>>>Overboard for sure. But at least not "real" police wasting time on such crap.
>>>
>>>I always thought the 'no eating or drinking' was the same as 'no food or drink'... to save the mess left behind by such stuff. Shoving the last bit in your mouth before entering AND dumping the wrapper properly wouldn't qualify as an offense to me. I wonder how they handle gum chewing?????
>>
>>I think there's more to it than that. I know I've felt nauseous because of people on transit eating something like a McD burger that smells to the high heavens. Why should I or anyone else have to be subjected to the ignorant arrogance of those who have no sense of courtesy. I also think they should crack down on the idiots with their earphones leaking noise that you can hear a dozen seats away. Also, the people (men and women) who don't seem to understand that perfumes and colognes are not marinades. Sorry Jim, but somebody should be cracking down on this ignorant behaviour because the ignorant won't police themselves. I could also include the gum crackers (almost always women). But as you say, this is just 'crap' that nobody should be concerned about. So the ignorant have rights and the transit system should just ignore them because they might be embarrassed? If I ask them to alter their behaviour, I am at best ignored, at worst sworn at as if I've really overstepped my bounds by
>>even remarking on it. So who then. I take it, in your opinion, nobody.
>
>No, not nobody, but me and you and everyone else while they are just part of the society and not in uniform doing their duties to serve and protect.
>I know that I do my bit on the things that really bug me. Off the top of my head they are things like busting into lines, more than x items at the "express" cashier, littering.
>I've learned to ignore a whole lot of the things you mention, mainly because they have little/no real impact on me. I don't care if people eat stinky stuff on a bus or subway, but I do want them to clean up after themselves. I don't care if someone bathed in perfume before getting on the bus because it's not worth worrying about. I move away from rubbies who stink of piss and haven't bathed in a month. I guess it comes down to a couple of simple things:
>1) I don't expect everyone to be just like me;
>2) A person has a right to eat or wear perfume and generally live the way they want to live and not the way I think they should comport themselves.
>I have a real problem with people who get a surrogate to do the dirty work they ought to do themselves if they really have a problem with something. My sister's neighbour regarding the cat, for example. Imagine 5 visits by cops yet my sister still has no idea of what the problem is!?!?
>I have a real problem with someone who can't apply common sense to any given situation. Like the article TracyH cited about arresting the candy bar lady. Or zero tolerance including expelling a kid for bring aspirin to school.
>
>I guess it's clear by now that I believe I have much more control regarding my surroundings than you do coupled with infinitely higher tolerance than you're willing to allow. I don't need cops or enforcers taking care of the little stuff. I'll either put up with it or address it myself.

That's only because you are thinking only of yourself. There are a lot of people out there, for example who have allergies to perfume. My mother is one. Expose her to perfume and she has migranes all day. You call it 'little stuff', but the little stuff is not only part of the big picture, it is what eventually creates it.

As the 'little stuff' is allowed to accumulate, society becomes ever more unliveable. Small courtesies lead to large courtesies and small discourtesies lead to large discourtesies; just as small acts of ignoring the law lead to larger acts of ignoring the law. As long as we say, "This doesn't matter to me, so therefore it doesn't matter at all", we are allowing our society to devolve.

Giuliani had it right in New York. Quash the little stuff, and the big stuff will take care of itself.

As a matter of interest, when you berate someone for butting in line and they ignore you, what do you do, pull a gun? Start a fight?

>I think you should try the same.

If you mean an anarchy where each citizen is allowed to decided for him/herself which laws matter and which do not, and for cops to make the same sorts of decisions (this law matters; this other law doesn't matter), then sorry, I disagree. The job of a cop is to enforce the law. If it's a law you think doesn't matter, then tough. It's still the cop's job to enforce it.

Is that what you do at work? You are given a list of things to do and you pick and choose which ones of those things to ignore as you are asking the cops to do?

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>The "officers" sound more like failed cop recruits who were just itching to lord some authority over someone, somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't know which is worse: spitting, eating french fries, talking too loudly, or what next?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22456-2004Jul28.html
>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55325-2004Sep27.html
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Here in the U.S. I think they always just assume there IS a gun on the premises. They should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And I imagine they are usually right. Guns in homes here are not the norm. Although you just gave me an odd thought. In the type of domestic dispute that would require police intervention, I wonder what the stats are on there being a gun in the home or not. After all, those people would also not represent the norm in our society. I suspect there are no such stats available - especially when the gun, if there is one at all, isn't used during the dispute. I also suspect that the incidence of guns existing in those homes would be higher than in normal society, but that might just be my own prejudices speaking. Interesting thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I suspect there are figures somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've read that in the bigger cities the gun regisrty is checked before attending any domestic disputes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That's what I was saying before. If the gun registry has done nothing else, it has at least given the police a hint about what they might find when they have to go out on a call.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Unlikely. The registry was a huge expenditure for little gain. The police would be fools to rely on it. There is nothing keeping it accurate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If it's inacurate, then it's only because so called 'law abiding citizens' are breaking the law.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Exactly why it should never have been made. Doesn't stop crime.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I doubt that any reasonable person expected it to stop crime. It's supposed to be a tool to help law enforcement entities, and to some extent, I think it does. Certainly, it was insanely mismanaged. It should never have cost anything approaching what it did, but then, it was a government project, after all. Also, it faced a lot of battles because of people using the specious argument that it wouldn't stop crime. If everything we did depended on 'stopping crime', we'd never get anything done. Nothing we can ever do will stop crime. We can lock people up and throw away the key; we can spend millions on education and grass roots projects; we can bring back the death penalty. If the criteria is 'will it stop crime', then there is no point in bothering with any of it. May as well just leave things as they are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Exactly! Humans are far from perfect. Trying to shoehorn them into these ridiculous systems is bound to fail. Funny how none of the so-called government goes to jail for mismanaging OUR money. They spent all that money on a gun registry and now they're going to ban guns. So much for the need of the registry! It's a stupid joke!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree entirely about the stupidity of a statement about 'banning guns'. It's not enforceable, who what's the point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What we need is for some realism. Too many laws and registries and zero-tolerance policies is just as bad as anarchy. When you can't spit without being arrested, remember this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Personally, I think a gun registry is just one place to start. We need tougher laws for persons who just guns in commission of a crime. For that matter I think we need tougher laws for any crime. We also need to do something about our constant need to pave over recreation sites to create shopping malls. We need to beef up the relevance of education to future hopefully useful citizens. We need to make parents more accountable for the actions of their children. We need to do a lot of things. The gun registry is only one small part of it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I still want to know what the government should do. Never make laws about anything because they won't 'stop crime'? Is that really a valid criteria? It's the argument that is always used, so I guess it must, in some persons minds, be a valid criteria for lawmaking. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I think the government has a responsibility to try to mitigate crime, and if they can with a law, then the law they create to do it is valid in my eyes. We have laws against robbery, and murder. Those don't stop robbery and murder. Should they be repealed as worthless?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, it's already a crime to spit on the sidewalk.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, here's the crime!
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2001-07-19/news_story.html