Here's more on why this is a bad idea:
National Park Service Bans E-Cigarette Use Where Smoking Prohibited - US News
Vaping now banned in national parks.
- Thread starter kakiser56
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
National Park Service Bans E-Cigarette Use Where Smoking Prohibited - US News
You know I am a balancing of freedoms type of guy.
So therefore I will balance my right to vape against your right to be annoyed by it.
Regards
Mike
Apparently some park rangers are not appropriate for America.
Here's the solution - privatize the National Parks... or just sell them. Then let the owner decide.
Oh great.
The goal of private business / corporations is to turn a profit.
I have no desire to watch the robber barons figure out "how to make a profit" off nature, and exploit it, so some CEO can retire early.
We'll be constantly having to actively force them to integrate social and environmental factors into their business decisions.
(no thanks, already seen how that works out. ) All you have to do is look around the planet at what mining, logging, and oil companies have done to pristine tracts of wilderness and to the indigenous people who are left behind with nothing but industrial sludge, carcinogens, deforestation, and what not.
I doubt very much there would be any national forests today if they had been turned over to some of the profit-taking sociopaths......you'll be camping while they are FRAKKIING right next to where your tent....and the forests would become toxic waste dumps.
Where I live, most of the national forest trails would have already been turned over to 4-wheelers and ATV businesses if we had allowed "commerce" to have it's way. Real estate folks would have built cabins and mini-condos in there to rent out for profit.
The National Park System works beautifully and has since 1872.
Sorry folks---- but dismantling and changing everything "because it doesn't support vaping" isn't something I support.
Personally, I think the national parks, esp. the more primitive areas should be MORE restrictive, not less. I'm tired of seeing it all inch toward becoming "amusement parks" and "concession stands".
I didn't really favor this approach until I read Racehorse's rebuttal and the words "should be MORE restrictive" to realize, yes please let's privatize the National Parks before they add more things to the list of what's not appropriate in the land of personal freedom.
Unfortunate that Racehorse didn't mention what kind of further restrictions. Maybe they'd be good, maybe not. The rest of her post I agree with.
I figured that might bring the horse out of the barn.... along with some brass band.... lol.
Not if such a gov't that would allow National Parks to be privatized - there wouldn't be any 'social or environmental' regulations. Oh, you could actively pursue it, I'm sure many would, but it simply wouldn't be allowed by law - it would violate the property rights of individuals (as it does now).
I am surrounded by National Parks, scenic byways, and places like Little Missouri Falls are right down the road from me.
If you spend any time in some of the larger national park systems though, not as off-the-beaten-path as the ones around me, it would already be obvious that they are turning into types of "amusement parks" complete with motorized thrill-craft industries. Much to the detriment of wildlife, water systems, etc.
The whole point of the national park system has always been to educate---- but also to leave the park system’s resources and wildlife “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
I understand that in a culture of obesity and a sendentary population that a lot of people can't "relate" to real wilderness, they don't even understand nature........and expect to be able to buy popcorn and soda just as if they were at a theme park's processed-food emporium.
I really wish they would just stay in the shopping malls.
Wilderness doesn't need to be like Disneyland, or water-slide parks.Turning the national park system into a "for profit business" would only make things worse than what has already been allowed--- the profiteers would be lining up.
I see people at Little Missouri Falls "hiking" in flip flops......an area where there are boulders, rocks, and many slick wet surfaces. Obviously, they don't understand nature real well and I don't want to see the entire wilderness that has been set aside turn into "flip flop friendly" PAVED CEMENT trail environments.
There are already some nice paved trails for the elderly, wheel chair accessible,, child safe........and that is good.
But the carnival concession theme park stuff has got to stop. Thrill craft and other noisy and destructive things need to go to more business commercial land developments......not into our wilderness that has been set aside to stay somewhat pristine!.
Racehorse said "The whole point of the national park system has always been to educate---- but also to leave the park system’s resources and wildlife “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
The problem with that sentence, is it's too centered upon the developers future generations, not the general tax payers.
Much like how the public health is all about public health instead of health of the public.
Google: Privatized islands in national parks.
The problem with that sentence, is it's too centered upon the developers future generations, not the general tax payers.
Much like how the public health is all about public health instead of health of the public.
Google: Privatized islands in national parks.
To add to the point that similar small amounts of nicotine are eaten in foods, those foods are ones that often are cooked for a long time, either by themselves or in recipes, with lots of exposure to the vapors, including when in a pot on a stove and stirring often or occassionally as many recipes call for.
"Public Health" is just statistics. To improve the statistics you have in the end to address individual health. Definitiely not through "cost-benefit analyses". Those tend to give someone the idea of let's say killing all the smokers to the effect of showing better lung cancer statistics.
"R Street spokeswoman Nicole Roeberg said the institute is a think tank that’s funded by a mix of corporations and corporate foundations, but she declined to say whether any of those donors are part of the burgeoning e-cigarette industry."
The reporter of that article is either an idiot or a master of spin who is against vaping. Instead of asking if any donors to the think tank were part of the e-cig industry, they should have asked if any of the donors or corporations were pharmaceutical or tobacco companies.
That would have been a lot closer to the truth.
No one in the e-cig industry would have willingly have shot themselves in the foot like this. And especially not when theyre donating large sums of money.
Keep all humans out if you want to maintain pristine. Allowing humans for any purpose, will mean that if you need to employ humans that feel need to maintain it and educate others (none of which is required by 'nature'), then at points when budget is justified as too low, you'll have to ease up on restrictions toward other humans or face no longer having humans employed on these grounds where humans weren't necessary in the first place.
- Status
Similar threads
