Absolutely. Laws are excellent preventative tools.
I recall when I was a teenager, and all the things I didn't do because of some law or another.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Absolutely. Laws are excellent preventative tools.
I recall when I was a teenager, and all the things I didn't do because of some law or another.
Right. If anything, they just made it possibly more appealing to underage users. As in, don't think of a pink zebra, because we forbid it. Plus a healthy dose of, thinking about pink zebras will cause your under developed brain to be irreparably harmed.
Once the lie is learned, it'll be hard to trust whatever other information is spouted off about things you shouldn't do because of how harmful they are.
Alcohol has been 21+ for quite a while in most place. We all know how well that works, because teens never get drunk.
Sir, may I say that it is a privilege and an honor to know you and to know that I have a kindred spirit out there in electronic space.
[Please note:Those are not now nor have those ever been beers.]
Hey, maybe more TV commercials about kid vaping "fruity COPYRIGHTDMCA" will fix everything.
What I really mean is I agree with the last several posts... They are going to do what they do, and they are going to find a way to do it. Put a sign on a door that says "Do Not Enter"... 4 out of 5 will just want to open that door even more! It's human nature.
What I really mean is I agree with the last several posts... They are going to do what they do, and they are going to find a way to do it. Put a sign on a door that says "Do Not Enter"... 4 out of 5 will just want to open that door even more! It's human nature.
Indeed.
I always find it interesting that the regulation loving nannies can't connect to that basic instinct, which is simply a combination of pioneering and curiosity, and is one of the larger contributing factors (along with our survival instinct) as to why we're still around.
If not for those instincts, where might we be, if even at all? I expect we'd be trying to decide whether to setup camp at the Tigris, or at the Euphrates, because we sure as heck weren't/aren't going across either...
And yes, I know the topography has changed. It was simply to make a point.
As you stated, "It's human nature."
Effin'ay to THAT.
vape 'em if ya got 'em.
Vape 'em if ya got 'em.
Agree.
Laws don't stop youngsters from vaping, drinking, smoking, etc.
One thing I do have no problem with "regulating".....after watching random videos of people in their cars, or just observing what people are doing when they almost back into me or run me over in their cars, is cellphone use in cars. Honestly, I think driving is something that REQUIRES full-on concentration.....singular concentration.
Even looking away for a moment is bad...a friend just got pulled out of a ditch after a roll-over and she is lucky to be alive. She had some picture frames on her passenger side seat, one of them slid off onto the floor and she simply "glanced over" when she heard it happen.......that's all it took to go into a ditch on a state 2 lane with no shoulder. (we have a lot of drainage ditches down here).
So I'm not anti regulation for everything.
I used to worry about a drunk driver wiping me out......but the % incidence of a drunk driver on the road doesn't even compare to the % incidence of people doing stuff on their cell phones while driving....since almost everyone has a cell phone now.
Nor am I. It's a huge chasm though from where my mindset ends to where theirs begins. Finding the best balance between freedom and safety/security will always be a challenge.
On the subjects relevant here, one self regulating approach might be to group the following together, then set an age for all.
- Vaping/smoking
- Drinking
- Driving
- Voting
- Military
Agree. That is what my doctor is for.
I just got flagged for first time in my life on my BMI...yeah, I gained some weight in 2019....I already knew that, but I'm also glad my PCP made a point to ask me why (it's my diet, I indulged a bit this year on ice cream and pizza) to make sure it wasn't something metabolic that she needed to test me for.
Nobody else needs to be telling me if I can't eat ice cream or eat pizza, only that maybe I "shouldn't." Shouldn't comes under the heading of education and awareness....I'm okay with being informed.
We as a society have the right to regulate sales (use is a bit different). The problem is that we as a society don't always have the wisdom to go with it.
The operative questions here are "Is it effective?" and "Is it fair/just even if it is effective?" If the answer to either of those questions is "No" then it should not be done. It's the 2nd question that's the most problematic, as it's subjective.
The operative questions here are "Is it effective?" and "Is it fair/just even if it is effective?" If the answer to either of those questions is "No" then it should not be done. It's the 2nd question that's the most problematic, as it's subjective.
Multiple studies have demonstrated a reduction in auto accidents involving underage alcohol use. Down to zero? No, but a significant reduction means more people under the age of 21 are not involved in alcohol related accidents and deaths.
As in most things, we as a society need to look at the motivation for regulation. Too often the motivation traces back to collecting money for the coffers, or someones pocket. The whole concept of a "sin tax" borderlines on being unconstitutional IMHO.
There are exceptions, for example tobacco, it is just and fair to tax it ONLY as far as what it takes to cover the medical expenses borne by the society.
Last edited:
Money is a motive for sure, but underlying it -
Lord Macaulay observed of their ideological forebears, “The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”
Lord Macaulay was absolutely correct. I call the nanny state the "New Puritans", unapproved pleasure must be suppressed by force of law.
Laws should be difficult to enact and simple for the populace to reject or repeal. But for a bunch of ex post fartum black robes and opportunistic legislative misconstruction we'd be there. Instead and sadly…do onto others as you would have them to unto you…seems to be an archaic peculiar notion these days.
Regulation between does not mean ownership of.
Good luck.
The older I get, the more anti-regulation I get. Seriously, there are a few government programs that are useful, but ATF, DEA, and some others are entirel corrupt.
You know, whenI was younger, I guess I was more of a democrate, when I thoguht about it. I was too busy breaking laws to really think about them. I mean, I wasn't an IDIOT completely, I knew when I was breaking laws and just didn't..
My big momet came when I was preganant and was getting busted by the police. I got this frantic, unintelligible phone call and then reallized: "I could go to jail TOO my name is on the lease." Never have I cleaned more frantically beause I was like, "I dont even know if I can LOVE this baby but it is MINE and no one is locking me up pregnant."
I then took a good hard look at crimes and misdemeanors and iniformed baby daddy what he could and could not keep in the house. I should have just left THEN.
It is good to be informed about laws, teens break them frequently. Some of them get busted, and do wind up in jail/prison. If you have a somewhat rebelliuos teen, that's the best way to make a criminal out of a smart kid who doesn't care about the rules. I'm not saying lalrge offenses should not be prosecuted but small ones? Ecigs? For crying out loud.
I would not be shocked if prosecutions occur. They need to, in order to justify thi s new law which frankly SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS.
Also, Don is a black and white thinker, I most definitely agree. Sometimes that is useful, sometmies it is not.
Journalists used to use "anonymous sources" all the time, instead of just flingiing poo and "bogus experts" around like monkeys throwing POO.
I like "anonymous sources" they will often give more infomation if they are not named.. Perhaps in this case, it was not correct, but it does not mean anonymous sources should not be used in journalism.
I wish they were used more, like in the past. I wouldn't have to sit there watching Anderson Cooper and wondering when his battery was gonna die, as he pontificated.
Journalism used to prize anonymity. Now nobody and their brother WON'T shut up, and they should freaking..... SHUT UP.
Anna
You know, whenI was younger, I guess I was more of a democrate, when I thoguht about it. I was too busy breaking laws to really think about them. I mean, I wasn't an IDIOT completely, I knew when I was breaking laws and just didn't..
My big momet came when I was preganant and was getting busted by the police. I got this frantic, unintelligible phone call and then reallized: "I could go to jail TOO my name is on the lease." Never have I cleaned more frantically beause I was like, "I dont even know if I can LOVE this baby but it is MINE and no one is locking me up pregnant."
I then took a good hard look at crimes and misdemeanors and iniformed baby daddy what he could and could not keep in the house. I should have just left THEN.
It is good to be informed about laws, teens break them frequently. Some of them get busted, and do wind up in jail/prison. If you have a somewhat rebelliuos teen, that's the best way to make a criminal out of a smart kid who doesn't care about the rules. I'm not saying lalrge offenses should not be prosecuted but small ones? Ecigs? For crying out loud.
I would not be shocked if prosecutions occur. They need to, in order to justify thi s new law which frankly SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS.
Also, Don is a black and white thinker, I most definitely agree. Sometimes that is useful, sometmies it is not.
Journalists used to use "anonymous sources" all the time, instead of just flingiing poo and "bogus experts" around like monkeys throwing POO.
I like "anonymous sources" they will often give more infomation if they are not named.. Perhaps in this case, it was not correct, but it does not mean anonymous sources should not be used in journalism.
I wish they were used more, like in the past. I wouldn't have to sit there watching Anderson Cooper and wondering when his battery was gonna die, as he pontificated.
Journalism used to prize anonymity. Now nobody and their brother WON'T shut up, and they should freaking..... SHUT UP.
Anna
Similar threads
- Locked
