If the cost was $35 pre-state computer and $35 after state computer, then I would not feed this into our ROI model as it is a static fee both pre and post implementation.
In LA, it costs us $10 a year.
 

I'm not sure how effective just one city implementation this is, but it's a start.
If I never again have to walk through some assholes “cotton candy flavored” vape cloud again it will be worth it.
 

I'm not sure how effective just one city implementation this is, but it's a start.
Since you apparently support this measure, what do you see as the end goal here?
 
If I never again have to walk through some assholes “cotton candy flavored” vape cloud again it will be worth it.
Really? It's a far better experience than walking through a cloud of Marlboro Red. All my friends who used to smoke but switched to vaping no longer stink, their cars smell like passion fruit and earl grey.

I don't really understand the idea behind this. Are they just not allowing people to buy any tobacco products in their state anymore? Or just flavoured ones?
 
Since you apparently support this measure, what do you see as the end goal here?
I assume it’s a public health concern, flavors tend to entice kids into smoking or whatever. When I was in High school I smoked initially because I thought it was cool not because of flavors but since Tobacco company’s (or anyone else for that matter) have ye to find a way to make Vaping appear cool they must have to lean heavy on the flavor thing.
 
Really? It's a far better experience than walking through a cloud of Marlboro Red. All my friends who used to smoke but switched to vaping no longer stink, their cars smell like passion fruit and earl grey.

I don't really understand the idea behind this. Are they just not allowing people to buy any tobacco products in their state anymore? Or just flavoured ones?
This part stuck out at me and has ever since I’ve started seeing folks advocate for the ban of flavored/menthol tobacco.

“Advocates argue the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol, targets young people and the Black community, leading to later health issues.”

It seems really weird to tie those two groups together like that. Is the subtext here that black folks are like kids and need someone else to act on their behalf to protect them?
 
Really? It's a far better experience than walking through a cloud of Marlboro Red. All my friends who used to smoke but switched to vaping no longer stink, their cars smell like passion fruit and earl grey.

I don't really understand the idea behind this. Are they just not allowing people to buy any tobacco products in their state anymore? Or just flavoured ones?
Nah, I will take the smell of a cigarettes (or better still a pipe) any day over Vaping. I think the after effects of cigarette odor in a home on clothes is a lot less appealing as I don’t think the smell of vape transfers over as easily but a fresh lit cigarette vs. cherry cheesecake vape? I will take the cigarette every time. TBH, flavorless Vape would probably be the best thing overall as it’s the artificially sweat smells that I can’t stand but short of that tobacco all day.
 
So are they going to get rid of flavoured alcohol? Is Birthday Cake vodka targeting children and minorities?

Just educate people and let them make their own mistakes, geez.


Nah, I will take the smell of a cigarettes (or better still a pipe) any day over Vaping. I think the after effects of cigarette odor in a home on clothes is a lot less appealing as I don’t think the smell of vape transfers over as easily but a fresh lit cigarette vs. cherry cheesecake vape? I will take the cigarette every time. TBH, flavorless Vape would probably be the best thing overall as it’s the artificially sweat smells that I can’t stand but short of that tobacco all day.
Oof, no thanks. I enjoy the smell of a high quality Pipe Tobacco, but cigarettes and cigars are disgusting.

I do love sweet smells, though.
 
I assume it’s a public health concern, flavors tend to entice kids into smoking or whatever. When I was in High school I smoked initially because I thought it was cool not because of flavors but since Tobacco company’s (or anyone else for that matter) have ye to find a way to make Vaping appear cool they must have to lean heavy on the flavor thing.
The arguments against these products sound a whole lot like the arguments against marijuana and other drugs. Are we going to replace the war on drugs with the war on tobacco and vapes? Why can’t adults be free to make their own decisions as to what they wish to put in their own bodies? Along with that, why can’t other folks have legitimate businesses to provide those things for people to seek the products without having to engage with a dangerous criminal element?
 
The arguments against these products sound a whole lot like the arguments against marijuana and other drugs. Are we going to replace the war on drugs with the war on tobacco and vapes? Why can’t adults be free to make their own decisions as to what they wish to put in their own bodies? Along with that, why can’t other folks have legitimate businesses to provide those things for people to seek the products without having to engage with a dangerous criminal element?
I don’t care at all about flavored tobacco beyond a personal preference issue of it stinking. It would be fucking hilarious if drug cartels started smuggling flavored vape across the border. The DEA standing over a stack of cash and thousands of dollars worth of strawberry vanilla vape cartridges.
 
possibly, but also menthol flavored tobacco is heavily marketed toward the black buyers (cf 'malt liquor' for another example)
And yet they smoke at a lower rate than white folks. Is it that tobacco companies marketed menthols to black folks to get them to start smoking? Maybe the more likely scenario is that they discovered that the demographic that purchased more menthols were black folks and so they started spending their marketing dollars to advertise their products to the folks that actually wanted them.

There’s a really good article I read not too long ago laying out how that phenomenon played out with Subaru’s marketing campaigns. They discovered that their wagons were very popular in the LGBT community (mostly the L) and shifted their marketing dollars in that direction.

[Edit to ad link]
Found the article. How an Ad Campaign Made Lesbians Fall in Love with Subaru
 
And yet they smoke at a lower rate than white folks. Is it that tobacco companies marketed menthols to black folks to get them to start smoking? Maybe the more likely scenario is that they discovered that the demographic that purchased more menthols were black folks and so they started spending their marketing dollars to advertise their products to the folks that actually wanted them.

There’s a really good article I read not too long ago laying out how that phenomenon played out with Subaru’s marketing campaigns. They discovered that their wagons were very popular in the LGBT community (mostly the L) and shifted their marketing dollars in that direction.
Or with the PNW community, every other car out here is a Subi. I actually had a boss 1991 Subaru Legacy Wagon with AWD for about a year it was really fun to drive. Lesbians have phenomenal taste.
 
I don’t care at all about flavored tobacco beyond a personal preference issue of it stinking. It would be fucking hilarious if drug cartels started smuggling flavored vape across the border. The DEA standing over a stack of cash and thousands of dollars worth of strawberry vanilla vape cartridges.
You joke, but I guarantee that if it’s banned tomorrow, it’ll take very little time for that exact scenario to play out.
 

I'm not sure how effective just one city implementation this is, but it's a start.
In 2007, I was a grad student and I worked on the campaign to ban smoking inside public areas. This is taking that to a whole new level, and potentially creating a monopoly situation for people who choose to smoke. While I support not allowing smoking in doors and I do think that flavors are specifically targeted to young people to get them hooked, I am not sure if I can support not allowing any more licenses for sale of tobacco.
This part stuck out at me and has ever since I’ve started seeing folks advocate for the ban of flavored/menthol tobacco.

“Advocates argue the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol, targets young people and the Black community, leading to later health issues.”

It seems really weird to tie those two groups together like that. Is the subtext here that black folks are like kids and need someone else to act on their behalf to protect them?
There are two groups that they have found to be targets for flavored tobacco, the first are young people and the second are black people. However, a quick look at smoking rates in the US from the CDC, shows a couple of things, first that people between the ages of 25-44 are the most likely to smoke and people between 18-24 are least likely to smoke. It shows that white people have higher smoking rates than black people. And what I think this author is actually trying to say in a very round about way, is that adults with less education are most likely to smoke, and adults with a house hold income less than $35K are most likely to smoke. The author is trying to say that this targets the poor, less educated, or at least this is how I interpret this after looking at the data. It's rather condescending either way.
 
In 2007, I was a grad student and I worked on the campaign to ban smoking inside public areas. This is taking that to a whole new level, and potentially creating a monopoly situation for people who choose to smoke. While I support not allowing smoking in doors and I do think that flavors are specifically targeted to young people to get them hooked, I am not sure if I can support not allowing any more licenses for sale of tobacco.

There are two groups that they have found to be targets for flavored tobacco, the first are young people and the second are black people. However, a quick look at smoking rates in the US from the CDC, shows a couple of things, first that people between the ages of 25-44 are the most likely to smoke and people between 18-24 are least likely to smoke. It shows that white people have higher smoking rates than black people. And what I think this author is actually trying to say in a very round about way, is that adults with less education are most likely to smoke, and adults with a house hold income less than $35K are most likely to smoke. The author is trying to say that this targets the poor, less educated, or at least this is how I interpret this after looking at the data. It's rather condescending either way.
Very condescending. So condescending in fact I would offer that it ventures deep into paternalistic territory.

I’m split on the indoor smoking bans though. I really don’t like government telling private entities what they can and cannot do on that front. At the same time as an ex-smoker, I really enjoy not smelling smoke inside bars and restaurants and make it a point to avoid ones that allow indoor smoking.
 
Back
Top