Ok, so some things in the golden era were not too cool...

[tonyb]

I don't know about that, Man. You start to smoke a little dope and before you know it that weekly haircut doesn't seem so important anymore. Pretty soon you've traded your suit and tie for a tie-dye tee shirt and jeans, your wingtips for birkenstocks, and your old-spice for patchouli oil.

You seriously don't think drugs played a part in the terminal casualization of American society? It all started with the '60s counter-culture, of which of course drugs played no small part.

You're paying attention only to that which makes your case, and ignoring that which doesn't.

You aren't looking to be taken seriously, of course. Even I ain't so humorless not to recognize that. But I still say that it's the diminished blood nicotine levels to blame for the "casualization of American society."

Oh, and if that casualization is "terminal," does that mean it will soon be dead and the day is coming when we'll be wearing coats and ties to bed?

 

[tonyb]

This was in the seventies. I was in my twenties, clean shaven, short hair (by the standards of the times) dressed in jeans, plaid shirt and suede jacket and carrying a Bell helmet. Dressed at least as well as the other patrons. Riding a perfectly stock BSA 650 twin. They would have served me without question if I showed up in a car. This happened more than once.

One time I was accompanied by a 70 year old man, also on a motorcycle, and it was the same story. This was at a time when the Hell's Angels and Satan's Choice were getting a lot of press and motorcycles were not popular.

Oddly enough, in those days I never had any trouble with the cops who were civil and professional. These days they all seem to be of sub normal intelligence and addicted to Rambo movies and a lot harder to deal with.

Where'd this happen?

 

[Stanley Doble]

It happened in rural and small town Ontario, Canada.

The 70 year old motorcyclist was George Ventress. A quick search turned up this article about one of his bikes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-the-dirty-thirties-superbike/article4617975/

I drove this outfit and rode in the sidecar. But when we went for a ride, he usually took one of his home built specials. Like a Henderson with a Toyota car engine and automatic transmission. He called it the VMW Special for Ventress Motor Works. I contributed the decals for the gas tank, a set of Harley footboards and a few other odds and ends. He built it in his shop behind the house.

 

[Matt Crunk]

Of course. But does it also mean that when the neighbor's pursuit of happiness involves loud late night parties and a fleet of inoperable vehicles in his yard that my rights -- to peaceful enjoyment of my own life, and to undiminished property values -- aren't being violated?

The consideration has always been where one's nose begins. And how "directly or adversely" another's rights are violated. A violation may well be "indirect" but still quite profound.

Loud music, yes. If your neighbor's music is so loud that if affects your right to a quiet evening at home, that's a clear violation of YOUR rights.

However, the way I see it, unless your neighborhood had a covenant that you both agreed to before moving in, then if your neighbor chooses to turn his property into a junkyard, your only options are to: live with it, move, buy him out, or build a privacy fence or hedgerow to block the view.

Sorry, but I grew up in the rural South where a man could put up just about anything on his own property without needing permission from anyone. That's why down here it's not uncommon to see million dollar mansions next door to pig farms.

 

[Stanley Doble]

George was a character. One of his jokes was to wash out a 2 stroke motorcycle oil bottle and fill it with pancake syrup. When we stopped at restaurants we would pour the syrup in our coffee. We got some funny looks lol.

 

[tonyb]

So there is context to consider? And that absolutes are (and always have been) elusive?

The young guy across the street from my place inherited the house from his dad, who had in turn inherited it from his dad. Young guy's dad had a series of strokes a few years ago which left him in need of round-the-clock care. Young guy moved into house. In the back yard, behind a 6-foot privacy fence, was something like 17 dead Pontiacs in various states of decay. Two others were planted out front. Young guy tells me that his dad had been in a years-long tussle with the city over his code violations.

I'm not one to get too exercised about such things. I figure that having junk collections around here gives those inclined to look down their noses somebody other than me upon whom to aim those noses. But we do have municipal codes limiting the number of inoperable vehicles one may keep in a residential area. I know of no one clamoring to overturn those laws. And I strongly suspect that if it were ever to come to a popular vote, an overwhelming majority would vote to uphold the ordinance. Maybe it's different where you are.

Thing is, even around here, people keeping dead motor vehicles on their property, in violation of local laws, is not at all unusual. I could cite at least a couple of other examples. We're on the outer reaches of a large metropolitan area, and lots of people around here have been around here since this was still countryside. The code enforcement people are mindful of that, and their enforcement tactics are rarely heavy-handed. People can stretch this stuff out for years. It appears that often the matter is resolved as it was in the case cited here: the code violator either dies or goes off to the rest home and his kids clean up the mess.

 

[Matt Crunk]

I understand the need for municipal codes, neighborhood covenants, homeowner associations and the like. But like I said, as a product of growing up in the rural South where those things didn't exist, I just have a hard time with the notion of anyone telling me what I can and cannot do or have on my own property. If I want to build a garage, a barn, or even a new house, in my mind the only question should be, can I afford it?

I recently lived in a larger city for over 10 years, so I've dealt with all those things. But as of now, I currently live inside the city limits of a very small rural town with no zoning or building restrictions on my property.

 

[Vintage lover]

My situation has always been like the one Matt described. Growing up, nobody cared what was on your property. My Mom kept a meticulous lawn while my neighbor didn't. We weren't paying his bills, or having to live there, so we just carried on. We had our land, he had his, and his wife would exchange recipes and his son would play with me. We had houses so we could do what we wished with them.

As far as race goes, it was never an issue I really saw. Interracial marriage is very common here, and I have dated people of many races. Nobody bats an eye when two people of different races walk arm in arm through the mall or anywhere else. My father was of German ancestry, and my mother is Hispanic, and I was always told to identify as Hispanic/Latino on forms because that gave me special treatment. On one hand I didn't care, ancestry is just a hobby to me, but on the other hand getting special treatment because of my race made no sense. If I get hired somewhere or accepted into an institution, I want it to be on my merits. I didn't earn or work to achieve my race or sex. If somebody wants to refuse me service because of my race, sex, or sexual preference, I don't want to give them my money or time anyway, I want to give their competitor my money and patronage.

 

[Vintage lover]

Btw thank you for calling me a fair minded person, I believe that you are one as well and that your goals are noble.

 

[Zombie_61]

...Or should a would-be employer be free not to hire a person for whatever reason he pleases?

Do you believe they're not already? Yes, in some cases employers might be forced to employ someone not of their own choosing because of some arbitrary quota mandated by their state government, local government, or someone in a higher position within the organization, but otherwise said employer has any one of a number of legitimate excuses they can use for not hiring a specific job applicant regardless of whether or not those excuses are the truth.

...Yes, I might have smoked a joint or two in my younger years, but have always found those who depend on it to get through their day to be absolutely pathetic.

Surely you would make exceptions for those who have legitimate medical reasons for using marijuana on a daily basis? They are admittedly in the minority among those who use daily, but they do exist.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We have pretty strict zoning here, and have for many years -- and we like it that way. Our streets are narrow and our houses are built very close together, and zoning is pretty much the only way to keep public nuisances from getting out of control. And I say this as someone who lives next to a hundred-year-old commercial junkyard.

My only complaint is that the code officer is too concerned about what goes on in the la-de-dah part of town to bother with those of us who live on the wrong side of the tracks. People park four or five cars in front of their houses in lieu of a dooryard -- most houses in my neighborhood are less than ten feet from the street -- and as a result the street itself is often congested to the point where it's nearly impossible to drive down it. Complaints have been made, but as soon as the code officer's back is turned, these idiots go right back to doing it again. Every week there are several near-miss accidents, and eventually someone's going to get hurt. That's a good example of "your rights" ending where the public safety and convenience begins.

The overall philosophy in the Northeast has always been built on a communitarian foundation. It's hard to live here -- it's cold, the soil is unproductive, and people tend to be packed close together. If we all start insisting on our "rights" at the expense of our neighbors, things will get hostile really fast. You can always tell the people from away by how long it takes them to figure this out.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You're paying attention only to that which makes your case, and ignoring that which doesn't.

You aren't looking to be taken seriously, of course. Even I ain't so humorless not to recognize that. But I still say that it's the diminished blood nicotine levels to blame for the "casualization of American society."

Oh, and if that casualization is "terminal," does that mean it will soon be dead and the day is coming when we'll be wearing coats and ties to bed?

We must've all been a lot of dopers here -- the only time any man in my family ever wore a tie was for marrying and burying. Work clothes, heavy brogans, and red-and-black checkered wool jackets were the everyday norm for as far back as our family photos go.

I'm less concerned with the influence drugs have on clothing habits than with their tendency to land their users in psychiatric hospitals or worse. They might be "weak individuals" who some think deserve their fate, but every one of them is a human being, someone's son or daughter, father or mother, co-worker or friend, and every one of them, for better or worse, is part of the community we all live in.

 

[Matt Crunk]

Surely you would make exceptions for those who have legitimate medical reasons for using marijuana on a daily basis? They are admittedly in the minority among those who use daily, but they do exist.

Yes, I was speaking of recreational users only. Medicinal user get a free pass, and more power to them if they genuinely need it.

 

[dh66]

I can understand Matt's frustration with the substance addled. I have known a lot of people in my lifetime who have stumbled on that path and gotten lost. I totally 100% believe in an individuals right to make his or her own choices, and this includes how to take the edge off a day (or life) that is cutting to the bone, but I know guys, intelligent creative guys who I consider good friends, who can't start the morning without a few tokes of s joint. It's frustrating to see people you care about not living to their full potential. I have also known more than my share of folks who have left behind grieving loved ones because of their habits. Over time and being around enough of this idiocy can sour your perspective toward it.
But, as Lizzie reminds us, they are all still people, with families somewhere. And we all probably have our share in our own circles of family and friends.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've always firmly believed that the solution to any problem or crisis isn't masking it behind temporary escapes like liquor or drugs. It's taking unified action to get rid of what's causing that problem. If you're poor, in pain, frustrated with your life, held back by The Man, or whatever, you're going to be even poorer, in more pain, more frustrated, and more held back once the dope wears off. Drugs and booze are a fraud, a false solution to real problems, and give only the illusion of escape. In reality they tighten your shackles with every drop, every puff, every hit you take.

 

[dh66]

Well, while I can't condone, I can certainly understand some of the reasons that lead people down that road. There, but for the grace of God, go I, I have to remind myself.


Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

 

[Stanley Doble]

But someone who is addicted to liquor or drugs is not able to make a conscious choice. There is an old principle in law that we are all responsible for our actions, with exceptions for children and those who are incapable due to disease, injury, or by nature, or who are incapacitated by liquor or drugs. In fact you can get out of a contract if you were under the influence when you signed it, on the grounds that you were not in your right mind.

That being the case, it does not violate anybody's rights to regulate the use and sale of alcohol or drugs. In fact, if some big chemical company or drug company invented liquor today, I doubt there is a government in the world that would allow it to be sold for human consumption, knowing what we know of its harmful side effects.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I know I've said it before but I've always had a problem with the idea that drug or alcohol addiction is a "disease" because if it is then it's the only disease I can think of that's self-inflicted. Because once upon a time those who are addicted made the conscious decision to drink or do drugs.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I understand the need for municipal codes, neighborhood covenants, homeowner associations and the like. But like I said, as a product of growing up in the rural South where those things didn't exist, I just have a hard time with the notion of anyone telling me what I can and cannot do or have on my own property. If I want to build a garage, a barn, or even a new house, in my mind the only question should be, can I afford it?

I recently lived in a larger city for over 10 years, so I've dealt with all those things. But as of now, I currently live inside the city limits of a very small rural town with no zoning or building restrictions on my property.

But you agree that what you do on your property affects the value of your neighbors' property, right? I live in the fourth largest city in the country, and there are no zoning laws. The only thing that keeps someone from opening up a junkyard or an adult movie theater in their house next door to you in your residential neighborhood are local HOAs.

 

[HudsonHawk]

But someone who is addicted to liquor or drugs is not able to make a conscious choice.

That's absurd. Even if you believe in the disease concept, the number one rule is that while you may not be responsible for the disease, you DO have the power and responsibility to stay sober.