This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
QOTD Thread #332- Do you think that people should keep cats outdoors?
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
My family has had hard financial times this past couple of years. We are going to start a business next year, that will hopefully allow us to begin saving money. Our hope rests with God, and the business venture we have devised.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
#240- Do you think that the government should regulate drugs/food/drinking? Not in terms of making sure the information is accurate on the label, but do you think the government has the job of, or the resources to, regulate drug use, underage drinking, fat and sugar content in food, or anything where a person is deciding to be self destructive but not inflicting it on anyone else. Do you think age restrictions are appropriate, but the others are not? Do you think the government should take a more active role and make sure that the only things available are healthy?
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
HiVolt
#240- Do you think that the government should regulate drugs/food/drinking? Not in terms of making sure the information is accurate on the label, but do you think the government has the job of, or the resources to, regulate drug use, underage drinking, fat and sugar content in food, or anything where a person is deciding to be self destructive but not inflicting it on anyone else. Do you think age restrictions are appropriate, but the others are not? Do you think the government should take a more active role and make sure that the only things available are healthy?
Well, I think that part of the first step toward regulation in these things is making sure that information is correct on the label. Surgeon general's warnings, complete ingredient lists, accurate and visible information about side-effects, recommended amount for consumption, etc. Second, there needs to be more active education about these things. It's true that it ultimately comes personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean that we should leave everyone to fend for themselves when it comes to awareness. We need to make sure that people are educated about the food they eat, the drugs they take, the beer they drink... and it extends further to things like pesticides, herbicides, cleaning products, and a bunch of other things as well. That means that not only do they need to be informed when using those products, via the labels, etc., but also need to be informed beforehand, so that they have an adequate base of knowledge on those products before using them. For instance, information about dangerous drugs should be taught in health classes. Not just illegal drugs, but also prescription drugs. Health classes should also give information on foodstuffs, alcohol, cleaning products, and all things related to personal health. But, information about food should also be given in cooking and home economics classes. Chemistry classes should touch on herbicides, pesticides, and various other possibly dangerous chemicals. Biology and anatomy classes could also give information on drugs, alcohol, various chemicals, vaccines, medications, etc. Maybe none of this actually has to be done through the syllabus, but it should be available either in the required textbooks or as pamphlets that could be given out by teachers or picked up at leisure up by students.
As far as age limitations go, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, especially with drugs and alcohol. Ideally, we'd allow our brains to fully develop before using things like those, but realistically that just doesn't happen. Age restrictions help to make sure that young people, whose brains and bodies are most at risk from the use of those things, know that they are potentially dangerous products. But, there is also the result that prohibition produces in people of making them want to do it because it's prohibited. That's where the awareness and education comes in. With food, it's harder to judge. You can't tell people that they have to have specific diets, especially when it comes to their children. However, that should also be where awareness and education come in. The furthest I could see the federal government going, at least with the current atmosphere surrounding the topic, would be to put students on healthy diets while they're in schools and ask parents to do the same. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Also, I don't think that the responsibility should be laid upon the government to make sure that everything available is healthy, because almost nothing is 100% healthy for all people. How do you account for allergies with a situation like that? Just because some people are prone to allergic reactions to peanuts or seafood doesn't mean that they should be outlawed for everyone. The same principal applies to overeating, drug addiction, alcoholism, and many other conditions, in my opinion. I don't believe that outright prohibition or over-regulation are the proper ways to go about any kind of problem like this.
Post by
Monday
Yes.
Not to be redundant, but this. It sums up all my thoughts.
Post by
Skreeran
I think a responsible, competent adult should be free to do whatever they loke to their own body. What they do to their kids is another matter.
Post by
OverZealous
I think too much government regulation is dangerous. I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept of the government regulating drugs/drinking/food for people who have proven themselves to be unable to handle alcohol or drugs or have shown that they do not know what is best for them. This is all walking a very, very fine line and it could and probably would go horribly wrong, so I wouldn't recommend putting such a system into use; but if it's between the government having more power over some people while simultaneously saving their lives - maybe.
Post by
Ordayc
I'm skeptical when it comes to prescribing adults what they may or may not do, as long as it affects mainly their own lives. As such I'm generally opposed to regulation by the government.
I'd rather have unhealthy stuff, such as alcohol, fatty food, etc. taxed appropriately—not because I want anyone to be punished, but simply because (AFAIK) these have a noticeable negative effect on the social systems; i.e., on average, the more unhealthy stuff a person consumes, the more money they draw from society over their lifespan. That would allow people who are conscious of their activities to continue doing them, while at the same time making them pay for the costs they will cause. (I can see that it may be difficult to quantify the actual costs of unhealthy food, but I doubt it's undoable.)
Post by
gamerunknown
239: vidya gaems. If I get dementia, I plan on going out in a haze of drugs.
240. Since you stipulated that it's only where people are harming themselves, then no, I don't think the government should step in.
However, I think ensuring people are only harming themselves is very complex. For instance, I'd have no problem with governments counteracting the effects of advertising to limit, for instance, alcopops advertisements from coinciding with shows aimed at teens (I think manufacturing desires causes harm in others). I also have no problem with evidence based warnings competing with brands on the front of tobacco products. I'd have no problem with government no longer enforcing contract law in the case of genetic use restriction technology or overturning the precedent set by Diamond vs. Chakrabarty (which may in fact influence their decision on
human gene patenting
).
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I think it should go for all unhealthy activity. We should be limited to 30 minutes of gaming every day, and 3 hours of internet a week. We should have to exercise for a solid hour every day, and have a mandatory quiet 8 hours of sleep. The government could institute curfews. Violators would be rounded up by a patrol. The patrol would be there to make sure everyone got "Satisfactory Sleep". The down time would be called "stop" time. You'd be made to get some stop, it would be obligatory. The whole program could be called the "Satisfactory Sleep Get Stop Obligatory", or "SS Gestapo" for short. The SS Gestapo could patrol the streets at night to ensure that those who violated curfew would be sent to camps. They could also set up a network of informants to rat out those who violated soda pop laws, or used the internet illegally.
I'm all for the government controlling all aspects of our lives, for our own good.
Of course, for all this to come around, we need a well funded state, by destroying the Bourgeoisie class, and allowing the workers to form a union of government, headed by a strong military state, run by a single powerful party to prevent all the gridlock in government we have now. We could call it the Union of Sovereign Societal Regions.
The new USSR, of course replacing the capitalist dogma, could use the SS Gestapo to institute a series of reforms in which government ensures the common good, through economic controls. Dissenters could be sent to specialized work camps, to make sure they contribute their fair share.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
you are taking it too far.
It was satire to point out the flaws of both extremes. Complete government regulation is encroaching on liberty, but complete freedom is damaging to individuals. We shouldn't allow government to ration our pudding to keep us from getting fat, but at the same time, we shouldn't allow children to smoke crack.
Post by
HiVolt
Better than obese pilots having heart attacks and crashing planes and the skinny ones charging ten times the rate, global lung cancer because smokers pollute every imaginable bit of atmophere and non-smoker selling air around them. I am too tired right now to build counter-hyperbole, but point is you are taking it too far.
Come on, Boron! Just think for a second. Don't you realize that everything always works in extremes? That there couldn't possibly be any middle ground or gray areas? It's right and wrong, sir. Good and evil. If you don't see that the government will at some point break into your house, rape your wife and force her to have an abortion, take all of your money and guns, and tell your children that God doesn't exist, then I don't know what I can say to you to make you believe. I guess you're just a lost cause.
Damn liberal hippies. Never thinking about how they can help themselves. It's always about everybody else. Jeez, grow a backbone!
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Well, I never signed to pudding rationing, more of ingredient control (not more than X amount of sugars in Y type of product kinda way).
I think that government determining my pudding ingredients is a silly waste of tax dollars on something that government has no business regulating.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.