OT Ramblings, Musings and other OT Stuff -- WARNING -- OT

Personally, I would LOVE a smoking ban in our area.  Why is bringing say, a dog into a bar or restaurant a health issue but someone exhaling nasty a$$ fumes into the air not a health issue?  I used to be a smoker, and know what effect it has on your body.  When I leave a bar I feel very similar to the way I used to when I smoked.

My husband works in a machine shop, and if the machines were putting out as much smoke as is put out in a crowded bar with as crappy ventilation, OSHA would be on them like white on rice.

As far as licensing guns--I really don't see how it does all that much good honestly.  In Indiana all you need to do for a conceal/carry permit is go down to the police department, file out a little card with your name, address, etc, and pay $25.  Does anyone REALLY think that gang members are getting permits for the guns they are using in crimes?  Please.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
In the same breath they might mention how almost every adult male in Switzerland owns an automatic weapon, a true "assault" weapon.  Yet somehow they don't kill each other with the fervor that Americans do.

 
Ed, they might also mention how, in the US, the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest crime rates.  In Washington DC, for example, it is illegal for a private citizen to own a handgun, but they have one of the highest murder rates in the country. In  Colorado Springs, where any citizen who applies for a concealed carry permit is given the permit, assuming they are not prohibited from owning a gun,  has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. 
 
They might also mention how private citizens in the US use a gun to prevent a crime 2 million times a year, usually without firing a shot.
 
They might mention things like this, but they won't, because they have an agenda.  I have an agenda too but I try to be honest about it.  I can see where the anti-gunners come from.  I really do get their point.  Everyone wants to do something about crime in this country.  The problem, and the point the "anti's" fail to grasp is, you can't control crime by controlling guns.
 
The only one affected by gun laws is law abiding citizens.  Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.

ORIGINAL: HKdog

See number 2

i could also ask that you not exhale... simple right?

ORIGINAL: melindar

The difference between MJ & alcohol (and cigarettes) is that you can get a high off of MJ just being around it (contact high).  Yes, I think it would be VERY difficult to regulate it.  Yes, it should be up to the parents to teach kids about MANY different things, but unfortunately some parents don't do it.  I do like the idea of the hash bars, etc. where kids wouldn't be allowed. 

 
Yeah, kids can get a contact high if their parents smoke pot in their presence.  They can get lung cancer from second hand cigarette smoke AND they will likely begin drinking at a young age if exposed to alcohol.  My point is that you would EXPECT a good parent to take the necessary precautions with MJ, that they are EXPECTED to take with booze and smokes!  no??  They shouldn't leave the dime bag laying out, anymore than they should leave a bottle of Vodka out.  The irresponsible parents are already leaving pot, booze and cigarettes out for their kids to have access to.  They're smoking and drinking in front of them too.  I just don't see the difference in terms of one substance being "legal-worthy" and another not.  I'm just saying.. 
 

labcrab it's not about whether they do it...it's about safety issues from being around it. You can drink all you want in front of a pregnant woman and her fetus won't be affected, a young baby and it won't be affected...not so with MJ.

 
Sorry Gina, I'm not totally following you.  I wasn't talking or even thinking about what's safe for a preggers.  Clearly NONE of it is safe - cigarettes, cigars, pot, cloves, pipes - for a pregnant woman.  She shouldn't be around ANY of it. 
 
I'm talking about having pot be legal and regulating it the same way cigarettes and alcohol are regulated.  The parents will maintain the same responsibility they already maintain. 
 

A helmet MIGHT offer a motorcyclist a degree of protection at very low speeds, but it is miniscule. At higher speeds a helmet is useless. There are times when your best bet as a rider is to lay the bike down. A helmet is handy in this situation as it offers your head some protection as you slide down the road. Road rash really sucks. The problem I have with a helmet is it makes you less aware of your surroundings and therefore more likely to be involved in an accident. With a helmet, you can't hear nearly as well and you can't see as well.

 
Billy, I am still trying to find stats relating to your idea that they DO NOT prevent injury in high speed situations… so far I have not seen anything that suggests that is true, but I am not saying it isn#%92t.. I will let you know what I find either way!
 
AS far as the helmet making you less aware of your surroundings, I cannot speak from personal experiences and perhaps in many individuals it DOES truly affect it… but I did find one studies abstract (conducted by NHTSA- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)

 
 

  This study assessed the effects of motorcycle helmets upon seeing and hearing
by having 50 riders operate over a test route, changing lanes in response to an
audible signal under three helmet conditions: none, partial coverage, and full
coverage. Half of the subjects were assessed for the degree of head rotation
during lane changes, while the other half were assessed for hearing threshold
(decibel level at which they first responded to the signal). Results showed
that subjects in the vison study increased the degree of head rotation in
proportion to the vision restrictions imposed by the helmet, though not to the
full extent of the restriction. Subjects in the hearing study evidenced no
differences in hearing thresholds across the three helmet conditions. The
authors conclude that the effects of helmets upon the ability to see and hear
are, at most, far too small to compromise the safety benefits offered by head
protection.

 

  am not sure if there are any states that require a helmet for riders over a certain age.  That alone should speak volumes as to how effective helmets are at preventing injury

 
THIS comment of yours is totally inaccurate... age has little to do with effectiveness of a law, and is all about the ability to get laws passed... I will touch on that one later.... going back to do more research now! []

I am not sure if there are any states that require a helmet for riders over a certain age.  That alone should speak volumes as to how effective helmets are at preventing injury.  You might look into an organization called ABATE if  you really have an interest in this subject.

not sure if this is still the case, but when my dad had a motorcycle eons ago... SC mandated that riders had to wear helmets until they were 18. is that the kind of law you were asking about?

ORIGINAL: huskymom

FWIW, I have never said that banning guns is what is needed. 

 
 
Very few anti gunners will admit that their ultimate objective is to ban guns.  I actually admire the honesty of those few who do.
 

 What is wrong with registering them?

 
In order to have an effective CONFISCATION system you first have to know who has the guns.  In order to know who has the guns you have to require those people to register those guns.  THAT is what is wrong with registering them.
 
 

And what is wrong with writing a licence to aquire and own them?

 
You license a privilege, not a right.
 

  It protects the owners as well. 

 
I feel more protected without licensing and registration, but thanks for asking.  []
 

Except take away some of your precious freedom. 

 
I kind of like my precious freedom.  I like my freedom so much that I have demonstrated my willingness to fight to protect it.
 

I don't however agree with not being able to pass guns down to your children.  A friend of mine has a great collection of old guns but because of that clause, they will be melted down when he dies.

 
But you do want some government bureaucrat deciding whether or not he is in the mood today to issue his kids a license so they can legally take possession of the guns, don't you?

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000
they (the government) dont own my house either, but i am still limited as to what i can legally do there.

 
But you can smoke in your house, Brad.  Why should the government be able to tell a bar owner that he can't smoke in his bar?

In order to have an effective CONFISCATION system you first have to know who has the guns.  In order to know who has the guns you have to require those people to register those guns.  THAT is what is wrong with registering them.

thankfully, you can still buy a gun from an indiviual without any pesky licensing issues.[8D]

Why should the government be able to tell a bar owner that he can't smoke in his bar?

why should the government be able to tell a bar owner he has to use clean glasses? or wash his hands after going to the bathroom?

it is in the public's best interest.

not sure if this is still the case, but when my dad had a motorcycle eons ago... SC mandated that riders had to wear helmets until they were 18. is that the kind of law you were asking about?

 
Bradley,
YES ..this is what Billy is talking about...laws requiring use only till a certain age..  his point is that IF they were really effective in prevention of injuries it would be mandated for ALL ages...
 
but again...this is how we actually GET laws passed by protecting minors...it has NOTHING to do with effectiveness...they presume that by the time you are an adult that you KNOW better and can make educated choices to protect yourself... such is NOT the case though 
[8|]

while i do not think it is ok to expose people to smoke, i think it should be up to the owners of the establishment whether they want to allow smoking or not. that way smokers could go to the bars that smoked and the people who didnt want to be exposed could go to a different bar

 
That I agree with. I can always pick out a place where nobody smokes.
 
Worst place for me, smoking/ non-smoking sections, come on, do you really think I can't smell that nasty stuff while I am eating?

this is a safety issue related to wearing seatbelts that i have often wondered about....

it is mandatory to wear seatbelts in most (if not all) states. however, the one wholely government owned means of transportation for school aged kids (school buses) do not have seatbelts. at least they dont in this state as far as i know.

doesnt that seem like an oxymoron or something? meaning if those same kids were in their parent's minivan and not belted in, their parents would be fined. but somehow it is ok for 50+ kids to be unbelted on state supported transportation.

They do, but the question is, should they?  IOW and for example, why should the governement dictate the business hours of a bar to a bar owner?

 
They should, because there is a public disturbance aspect to closing time... noise, traffic, etc. But I don't think there's a lot of point is arguing this with you because our underlying political philosophies are really too far apart to sway either of us toward the other side. I recognize your views as Libertarian and I understand where that comes from intellectually. I just don't share those views... I believe the law is there as a social contract, that we all agree to by democratic voting processes (majority rules), in order to make society run as smoothly as possible & causing harm to the least amount of people possible - and sometimes it involves limiting total personal freedom in order to protect other or the stability of society in general.
 
And now to go totally OT, why is it that I can't walk into a post office and get ONE strip of packing tape to seal a package? I don't need a whole roll. I need one linear foot of tape, geez...

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000
doesnt that seem like an oxymoron or something? meaning if those same kids were in their parent's minivan and not belted in, their parents would be fined. but somehow it is ok for 50+ kids to be unbelted on state supported transportation.

 
I've always wondered this myself....even when I was in school riding a bus.