Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I speak specifically of the poor babies with neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS.)
The opiate addicted mothers are taken under the wing of the DHHS and given all the freebies. The NAS infants are carefully weaned off the opiates for weeks in the Peds ward while momma goes off to get her daily fix at the methadone maintenance clinic. She then takes her baby home to bring up.
It is very sad. There are always NAS infants on the 5th floor of EMMC. These babies grow up to be developmentally challenged. This scenario is so wrong on so many levels.
I have seen a lot of this and do not really know the answers. Society as a whole, must start setting priorities. Smoking around kids is stupid, but legislating stupidity???
Unfortunately I fully believe the correspondence amounts to an in one ear and out the other type of scenario.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I have better luck with responses I get back from the news media. My most recent email to them was a bit of a rant about a statement that said the only 2 republicans running for Prez. I'm a Ron Paul fan and this was at the beginning of February.. sigh.. I feel so unrepresented and unheard by my government. It's as if I don't exist sometimes.
I think it's very very very sad that any state would have to impose laws that enforce things that should be COMMON SENSE, HELLO. I mean really; why would you NOT wear a seat belt? Why would you NOT turn your lights on when the weather's crappy? Is there some altruistic reason, religion, allergic reaction? Why?
Additionally, laws like the proposed novelty lighter one wouldn't be necessary if people actually paid attention to their kids once in a while. Or perhaps, TALKED to them and TAUGHT them that lighters are bad. Too much to ask? I mean really, a little responsibility and education would go a long way towards being able to make these types of laws a thing of the past.
I feel that helmets should be used on motorcycles too; another one of those common-sense things, but obviously the feel of the wind in their hair is apparently more interesting to them than the potential feel of their face-skin being scraped across the pavement. I don't know, heh.
I have no problem with taxing the heck out of things like cigarrettes and alcohol; I don't do either so it wouldn't affect me. I empty my pockets when I fill my tank with gas, so even if I wanted to I couldn't afford it!
Gah, I've got to stop now; I get kind of fired up with topics like this. No pun intended.
darsa you make some good points about "common sense" and i agree on most of your points, however when government starts to legislate behavior, i get very uncomfortable..
i think its "common sense" to notify parents, when thier daughter is going for an abortion, (in some states thier are laws against this)
i think its "common sense" that if i confront an intruder in my house, and he starts waving a knife at me,(or my family) i should be able to blow him away with a gun(there's been a drumbeat for years, of gun-control laws)
i think its common sense, that if someone buys a coffee, they know its "hot" yet someone sue'd mcdonalds, and won a big settlemnt.. and we wonder why insurance premiums are so high (frivilous lawsuits)
its common sense to me, that any physically able person on welfare should be working, so the people that really need it, get more!
its common sense, that admitted and convicted killers shouldnt be kept in prisons where it costs us 40-50k a yr to keep them incarcerated, one small bullet would save lots of money
its common sense to me, that the congress should not have the golden parachute retirement package they have!!
its common sense to me that "illegal" aliens,,,,should not be given drivers license, or welfare...go to mexico, see what they do with illegal immigrants..
its common sense to me, that the media trumpets any liberal special interest group, to hault any development in maine(ex. plum creek)
and i think its "common sense" that o.j. is guilty,(of the murders) yet the "common sense" of that jury thought otherwise
to address the smoking issue, i grew up in a smoking house, many of our parents were allowed to smoke at work,,,,that was the norm,(and yes i think its stupid) however, thru the years,, smokers have respected most of the norms, no one lights up in someone elses house anymore,(that i see) (always go outside)
i dont see anyone lighting up at outside school sports events,,,like they did when i was in high school, no more in restaurants, or any public business, or office,,(which is a good thing) tho i have mixed feelings about it when it comes to bars/clubs, i do believe a smoking allowed bar should be legal,(let the market decide),those that dont smoke, dont have to go..
thiers always been a balance between civil liberties and government llegislation,,,but you gotta be careful,,,eroding liberties (because of common sense) can undermine the very basis, of how this country was created
darsa you make some good points about "common sense" and i agree on most of your points, however when government starts to legislate behavior, i get very uncomfortable..
i think its "common sense" to notify parents, when thier daughter is going for an abortion, (in some states thier are laws against this)
i think its "common sense" that if i confront an intruder in my house, and he starts waving a knife at me,(or my family) i should be able to blow him away with a gun(there's been a drumbeat for years, of gun-control laws)
i think its common sense, that if someone buys a coffee, they know its "hot" yet someone sue'd mcdonalds, and won a big settlemnt.. and we wonder why insurance premiums are so high (frivilous lawsuits)
its common sense to me, that any physically able person on welfare should be working, so the people that really need it, get more!
its common sense, that admitted and convicted killers shouldnt be kept in prisons where it costs us 40-50k a yr to keep them incarcerated, one small bullet would save lots of money
its common sense to me, that the congress should not have the golden parachute retirement package they have!!
its common sense to me that "illegal" aliens,,,,should not be given drivers license, or welfare...go to mexico, see what they do with illegal immigrants..
its common sense to me, that the media trumpets any liberal special interest group, to hault any development in maine(ex. plum creek)
and i think its "common sense" that o.j. is guilty,(of the murders) yet the "common sense" of that jury thought otherwise
to address the smoking issue, i grew up in a smoking house, many of our parents were allowed to smoke at work,,,,that was the norm,(and yes i think its stupid) however, thru the years,, smokers have respected most of the norms, no one lights up in someone elses house anymore,(that i see) (always go outside)
i dont see anyone lighting up at outside school sports events,,,like they did when i was in high school, no more in restaurants, or any public business, or office,,(which is a good thing) tho i have mixed feelings about it when it comes to bars/clubs, i do believe a smoking allowed bar should be legal,(let the market decide),those that dont smoke, dont have to go..
thiers always been a balance between civil liberties and government llegislation,,,but you gotta be careful,,,eroding liberties (because of common sense) can undermine the very basis, of how this country was created
Excellent post. I tried to rep you but got the "spread it around" message.
Fetal alcohol syndrome was a large problem up until a few years ago in our school systems. We still see it, but it is infrequent now. Once a parent sees the effect they tell their friends and encourage any pregnant relatives not to do what they did. When mom is in the bottle through her pregnancy it ruins the kid's life. It's as simple as that.
Late to this thread but still want to put in my 2 cents and then some...
Caveat- I smoke (and have since I was about 7 years old), I drink (and at one time might have been considered an alcoholic) and I ride a motorcycle (frequently sans helmet). I choose to engager in these behaviors despite the possible risks associated with them.
The fact is, that we all make choices about what types of activities to engage in, and many of us choose to engage in activities that are perfectly legal but present a risk of severe injury or death to ourselves and others.
Many of us drive cars, and accidents happen. Some are predictable and preventable while others are not. But people are injured or die (and not always the person who caused it).
Some people fly planes, which crash, and people die.
Skydiving, scuba diving, racing, mountain climbing...a long list of activities which subject people to the risk of injury and death, including spectators, bystanders or rescuers who might be trying to save a person who has gotten himself into trouble while performing the activity.
The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights were designed to protect our individual rights to choose for ourselves with minimal governmental interference, not to have the government choose for us. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, nor should it be.
When I was still a minor, I excercised *my* right to choose to engage in an activity that presented significant (actualized) risk to life and limb. That choice was to enlist in the military and swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". I have never renounced this oath and it is my considered opinion that these "laws" represent nothing less than a treasonous attack on the Rights embodied and enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I agree that, as a society, some laws are necessary for the preservation of that society. A society with *no* laws would not last very long. However, an attempt to legislate every nuance of our personal lives in a [claimed] attempt to "protect" us from ourselves is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a slippery slope into the sort of society envisioned by George Orwell in his book "1984". Where does it end?
We MUST preserve our right to choose, even if the choices may be detrimental to ourselves.
Smoking- Some people who smoke get cancer. Some don't. There are people who smoke all their lives and live for a long time with no ill effects from it. Some people who never smoke (and are not around smokers) get cancer.
The fact is that we, as a whole, live longer which allows more time for cancers to manifest. The medical sciences do not yet have a firm grasp of just exactly how cancers work, and why some people get them and others don't.
Some people who spend a lot of time in the sun get skin cancer, some don't. Should we outlaw sunbathing and tanning salons?
Some people ruin their lives and health drinking. Should we outlaw booze? (Oops, tried that, didn't work.)
Taxes on cigarettes are not to stop people from smoking, they are to generate revenue for the state using the convenient excuse that it's "for their own good". It's not, and anyone with an ounce of common sense recognizes this- if everyone suddenly stopped smoking there would be a scramble to find another way to generate the revenue that suddenly went missing.
Someone mentioned just outlawing smoking. One only has to look as far as the Prohibition on alcohol to see how well that would work out. How's that "War On Drugs" working out? Billions of dollars being spent on "enforcing" laws against drugs (including bounties being paid to South American military personnel for the bodies of "suspected" drug runners, which is resulting in the kidnap and murder of citizens who have nothing to do with drugs). More (and more varied) drugs are available than ever before . Courts are clogged with drug cases, body counts climb...just like they did with the prohibition on alcohol.
It isn't going to stop. If people want it, they are going to get it, one way or another. Tax on tea, tax on tobacco. What's the difference? There is no difference.
Prohibiting smoking in "Public" buildings- Gov't/municipal buildings where people "have" to go to conduct business, fine. Private establishments such as bars and restaurants? No way. These are not "public" buildings, the public has a choice as to whether to patronize the establishment or not. Establishments should be free to choose whether they want to cater to smokers or non-smokers, and patrons free to choose which establishment they want to patronize.
Voting with feet and wallets is the way to manage this controversy, not legislation. Those who choose to spend their money at establishments that permit smoking would be free to do so, while those who prefer to spend their money at establishments that cater to non-smokers would be free to do so. You make your own decision, your own choice, no legislation needed.
Someone said that the prohibition of smoking in restaurants results in a higher turnover rate. This may be true, but does that translate to increased profit for the owner? Not necessarilly. Consider establishments that serve alcohol- the profit margin on drink service is probably better than anything else. I've worked in the wholesale side of the alcoholic beverage industry and I'm familiar with the wholesale cost versus the retail price. It takes only a fraction of the time and labor to prepare and serve a drink than a meal. People who like to relax with a smoke and a drink are going home, or staying home (like me). This revenue is lost. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on this. I used to spend an average of $250 a week eating and drinking out, now I don't. This represents almost a whole lost job (min wage) all by itself, more than one where "tipped" employees make less than the mandated minimums.
These anti-smoking laws serve (whether intentionally or not) merely as a smokescreen behind which people are being conditioned to accept ever more intrusive government regulation. This is a Bad Thing, regardless of whatever "good intentions" some "do-gooders" may have. If you want to jog 5 miles a day, eat lawn clippings, drink ionized water and deny yourself red meat, that's *your* business, but you have no right to try to force me to conform to your "healthy" lifestyle. If I want to eat nothing but Big Macs, loll in front of the TV drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes, that's *my* business (but I have no right to expect you to support my lifestyle by supplying me with welfare and foodstamps).
Someone brought up Helmet Laws- I am against mandatory helmet laws. I've been riding two wheels and a motor since I was 10. I have many 10s of thousands of miles both with and without helmets. Fact- I have been injured more times while wearing a helmet than when not (none). I prefer it to be my choice.
I like feeling the wind in my face and hair, cruising down the road- it completely embodies my vision of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness". *No one* has the right to deny me that, for *any* reason. I find few things more satisfying and liberating, and while the Founding Fathers may have had no concept of this experience when they recognized this Right as an "...unalienable right..." in the Declaration of Independence, I am certain that they would agree. Words cannot describe the contemptuous resent that I feel for anyone who would presume to deny me this or any other right, especially if that person has never taken the oath, put on a uniform, and taken up arms in defense of them.
Such people would do well to remember the next few lines of the Declaration:
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Seatbelt law- same thing. My choice. You want to mandate that safety equipment be installed, fine. But penalize me if I choose not to use it? No way.
I wear a seatbelt less now than before such laws were established, it's my way of protest. If I judge road/weather conditions to be such that an accident is highly conceivable, I'll buckle up. Otherwise, forget it. And if anyone attempts to penalize me for this, there will likely be a scene...
Late to this thread but still want to put in my 2 cents and then some...
Caveat- I smoke (and have since I was about 7 years old), I drink (and at one time might have been considered an alcoholic) and I ride a motorcycle (frequently sans helmet). I choose to engager in these behaviors despite the possible risks associated with them.
The fact is, that we all make choices about what types of activities to engage in, and many of us choose to engage in activities that are perfectly legal but present a risk of severe injury or death to ourselves and others.
Many of us drive cars, and accidents happen. Some are predictable and preventable while others are not. But people are injured or die (and not always the person who caused it).
Some people fly planes, which crash, and people die.
Skydiving, scuba diving, racing, mountain climbing...a long list of activities which subject people to the risk of injury and death, including spectators, bystanders or rescuers who might be trying to save a person who has gotten himself into trouble while performing the activity.
The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights were designed to protect our individual rights to choose for ourselves with minimal governmental interference, not to have the government choose for us. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves, nor should it be.
When I was still a minor, I excercised *my* right to choose to engage in an activity that presented significant (actualized) risk to life and limb. That choice was to enlist in the military and swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". I have never renounced this oath and it is my considered opinion that these "laws" represent nothing less than a treasonous attack on the Rights embodied and enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights by domestic enemies of the Constitution.
I agree that, as a society, some laws are necessary for the preservation of that society. A society with *no* laws would not last very long. However, an attempt to legislate every nuance of our personal lives in a [claimed] attempt to "protect" us from ourselves is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a slippery slope into the sort of society envisioned by George Orwell in his book "1984". Where does it end?
We MUST preserve our right to choose, even if the choices may be detrimental to ourselves.
Smoking- Some people who smoke get cancer. Some don't. There are people who smoke all their lives and live for a long time with no ill effects from it. Some people who never smoke (and are not around smokers) get cancer.
The fact is that we, as a whole, live longer which allows more time for cancers to manifest. The medical sciences do not yet have a firm grasp of just exactly how cancers work, and why some people get them and others don't.
Some people who spend a lot of time in the sun get skin cancer, some don't. Should we outlaw sunbathing and tanning salons?
Some people ruin their lives and health drinking. Should we outlaw booze? (Oops, tried that, didn't work.)
Taxes on cigarettes are not to stop people from smoking, they are to generate revenue for the state using the convenient excuse that it's "for their own good". It's not, and anyone with an ounce of common sense recognizes this- if everyone suddenly stopped smoking there would be a scramble to find another way to generate the revenue that suddenly went missing.
Someone mentioned just outlawing smoking. One only has to look as far as the Prohibition on alcohol to see how well that would work out. How's that "War On Drugs" working out? Billions of dollars being spent on "enforcing" laws against drugs (including bounties being paid to South American military personnel for the bodies of "suspected" drug runners, which is resulting in the kidnap and murder of citizens who have nothing to do with drugs). More (and more varied) drugs are available than ever before . Courts are clogged with drug cases, body counts climb...just like they did with the prohibition on alcohol.
It isn't going to stop. If people want it, they are going to get it, one way or another. Tax on tea, tax on tobacco. What's the difference? There is no difference.
Prohibiting smoking in "Public" buildings- Gov't/municipal buildings where people "have" to go to conduct business, fine. Private establishments such as bars and restaurants? No way. These are not "public" buildings, the public has a choice as to whether to patronize the establishment or not. Establishments should be free to choose whether they want to cater to smokers or non-smokers, and patrons free to choose which establishment they want to patronize.
Voting with feet and wallets is the way to manage this controversy, not legislation. Those who choose to spend their money at establishments that permit smoking would be free to do so, while those who prefer to spend their money at establishments that cater to non-smokers would be free to do so. You make your own decision, your own choice, no legislation needed.
Someone said that the prohibition of smoking in restaurants results in a higher turnover rate. This may be true, but does that translate to increased profit for the owner? Not necessarilly. Consider establishments that serve alcohol- the profit margin on drink service is probably better than anything else. I've worked in the wholesale side of the alcoholic beverage industry and I'm familiar with the wholesale cost versus the retail price. It takes only a fraction of the time and labor to prepare and serve a drink than a meal. People who like to relax with a smoke and a drink are going home, or staying home (like me). This revenue is lost. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on this. I used to spend an average of $250 a week eating and drinking out, now I don't. This represents almost a whole lost job (min wage) all by itself, more than one where "tipped" employees make less than the mandated minimums.
These anti-smoking laws serve (whether intentionally or not) merely as a smokescreen behind which people are being conditioned to accept ever more intrusive government regulation. This is a Bad Thing, regardless of whatever "good intentions" some "do-gooders" may have. If you want to jog 5 miles a day, eat lawn clippings, drink ionized water and deny yourself red meat, that's *your* business, but you have no right to try to force me to conform to your "healthy" lifestyle. If I want to eat nothing but Big Macs, loll in front of the TV drinking whiskey and smoking cigarettes, that's *my* business (but I have no right to expect you to support my lifestyle by supplying me with welfare and foodstamps).
Someone brought up Helmet Laws- I am against mandatory helmet laws. I've been riding two wheels and a motor since I was 10. I have many 10s of thousands of miles both with and without helmets. Fact- I have been injured more times while wearing a helmet than when not (none). I prefer it to be my choice.
I like feeling the wind in my face and hair, cruising down the road- it completely embodies my vision of "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness". *No one* has the right to deny me that, for *any* reason. I find few things more satisfying and liberating, and while the Founding Fathers may have had no concept of this experience when they recognized this Right as an "...unalienable right..." in the Declaration of Independence, I am certain that they would agree. Words cannot describe the contemptuous resent that I feel for anyone who would presume to deny me this or any other right, especially if that person has never taken the oath, put on a uniform, and taken up arms in defense of them.
Such people would do well to remember the next few lines of the Declaration:
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Seatbelt law- same thing. My choice. You want to mandate that safety equipment be installed, fine. But penalize me if I choose not to use it? No way.
I wear a seatbelt less now than before such laws were established, it's my way of protest. If I judge road/weather conditions to be such that an accident is highly conceivable, I'll buckle up. Otherwise, forget it. And if anyone attempts to penalize me for this, there will likely be a scene...
I agree that, as a society, some laws are necessary for the preservation of that society. A society with *no* laws would not last very long. However, an attempt to legislate every nuance of our personal lives in a [claimed] attempt to "protect" us from ourselves is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a slippery slope into the sort of society envisioned by George Orwell in his book "1984". Where does it end?
Well, at least you would still be able to smoke Victory cigerrettes and drink Victory beer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer
Smoking- Some people who smoke get cancer. Some don't. There are people who smoke all their lives and live for a long time with no ill effects from it. Some people who never smoke (and are not around smokers) get cancer.
The fact is that we, as a whole, live longer which allows more time for cancers to manifest. The medical sciences do not yet have a firm grasp of just exactly how cancers work, and why some people get them and others don't.
It has recently been discovered that an epigenetic layer of material covers DNA. Currently, it is believed that this layer has switches which are simply switched ON or OFF and depending on the squence determines how the DNA ultimately functions, including the growth of cancers. Furtunatley, the switches can be manipulated and "manually" turned ON or OFF. Bad news, proper sequences are still not understood.
[quote=Zymer;3407975]Some people who spend a lot of time in the sun get skin cancer, some don't. Should we outlaw sunbathing and tanning salons?[/QOUTE]
There was a point in time when being pale was chic (the logic being that only the poor where outside all day--working).
[quote=Zymer;3407975]Prohibiting smoking in "Public" buildings- Gov't/municipal buildings where people "have" to go to conduct business, fine. Private establishments such as bars and restaurants? No way. These are not "public" buildings, the public has a choice as to whether to patronize the establishment or not. Establishments should be free to choose whether they want to cater to smokers or non-smokers, and patrons free to choose which establishment they want to patronize.
Voting with feet and wallets is the way to manage this controversy, not legislation. Those who choose to spend their money at establishments that permit smoking would be free to do so, while those who prefer to spend their money at establishments that cater to non-smokers would be free to do so. You make your own decision, your own choice, no legislation needed.[/QOUTE]
Fully agree, even though I have to admit that it is nice to hang out in a bar that is smoke free. It should be 100% up to the patrons and owners to decide.
[quote=Zymer;3407975]Someone said that the prohibition of smoking in restaurants results in a higher turnover rate. This may be true, but does that translate to increased profit for the owner? Not necessarilly. Consider establishments that serve alcohol- the profit margin on drink service is probably better than anything else. I've worked in the wholesale side of the alcoholic beverage industry and I'm familiar with the wholesale cost versus the retail price. It takes only a fraction of the time and labor to prepare and serve a drink than a meal. People who like to relax with a smoke and a drink are going home, or staying home (like me). This revenue is lost. I'd be interested in seeing the numbers on this. I used to spend an average of $250 a week eating and drinking out, now I don't. This represents almost a whole lost job (min wage) all by itself, more than one where "tipped" employees make less than the mandated minimums.[/QOUTE]
Many establishments lost patrons when the smoking ban went into effect in Minneapolis and ultimately had to raise prices to make up for it. One bar that I frequented raised their prices three times in less then two years. Those who championed the anti-smoking ban used this as 'proof' that a smoking ban would not hurt revenue, which on paper looks to be correct. Many business had to invest in outdoor heating lamps or construct outdoor areas for patrons to hangout and smoke outside. Keep in mind that 20 below is a normal winter time temp. in Minnesota.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
