|
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And Bourbon. The point being, history is full of well-meant laws and reforms meant to protect us from ourselves that either don't do a damned thing, or in these cases, actually make things worse. #6.
Smoking Bans in Pubs and Bars Means More Drunk Driving
Let's face it, alcohol and cigarettes are a magical combination: They go together like peanut butter and chocolate; a rock star and a porn actress; a Cracked writer and minor felonies. You'd think it would be common knowledge by now that if you mess with one of these vices, it's going to affect the other in some way. But anti-smoking laws have been in the news quite frequently, with newly implemented indoor smoking bans taking effect all across the UK and the U.S. The benefit to public health seems obvious at first glance. But as astute readers might have guessed already, there is always a potential backfire just waiting to happen...
How Did it Backfire? Smokers who also drink alcohol are going to smoke when they drink alcohol. As obvious as that statement is to anyone with a shred of common sense, the unbreakable bond of smokes and booze escaped lawmakers completely. They figured that smokers would go to bars, have a drink or two, step outside for a quick nicotine fix and then resume their drinking inside. They forgot to take two tiny little things into account: Winter is cold and wet, and people with genitals typically like to not "freeze them off."
A study by researchers Scott Adams and Chad Cotti discovered that, when faced with smoking bans in bars near their homes, alcohol-drinking smokers would simply drive further to other jurisdictions where the bans weren't in place. That also meant they had a longer drive home when they were potentially drunk off their asses. Adams and Cotti found that, on average, there was a 13 percent increase in drunk driving fatalities in areas that had instituted smoking bans.
If we've learned any lesson today, let it be thus: Never underestimate the love affair between beer and cigarettes, or the motivational power of cold balls. Oh, also don't drink and drive. That's somewhere in there too. #5.
Sex Offender Laws Make Them Harder to Track
If a stampede of pedophiles running rampant through the streets sounds like a nightmare, you might not be sleeping. You might just be in Iowa.
It all seemed like such a great idea on paper: The good legislators of Dubuque, Iowa, in an attempt to keep pedophiles and other degenerates as far away from their children as possible made it illegal for a registered sex offender to live within 2,000 feet of a school. Seems like a no-brainer, right? But then someone remembered that kids also congregated at other places besides schools. There were libraries, daycare centers, swimming pools and parks to think about too. In the end, sex offenders were forbidden to live within a half-mile of any place where adolescents might gather. How Did it Backfire? Somebody took a map of Dubuque and drew 4,000-foot diameter circles around every "predator free" landmark in town. They quickly realized that with dozens of overlapping circles covering the entire city, there was literally no place that a sex offender could legally live. Like some alternate-universe version of the Book of Exodus, the county's molesters had no choice but to pack their shit, sing "Let My People Go" and head for the Promised Land. The Promised Land, in this case, being the town of Galena, right across the Mississippi River in Illinois, where no such restrictions were in place.
When the good people of Galena realized that a herd of dudes named Chester was headed for its borders, they in turn passed their own Draconian residency laws. The next town down the line did the same thing, as did the town after that. A frenzied passing of sex offender residency legislation swept across the entire region and now, presumably, there is a tidal wave of homeless child molesters thousands strong that is going to crash into the Atlantic Ocean at any moment.
Iowa lawmakers reluctantly came to understand that while having sexual predators living in your town is not very appealing, knowing where they live is an important part of policing them and making sure they are controlled and accounted for. Once everyone on the sex offender registry became basically homeless, a good number of them went underground and disappeared off the police radar altogether. The end result: Like a sexually deviant remake of Predator, Iowa is now being stalked by legally invisible child molesters scattered throughout the state. #4.
Fishing Restrictions Mean Smaller Fish
If you happen to be hunting on land, you have to follow some pretty strict permit rules like: Only hunt in designated areas, observe all safety rules and don't slaughter anything that can sing you an adorable song about the forest. So it only make sense that the same should apply for fishing, right?
Nope! Don't you look stupid for assuming that? That's what you get for applying logic, suckers! How Did it Backfire? Fishing restrictions are actually causing the fish to shrink and depopulate. And this isn't some new development either; this has been happening over the past century or so. The average size of cod has gone from 95 centimeters to 65 over the space of 60 years, for example. And while most people were happy to shrug it off, assuming water shrinks fish the same way it makes fools of all men, some scientists suggest we might be the ones actually responsible.
In one study, a batch of Atlantic Silversides were divided up between three tanks. In the first tank, 90 percent of the largest fish were culled; in the second, 90 percent of the smallest fish were culled; and in the third control tank, they culled fish at random (though presumably the ones that "swam like dicks" went first). Counter-intuitively, it turned out that the second tank ended up having larger fish, over longer periods of time. Do you see the reasoning yet? As we're actively removing all the big fish from the ocean, while simultaneously protecting the smaller fish, we're teaching the genetic structure of the fish to favor slow growth. Not only does this mean that we're getting smaller fish to catch, it also means that fish are now taking longer to reach maturity, meaning they're taking longer to repopulate.
In short: We cull the strongest and the largest (the Schwarzenegger fish) while throwing back the weak and sickly (the Steve Gutenberg fish) then when nature sees this shit go down, BAM! Perpetual nerd fish. |
6 People Who Turned a Life of Crime Into Legitimate Careers
6 Ways Your Office Is Literally Killing You
The 5 Most Impractical Aspects of Superhero Costumes
6 Laws That Were Great On Paper (And Insane Everywhere Else)
Sep 2nd: A Day In Cracked History
The 10 Most Important Things They Didn't Teach You In School
6 Japanese Subcultures That Are Insane (Even for Japan)
6 Completely Legal Ways The Cops Can Screw You
6 Insane True Stories Behind The Stage Names of Celebrities
Copyright © 2005 – 2010 Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. CRACKED, CRACKED.COM and the "CRACKED" logo are trademarks owned by Cracked Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved.
If I told you how easy it is to get a job in this recession, you wouldn't believe me. But the truth is more employers are going online to find people just like you and me who are ready to work at a good job (one that pays good!). The only thing that makes sense is to stop wasting time driving around all day filling out a dozen applications and going from one boring low paying job to another. I found this site that pretty much matches you up with your dream job that is available in your city right now. I have found it very helpful. Go to GetMeJobNow.çom
253192
If I told you how easy it is to get a job in this recession, you wouldn't believe me. But the truth is more employers are going online to find people just like you and me who are ready to work at a good job (one that pays good!). The only thing that makes sense is to stop wasting time driving around all day filling out a dozen applications and going from one boring low paying job to another. I found this site that pretty much matches you up with your dream job that is available in your city right now. I have found it very helpful. Go to GetMeJobNow.çom
253192
Mandatory helmet wearing laws for bicycle riders have increased the number of biker fatalities because cars don't drive as far from them as they pass by.
I'm sure there are like a dozen more laws you could find of FAIL.
Actually, there's even one constitutional AMENDMENT that was the biggest f**k up in our country's history. The 19th. (Prohibition).
Oh look, that guys wearing a helmet so I can safely run him off the road now... what kind of crack are you smoking?
If you're the kind of person who runs into every cyclist without a helmet, you're probably not the kind of person who notices other people on the road anyway.
If your family was constantly under siege by the sinister dusky gopher frog or the malevolent dark-tumped petrel, then you were s**t outta luck after '73 when it became illegal to ask them to dance with Big Betty (Big Betty being your shotgun in this strange, strange analogy).
FLAWLESS VICTORY.
Where I live, before the smoking ban, came the tougher laws for drunk driving, and in the time between one another, it made me smoke a lot more, ´cause I´m the one with the car among my friends, and I was always the designated driver, so when I saw everyone drinking beers and all, I´d go like "f**k, let me at least have a cig so I won´t look so lame", haha.
Now seriously, I´m quite the occasional smoker (a pack can last weeks and maybe months in my purse), but the whole "smoke ban in public places" does more harm than good. There´s the drunk driving, and also there´s the decrease in client numbers, ´cause if a group of smokers have to choose between going to a bar and not smoking or buying beers at seven-eleven and drinking it at a parking lot while smoking, I´m sure they´d prefer the parking lot.
My opinion is a smoker client is still a client. The logical thing, to me, would be to divide bars to accomodate both smokers and non-smokers, so both could enjoy their moment, after all, the act of smoking, itself, is not illegal.
Also, the "non-smokers police" ranks second place in the list of the most annoying people ever, right behind vegans.
Smoking sections in bars and restaurants don't work for the wholly obvious reason that smoke doesn't stay in one place and circulates the entire room (and hence everyone inside that rooms' lungs). I'm in the UK and there's a blanket ban on indoor smoking in public establishments, so no matter how far you drive, there's nowhere where you can smoke inside -- problem solved. Nearly all my friends are smokers and nearly all of them support the smoking ban as the benefits (such as a less toxic indoor environment, better working conditions for barstaff and waiters, etc) vastly (VASTLY) outweigh the minor niggle of having to step outside for 5 minutes to have a cig. It's completely unfair to expect people to put up with your unpleasant and noxious habit if they don't share it themselves, especially when they're in an environment such as a restaurant or bar where the main point is to talk, drink and/or eat, not to smoke. Asking people to step outside if they wish to poison themselves (not an issue) and others around them (definitely an issue) isn't an affront on personal freedoms, quite the contrary, it liberates others from being subjected to carcinogens and ensures that barstaff and service workers don't have to put up with the second-hand fumes of their customers' bad lifestyle choices.
The ban extending to private members-only clubs is a bit too far though, imo.
Again, when I see you use words like "unpleasant", "noxious", "poison themselves" and such, I can see you´re not being impartial about it, even though I agree that smoking is bad, and a bad habit.
If the smoking section has enough air circulation and escape, the smoke tends to go away (say, out of the window) than circulate around the room. I say put the smokers on the well-ventilated areas and concentrate the non-smokers on the cozier, not-so-well ventilated areas.
Once again, you forget that customers with bad lifestyle choices are, like you said, customers. I don´t see why a person is allowed to poison him/herself with alcohol in front of everyone but has to be retired from the place altogether to be able to smoke.
Now, if smoking was banned and/or made illegal AT ALL, then I say they have a point. In this case, you´re just discriminating.
No, he's definitely not discriminating. Last I checked, cigarettes were filled with tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT. I can assume when you say he is "discriminating," you mean that he is saying something you find offensive with your lifestyle. Therefore, you're assuming that this is about your lifestyle. Cigarettes are not only bad, they DO have poisons in them, and CAN kill you after a long time of use. But they cause more damage to people around them. This is not a matter of identity and lifestyle, but a matter of facts.
Exhaust fan in the ceiling above the smoking section. Solves the problem and the b***hing from h**o's. Win.
I'm a pack and a half a day smoker and I was outraged to hear that I couldn't smoke in a bar anymore! OUTRAGED!! Then I started going to bars and after a couple of weeks I was stoked! It really is a whole lot nicer to be in a place without a cloud of smoke in it in my opinion. However, I feel that this shouldn't have to be made into a law to be effective. It should be a completely independent decision on the part of the bar/restaurant/what have you's decision on the benefits of having a smoking or non smoking establishment. Most places have ways of getting around the law such as smoking patios or rooms that aren't rooms (technically a room with only 3 walls and a disconnected ceiling is still legal to smoke in; so an open patio with a solid awning and good ac/heat is fine). It's not a huge issue with me anymore anyway since I live in Texas now and there isn't the chill of Missouri's winter. Just one thing though: our government/economy is supposed to be based on the principal of Laisse Faire which is essentially: "The Government can't tell me how to run my business as long as I'm not doing anything illegal." As another commenter pointed out: smoking is legal. Q.E.D.
↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑hehe,ple ase copy my user name ,get my e-page↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
The cool sexy summer style for you
we got lots brand summer t-shirt (b a g) (s n e a k e r) (s a n d l e) (s u n g l a s s) (c a p s) etc...
All famous brand and hot (style)!!
[n i k e ] [ j o r d a n ] [s u p r a ] [S h o x ] [P u m a ] PRICE 35 U S D
[l v ] [c o a c h ] [p r a d a ] [c h a n e l] [g u c c i] [ h a n d-b a g] 33U S D
[c h a n e l] [g u c c i] (p u r s e) 15U S D
[D & G] s u n g l a s s e s U S D
(new e-r-a c-a-p) 10 U S D
p a y p a l Accept,Door to Door
The no smoking in bars thing actually works in australia, it's always warm here and stepppin outside is a nice break from the music and noise.
Not in Melbourne at this time of the year mate. It hasn't gone above 10 degrees in about 2 months and most of the places I drink at won't let you take your drinks outside after about midnight. So we're all huddled in a freezing, beerless circle while having a cigarette.
I remember when home computers were just starting to gain in popularity, and one of the reasons they were touted as being so extra-super-fantastic is that they would reduce the amount of paperwork, due to all the information being stored digitally. Less paper = more trees! YAY! Well, we know how that has worked out. The f**ktons of digitally-stored information doesn't seem to have reduced paper usage by even a fraction of a percent. What happened to those dreams of a nearly paperless society?
Regarding endangered animals, once their numbers start to increase again and they reach some completely arbitrary number (decided by whom? How? Why?), they are taken off the list. What is the point, when all it means is that they will be hunted again? Many times, even those that are on the list receive no real protection at all. There are only 42 Mexican gray wolves left in the wild, and measures to protect them have been highly inadequate. It is too late for these animals, as it will be for many others.
Oh. The part about the wolves might actually be my fault. I totally RAPED Mexico for wolves on my first playthrough of Red Dead Redemption.. Blame it on the achievements!
f**king achievements making us kill all of the nice animals.
== w w w . ccshopping . u s ===
The new update, a large hot ..
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT.
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
== w w w . ccshopping . u s ==
$########!!!!!!!!!
I entered == w w w . ccshopping . u s === in my adress bar but it's not working.
also, what is this PYAPAL PAYMENT thing you speak of?
you do know that nobody on this site is actually buying your stuff, right?
I just want to know where I can buy this "Large Hot" I have heard so much about.
Fun article, but the one about the fish size is totally bogus. Think about it- if you have a fishtank where you cull 90% of the smallest fish, then the next time you do it, the 10% that are left will no longer be small, so of course you will wind up with larger fish. Have you ever played the Popcap aquarium game?
Uhh... It's kind of a "Natural Selection" thing. If you cull the smaller fish and let the bigger fish reproduce, the bigger fishes will be the winners, and thus will pass on their genetic code. It's not about who get's culled: It's about who get's to have sex and reproduce.
They're not talking about culling once and then counting. They're talking about letting the tank fill up with fish (fish sex and all), and then culling; letting it fill up and then culling again, and repeating several times. Then letting it fill up once more and counting the newly repopulated fish.
Thought it was an interesting article, the fish section was confusing though, because the author didn't actually specify which part of the law in question was screwing things up.
I agree he didn't cover that but I assume it's because fisherman can only keep so many fish they want to keep the bigger ones so they throw back the little nerdlings leading to a higher proportion of tiny ones.
If I recall correctly, there's a restriction on how small a fish you can take. So if it's too small, you have to put it back. It's supposed to keep fishermen from taking all the babies that would otherwise grow up to reproduce.
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sugarmommamatch. C O M ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
An attractive woman in her 30's or 40's who is on the hunt once again. She may be found in the usual hunting grounds:
nightclubs, bars, beaches, etc. She will not play the usual B.S. games that women in their early twenties participate in. End state,
she will be going for the kill, just like you. Associated with milfs...
Little detail on the smoking issue being oh-so-conveniently forgotten: it's not just a question of 'public health' as that a vague notion of potentially reducing in the far future by xx% the number of lung cancer cases reported, it's a question of forcing people who don't smoke to put up with a nearly unbreathable atmosphere whenever they go to any bar or restaurant. Sure, where I live and before the ban took place, restaurants and commercial establishments in general could theoretically choose to be smoke-free - but in practice in a country where culture dictactes that you, as a non-smoker, almost have to ask for forgiveness for your puny waste through breathing of perfectly good cigarette-combusting oxygen, that was a choice between staying or not staying in business.
Having to put up with someone else's addiction ruining my good times and oftentimes forcing me to go outside to get some breathable air and keep my recently eaten meal inside my digestive tract, and being the one who would look bad on the picture for showing my discontentment for it, was downright revolting. Bonus points for not even finding refuge at work; had you a colleague who smoked a pack a day and you would be pretty much screwed (I've seen this happen). This law for me and basically every non-smoker was like a gift from the heavens -- and I'm not even religious.
Or you could find a smoke-free bar. There were plenty of them before the ban. You also have to consider that the larger majority of bar dwellers smoke while drinking, even if they aren't smokers else where. (And no, I don't smoke at all.)
Oh my God, I never thought I´d say this, ´cause I´m a fierce activist of my own causes, but what a pointless whining!
I smoke once in a while, usually when I´m out (and having a drink, it really does come together), but I´m in no way a heavy smoker. I know the admission of this won´t get my point across, but I have friends that smoke a lot more than I do, and I have a cousin that smokes like a chimney, and in no way being around them has rendered me in a "nearly unbreatheable atmosphere". Small nightclubs can do that for you, ´cause you got a load of people crampled in a tiny dance floor spot, but in bars and restaurants there´s usually enough space for the fog to dissipate. Besides, people are so keen on treating smokers like they are pedophiles or perverts or such. It´s a vice like any other, and some of them don´t quit it ´cause they simply don´t have the strength too, ´cause smoking is usually connected to an emotional need, as in, you smoke when you´re stressed out to relax.
Bottom line, what I was trying to say is smoking is a vice, and yes, it´s bad for you and causes cancer and people that do should quit it, but smoking doesn´t create the dystopian atmosphere you´re complaining about. And also, smokers don´t force you to ask for forgiveness for disliking their horrible habit. Actually, I´m quite embarassed to smoke in front of my non-smoking friends, who give me quite hell about it, even though they like to have their beers in their free time too. Smoking IS NOT illegal, after all, so why should we feel like criminals?
You forgot #1 the freaking drug war. You must be lost.
(accidental double post)
f**k my life, accidental triple post. Death to your slow-to-register posting system, cracked.
No kidding. I was shocked to see anything other than that at #1.
"Paperwork reduction act"? Really?
LMFAO!
This article should have been called "Six Perfectly Sensible Laws that Human Stupidity f**ked Up". That would be much more accurate.
I completely agree.
A law that sometimes violates private property rights is not Orwellian. Give me a break.
#3 is more that capitalists are evil and that you can't protect animals and allow humans to run rampant over the Earth at the same time. And yeah, capitalism is pretty much that. I'd say we were a plague species if we actually went away and let the ecosystem recover for a while.
Do us a favor and go leave first then
However, catch & release is the dumbest idea anyone has ever come up with, and it wreaks havoc on fish populations.
Fishing restrictions means worse fish populations? Bulls**t. Three reasons:
1. A larger fish is not necessarily a healthier or more adapted fish. Much the same way that the average Cracked writer's ideal penis wouldn't be getting any action - it doesn't function; it won't fit; and larger penises invariably have less sensation. In evolutionary terms, smaller is better and more functional. This is why your average dairy-eater is doing the Retard Flaildance every time they hear someone say the words "I'm vegan", despite their supposedly better ('cause they're BIGGER, mommy!) brains.
2. Ditto on the population size. Actually, it's far more likely that the overall health of fish populations has declined with heavy fishing, because of the general effect stress has on health and the proper functioning of genetics and because large birth/hatching rates have a very haphazard effect on genetics and their usefulness - diseases, birth defects, retardation, etc. goes up. Yes, you can ALSO tie this to human populations - because retardation, birth defects, and congenital and contagious diseases happen primarily in species populations that are overcrowded and overbred, it ain't lookin' too good for us, either.
3. At the same time the fishing restrictions have been put into place, dumping has increased, as has pollution, foot traffic, and general asshattery.
If you're a smoker and you decide to go fruitarian and your heart disease is cured, it wasn't the smoking that did it, sweetheart.
Who the f**k do you think you are? They used SCIENCE to figure this out about the fish, not you're retarded conjecturing. Small fish will be eaten more regularly by the surrounding predators. The basic genetic concept is solid, though the explanation seen here is likely inaccurate. It's not so much that their dna is intentionally making the fish smaller so we'll release them, it's that we REMOVE the large fish and effectively the Genome FOR large fish. Who f**king cares how efficient they are, large fish provide more meat, which is the WHOLE reason the laws were in place, only kill a fish that will feed you. When they came up with that, they thought it would help to stem the reduction in population by keeping people from catching 8 small fish to get a decent few days meal. Back then they thought god handed out babies with diapers already on them, so you'll have to forgive their lack of for sight.
Your idea of the effects of high birth rate on defects is just f**king stupid. That would only occur in a small area where the fish couldn't migrate and diversify. If that was the problem, the study would have come to that conclusion. pollution and contamination sure, I agree it has an impact. Foot traffic? Why the hell would fish care?
What ever the f**k you were saying about not eating the foods our bodies have become used to over MILLIONS OF YEARS you can just shove right back up your own improperly nourished ass. Plenty of animals would eat you, so I have no idea why anyone would think animals don't deserve to be eaten. They eat each other. WE'RE ANIMALS. Deal with it. Just because we're smart doesn't mean were pink magic jesus monkeys. We fart and fight and f**k just like the rest of our ANIMAL BROTHERS. DELICIOUS DELICIOUS FAMILY.
distorionfile is correct.
I should also like to agree with him about the "We are animals" part. It never ceases to amaze me how many people out there refuse to accept that we are part of the animal kingdom. They somehow think we are above it all. They wilfully ignore the facts and empirical evidence, chosing instead to point at the religious book of their own faith and claim "We ARE different, Jesus/ Allah/ Tom Cruise tells me so!"
Oh, and fyi distortionfile, the word you meant to use is "foresight", not "for sight", though I got your drift anyway :)
Peace out.
How many people do you know who are omnivores? I highly doubt all of them are so concerned about your vegan diet, so perhaps it's your attitude about it? Perhaps implying we are all idiots who are too dumb to notice the perfection of veganism is getting the way of your message. Also, yes, bigger brains do often indicate higher intelligence, but that is when comparing species to species. That my meat-loving brain might be a few grams heavier than yours is meaningless.
Considering I live in an extremely liberal city filled to bursting with all kinds of hippies, and considering my own little sis is a vegetarian, I am going to go with you being a bit of an ass over all meat-eaters getting their panties in a twist because of what you eat.
And what the hell is that last bit? If you quit smoking AND go "fruitarian" then you can't say one action cured the heart disease just because it's the side you like better. That is a classic scientific f**k-up known as multiple variables; picking one at random doesn't make it right.