DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Losing Rights one step at a time
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 85, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/21/2007 12:39:19 AM · #51
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I do however have a problem with a law that will not allow like minded individuals to have their own private club where members could go and enjoy a drink and a smoke.

I agree. Thanks for the link. I wonder how it worked out for that club: the court hearing was supposed to be on Oct 3, according to the article.
 01/21/2007 12:42:10 AM · #52
Originally posted by RayEthier:


I am not familiar with what exists in the USA in this regard, but in this country you could find assistance if you were a drug addict or an alcoholic, but are left to fend for yourself if you smoke.

Seems that we have not enough carrot and too much stick.

Ray


It's the same way here AND most all insurance plans WON'T cover anti-smoking aids.
01/21/2007 01:02:14 AM · #53
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by RayEthier:


I am not familiar with what exists in the USA in this regard, but in this country you could find assistance if you were a drug addict or an alcoholic, but are left to fend for yourself if you smoke.

Seems that we have not enough carrot and too much stick.

Ray


It's the same way here AND most all insurance plans WON'T cover anti-smoking aids.


Hmmm, my current insurance covers it. And even if it didn't, many employers offer several different free or very low cost options for those who want to quit. Many states and cites have plans as well. There are also many sources for anti-smoking aids that reduce the cost to below what cigarettes would cost.
01/21/2007 01:08:27 AM · #54
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
They also increase premiums for those who drink to excess, have bad diets, are excessively overweight etc.


They also increase premiums if you smoke, so frankly I don't know what to make of your gripe. Insurance companies have a funny way of covering their own ass - charging higher risk participants higher premiums is one of their more common strategies.

The whole concept of 'you made the choice, you pay for it' is fine with me. Let me know when I can stop paying to send your kids to school.
 01/21/2007 01:13:37 AM · #55
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Let me know when I can stop paying to send your kids to school.


:-) Very true... although a little harshly stated :-)
 01/21/2007 01:19:51 AM · #56
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Let me know when I can stop paying to send your kids to school.


Who says you are?
 01/21/2007 01:21:14 AM · #57
I thought to myself, maybe I should add a PS making clear that I'm using 'you' in the general sense. Then I thought to myself, nah I'm sure it's not necessary.
 01/21/2007 01:25:05 AM · #58
Originally posted by routerguy666:
I thought to myself, maybe I should add a PS making clear that I'm using 'you' in the general sense. Then I thought to myself, nah I'm sure it's not necessary.


A mistake "you" seem to make quite often.
 01/21/2007 10:41:59 AM · #59
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Let me know when I can stop paying to send your kids to school.


That has always burned me as well. I understand that public education is a good thing, however I'm not convinced that all the children we've paid for over the past 30 years have benefitted as it was intended.

Regarding the threads commentary on passing legislation based on "health" concerns; perhaps we should ban cutting utensils, smelly diesel engines, small fuel efficient vehicles, bicycles, motorcycles, any vehicle without a 6 point roll cage. We should ban video games as they inhibit childhood exercise - truly unhealthy. Ban all fast food as it interferes with quailty "family" time, and places portions of the population at risk of food poisoning. We should ban anyone driving in the rain or snow or ice. We should fine anyone and EVERYONE automatically if they exceed the posted speedlimit or accellerate in an inefficient manner from a stop. We should fine all drivers who do not have 2 hands on the wheel. One armed persons would not be permitted to drive or would have to hire a driver. Single parents would be outlawed as the "health" of the child(ren) would not be at "par" with honmes of 2 parents. Anyone haveing more than "x" number of childern would be arrested as they choose to inhibit the health of the world community by placing an excessive burden on it and thus were irresponsible.

Yes, I see where this legislating based on "health" and what is really "for my own good" has a lot of merit to it.

Please pass more soon.
 01/22/2007 01:34:09 PM · #60
outlaw motorcycles

"But the death rate on motorcycles was nearly 32 times higher than for cars. One of the riskiest combinations in the database are men between ages 21 and 24 who drive motorcycles between midnight and 4 a.m. Their road fatality risk is 45,000 times higher than normal."

Do we ban alchohol? Motorcycles? Young Men? Motorcycles on the road between midnight and 0400? Maybe we pass legislation that drinking and driving are illegal. Oh wait, that already is a law.

Message edited by author 2007-01-22 13:38:04.
 01/22/2007 02:01:27 PM · #61
My $.02...

When the no smoking in public places state wide referendum came here I voted yes. I did not vote yes because I care about anyone̢۪s health. Smoke all you want, I don̢۪t care about your health. I did not vote yes because I thought insurance was getting to expensive and I thought this would help.

I voted yes because as a non smoker there are too many instances in my life where I have to deal with the stinky habit. At work I have to sit next to the guy that just got back from a smoke break, I can̢۪t go into any bar without the stink, I wait for a non-smoking table in the restaurant and the stink comes over from the smoking side, I rent a car while on vacation and it reeks of smoke, same with the hotel room, everywhere I look outside the ground is littered with cigarette butts, walking by smokers outside I have to hold my breath...

I don̢۪t want to take anyone̢۪s right to smoke away, but I̢۪d like to have the right to not have to deal with it everywhere I go.

01/22/2007 02:06:36 PM · #62
I haven't read all the responses to this thread, but FWIW, I support the ban on smoking in cars where children are present.

I smoked for years. Having my son really changed my view of what is truly important in life. There is nothing more precious than a child and they look to adults for guidance and supervision. I would NEVER want my child to smoke. He copies everything I do and if he picked up cigarettes because "daddy did it", I don't think I could ever forgive myself. This is not to mention the potential health ramifications of second hand smoke around children.

We are the role models for the generation that is going to be taking care of us when we are old and gray. Teach them well and lead by example. The breakdown of society can not be blamed on schools, politics, or fatty foods. It begins and ENDS in the home!!!

My $0.02 USD.
 01/22/2007 02:19:55 PM · #63
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
The breakdown of society can not be blamed on schools, politics, or fatty foods. It begins and ENDS in the home!!!


I agree completely, but the point is that YOU made a conscious decision to be a good role model. Legislation won't force parents to be a good role model. If nothing else, children will pick up habits of trying to be evasive of law enforcement.
01/22/2007 02:31:19 PM · #64
OK... how about this. I don't want my child in a car where the adults are smoking. Granted this isn't an issue now because my wife and I are the only ones who drive him around, but the day will come when he's carpooling and I don't want to have to worry about someone smoking in the confines of a car when he is present.
 01/22/2007 02:35:40 PM · #65
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
and I don't want to have to worry about someone smoking in the confines of a car when he is present.


I'm sure as a good parent you will be on top of that without any help from law enforcement, just like you won't be letting your son in a car with a complete stranger or a bad driver.
 01/22/2007 02:41:35 PM · #66
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
I'm sure as a good parent you will be on top of that without any help from law enforcement, just like you won't be letting your son in a car with a complete stranger or a bad driver.


OK, there may be an element of truth to that, but what about the countless innocents that do not have concientious parents that can watch out for them. It's not just about MY child, it's about millions of other precious, innocent children that we are protecting...

Leroy, I really like you and all, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. Maybe it's because I have a different perspective, but on this particular subject, I have to say that you're just wrong.
 01/22/2007 02:57:10 PM · #67
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
what about the countless innocents that do not have concientious parents that can watch out for them. It's not just about MY child, it's about millions of other precious, innocent children that we are protecting...


A dangerous point of view. You are essentially asking the government to legislate away the rights of others because you feel they aren't as smart/caring/conscientious/moral/etc as you.

A group of people could as easily lobby the government to outlaw the enrollment of children in religious programs. Enrollment in religious programs increases the risk of children being sexually molested. Therefore there should be a law preventing people who obviously do not care about the safety of the millions of innocent children from endangering them in this fashion.

The government needs to worry about collecting taxes and keeping missiles from raining down upon us. That's it.
 01/22/2007 03:01:58 PM · #68
Originally posted by routerguy666:
A group of people could as easily lobby the government to outlaw the enrollment of children in religious programs. Enrollment in religious programs increases the risk of children being sexually molested. Therefore there should be a law preventing people who obviously do not care about the safety of the millions of innocent children from endangering them in this fashion.


That's a pretty big leap!!! Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about government REQUIRING public registration of known sex offenders?
 01/22/2007 03:04:08 PM · #69
Originally posted by routerguy666:
The government needs to worry about collecting taxes and keeping missiles from raining down upon us. That's it.

You don't want any police around to keep someone from killing you? You want to go back to when murder was a civil matter between the families of the slayer and the slain? You believe in the right of an adult to endanger the life of a child? My, my ...
 01/22/2007 03:20:31 PM · #70
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about government REQUIRING public registration of known sex offenders?


Well, my point of view on that is that the sex offender did in fact do something to deserve the discrimination. An intentional act of molesting a child is by far one of the worst things a person can possibly do. Any form of rape, IMO, should carry the strictest of penalties. Public registration IMO isn't enough on that issue.

But, to keep this from getting side-tracked, and I know that question wasn't pointed at me, routerguy does have a bit of a point in his argument about outlawing children from participating in religious programs with all the scandal that has been brought to light in the Catholic church and among other religious denominations.

I will end with this: how far does big brother have to go before he interferes with YOUR rights? What if, government agents visit you weekly to MAKE SURE you are a good parent? What if you and your children are required to wear surveillance devices? These are not out of the question. And recent history shows, that putting "for the children" in front of almost any legislation almost guarantees it's success.
 01/22/2007 03:21:56 PM · #71
Originally posted by Palmetto_Pixels:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
A group of people could as easily lobby the government to outlaw the enrollment of children in religious programs. Enrollment in religious programs increases the risk of children being sexually molested. Therefore there should be a law preventing people who obviously do not care about the safety of the millions of innocent children from endangering them in this fashion.


That's a pretty big leap!!! Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about government REQUIRING public registration of known sex offenders?


How is it a big leap? In the case of smoking in a car and in the case of enrolling your kid in a church program there is a chance, not a certainty, that the child will be harmed. In both cases one group of people has decided that another group of people is not to be trusted with the welfare of their own children.

Requiring the registration of sex offenders educates the public and gives the public choices as oppossed to the public's choices being made for them by Uncle Sam.

If anything, it's a good example of just how far the government's concern for your children truly does extend - why aren't they passing laws requiring sex felons to live in segregated areas where no children live at all? On the map at my local police station, there are half a dozen sex offenders living within a mile or so of my home. My home which is in walking distance of a high school, two middle schools, and three or four grade schools.
 01/22/2007 03:24:14 PM · #72
Why do the rights of smokers trump the rights of everyone else?
 01/22/2007 03:25:40 PM · #73
Originally posted by routerguy666:

The government needs to worry about collecting taxes and keeping missiles from raining down upon us. That's it.


Sure and everything else is a free-for-all. So, if I don't like you (that's "you" in the general sense, not you specifically, BTW) I can just open fire with my machine gun and cut down you and your family. Then, I can go to your house and steal everything you own and burn it down. (Again, that's "you" in the general sense, not you specifically.)

You think that should be OK? (this is not the general "you", I'm referring to you specifically)

How about raping children? That's OK by you too?

Wife beating? Rape? All of those are OK?
01/22/2007 03:27:46 PM · #74
Originally posted by mk:
Why do the rights of smokers trump the rights of everyone else?


I didn't complain about public places. I don't complain about not being able to smoke in airports, on buses, or restaurants for that matter (I'm there to eat :-)).

BUT, when legislation comes in to MY property that's where I draw the line.

As I stated earlier in this thread. Now that this legislation has been passed. It will be only a matter of time before "children" are dropped out of the picture. I refer, once again, to seat belt laws.

Message edited by author 2007-01-22 15:30:28.
 01/22/2007 03:29:32 PM · #75
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by mk:
Why do the rights of smokers trump the rights of everyone else?


I didn't complain about public places. I don't complain about not being able to smoke in airports, on buses, or restaurants for that matter (I'm there to eat :-)).

BUT, when legislation comes in to MY property that's where I draw the line.


So your right to smoke trumps your child's right to be in a healthy environment.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 03:13:35 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 03:13:35 AM EDT.