Health & Safety Regulations
_
Posts: 6,651
There have been many conversations lately about government infringement (or lack thereof) upon the rights of individuals through health and safety regulation. My belief is that these issues are not black and white, and that judgments must be made, taking costs and benefits into consideration. But some people seem to believe that things are more clear cut, and that some regulations are OBVIOUSLY an infringement upon people's rights and should not be enacted. I am genuinely confused about what people think are reasonable versus unreasonable regulations. So I would like to know what all of you thing about these:
1. Car seat requirements
2. Seat belt requirements for adults
3. Seat belt requirements for children
4. Speed limits
5. Stop signs and traffic lights
6. Driver's license requirements
7. Car insurance requirements
8. Health insurance requirements
9. Medical license requirements
10. Healthcare regulations (sterilization of instruments, etc.)
11. Spa regulations (sterilization of instruments, etc.)
12. Fish pedicure bans
13. Tattoo regulations (sterilization of instruments, etc.)
14. Tattoo age requirements
15. Smoking age requirements
16. Drinking age requirements
17. Marijuana bans
18. Heroin bans
19. Mandatory education
20. Child labor laws
21. Childcare facility regulations
22. Child neglect laws and the ways in which they are implemented
23. Child abuse laws and the ways in which they are implemented
24. Laws regulating the sexual activity of minors
25. Laws regulating the sexual activity of adults
26. Prostitution bans
27. Requirements that prostitutes wear condoms (where prostitution is legal)
28. Strip club regulations
29. Regulations in strip clubs that serve food
30. Laws requiring you to spay/neuter your pets
31. Laws forbidding abuse of pets
32. Laws forbidding cockfighting and dog fights
33. ADA laws
34. Laws requiring stairs to be a certain height
35. Child pornography laws
36. Laws regulating the disposal of human remains
37. Workplace safety laws
38. Laws requiring the availability of nutritional information for food
39. Taxpayer-funded sidewalks
40. Taxpayer-funded bicycle lanes
41. Laws requiring car manufacturers to provide seat belts in all vehicles
42. Laws requiring car manufacturers to provide air bags in all vehicles
43. Laws that prohibit smoking on airplanes.
44. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors in bars
45. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors in hospitals
46. Seat belt requirements on airplanes
47. Being made to put your seat back in it's upright position, put your tray tables up, and stow away all carry-ons under the seat in front of you during take-off and landing on airplanes
48. Laws forbidding train drivers from texting
49. Laws forbidding car drivers from texting
50. Regulations about what food can be served at schools
Okay, those are just the first ones I thought of. Please list others, too, if you's like.
1. Car seat requirements
2. Seat belt requirements for adults
3. Seat belt requirements for children
4. Speed limits
5. Stop signs and traffic lights
6. Driver's license requirements
7. Car insurance requirements
8. Health insurance requirements
9. Medical license requirements
10. Healthcare regulations (sterilization of instruments, etc.)
11. Spa regulations (sterilization of instruments, etc.)
12. Fish pedicure bans
13. Tattoo regulations (sterilization of instruments, etc.)
14. Tattoo age requirements
15. Smoking age requirements
16. Drinking age requirements
17. Marijuana bans
18. Heroin bans
19. Mandatory education
20. Child labor laws
21. Childcare facility regulations
22. Child neglect laws and the ways in which they are implemented
23. Child abuse laws and the ways in which they are implemented
24. Laws regulating the sexual activity of minors
25. Laws regulating the sexual activity of adults
26. Prostitution bans
27. Requirements that prostitutes wear condoms (where prostitution is legal)
28. Strip club regulations
29. Regulations in strip clubs that serve food
30. Laws requiring you to spay/neuter your pets
31. Laws forbidding abuse of pets
32. Laws forbidding cockfighting and dog fights
33. ADA laws
34. Laws requiring stairs to be a certain height
35. Child pornography laws
36. Laws regulating the disposal of human remains
37. Workplace safety laws
38. Laws requiring the availability of nutritional information for food
39. Taxpayer-funded sidewalks
40. Taxpayer-funded bicycle lanes
41. Laws requiring car manufacturers to provide seat belts in all vehicles
42. Laws requiring car manufacturers to provide air bags in all vehicles
43. Laws that prohibit smoking on airplanes.
44. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors in bars
45. Laws that prohibit smoking indoors in hospitals
46. Seat belt requirements on airplanes
47. Being made to put your seat back in it's upright position, put your tray tables up, and stow away all carry-ons under the seat in front of you during take-off and landing on airplanes
48. Laws forbidding train drivers from texting
49. Laws forbidding car drivers from texting
50. Regulations about what food can be served at schools
Okay, those are just the first ones I thought of. Please list others, too, if you's like.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And so on...
to which I would reply, "feel free, ma'am... but you won't be allowed to use it legally in Canada."
our car seat regulations are a lot stricter...
your drinking age is crap though!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glancing at the list, I am against insurance requirements of any sort. Insurance companies only wield the power that they do because they've weasled their way into law. That's where "regulations" start to rob people, and ultimately provide a system where people feel that they are acting justly in taking advantage of a system that's also actively exploitative by using the strong arm of the law. The problem is that undoing this mess that has been created can only be done with a complete collapse of the system. Adding more government and rules requiring insurance only strengthens the insurance cartel, not weakens it. Apply this same logic to oil subsidies, supporting bad American car companies, big pharma, etc... If given the opportunity, the market WILL select businesses that make the most sense-- the cleanest, the greenest, the cheapest, and the best will win in the end as long as the bad businesses are not supported through coercion.
Also generally speaking, if there is an age, be it 21, 18, or 13 where someone is a minor and incapable of making "adult" decisions, laws should protect them. So I would agree with car seat requirements on my good faith estimate that they actually make sense, and that there's no better or equivalent product out there. I honestly know nothing about them. I don't see why a concerned parent shouldn't be able to come up with their own solution either, if it's equal. Seat belts for adults on the other hand, I don't think should be a requirement.
The more locally things are run, the bigger the pool to choose from in terms of how society can operate best through different combinations of laws. Ideally, eliminating a lot of the laws in place eliminates the moral hazzard that they create. Laws against Marijuana, but not against alcohol, give many people a false sense of security that alcohol, because of it's legal status over pot makes it seem safer than pot. After all-- it's regulated, right? I think differently. During prohibition, not only was alcohol as dangerous to consume as it is now, it was also dangerous to obtain. Without prohibition, we would not have had the Al Capones of the world.
I would like to address your whole list sometime soon.
I'd like to say that laws that protect people's lives and property are most important, and can usually be handled with some basic laws against murder, theft, and fraud.
My opinion on insurance is that I think it's a racket, but I'm torn. I think everyone should have healthcare coverage, but I don't think it should be through private, for-profit companies. That's one reason I support single-payer. But, given the lack of a public option in the new healthcare bill, I can understand why people would be made to have coverage. Same with car insurance. People are made to have coverage to protect the victims of accidents, so they're not SOL if they're hit by someone who can't afford to pay for damages. I sure don't want to be hit by someone without car insurance! So I feel like this law is there to protect me as a potential accident victim. On the other hand, since insurance companies are a racket, I don't want to be their victim either. And the kicker is, if everyone had healthcare coverage, car insurance would be a lot less necessary. But I have no faith whatsoever in the "free market," so if we are going to be made to have insurance - or even feel compelled to purchase insurance of our own free will - I think the insurance companies should be highly regulated.
Regarding car seats, I don't know what you mean when you say a concerned parent should be able to come up with their own solution. But here's another question for you: If we require car seats, should we also provide them (at least for those families who can't afford them)? That's a HUGE problem where I live/work.
And regarding seat belts for adults, I'm torn. On the one hand, I think adults can make their own decisions about the extent to which they want to protect themselves. But, on the other hand, I can think of two reasons to require seat belts: 1. We, the taxpayers, really do pay more money to cover the medical costs of people who are in accidents and weren't wearing seat belts. (Another argument in support of mandatory car insurance, perhaps?) 2. If I'm in a car with you and you're not wearing a seat belt and we get into an accident, your lack of restraint in the car puts me at greater risk of injury/death. So, to a certain extent, I think it really IS a violation of the rights of others for people to not wear seat belts. So seat belt laws do protect people's lives and property/money, which you said are most important. (There's really no way to get out of violating SOMEONE'S right here.)
Regarding drugs & alcohol, do you think there are ANY drugs that should be prohibited? And, for the drugs that should be legal, do you think they should be regulated?
Basically my whole perspective on regulation in general is that it's just complicated. I can usually see both sides (though I may think one side has a much stronger case than the other).
Tragedy Shines Light On Plight Of Yemeni Child Brides
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126110751
I think it just goes to show, again, that what's right and wrong and what should or shouldn't be regulated is really all relative.
Seatbelts:
If I'm not wearing a seatbelt, and I'm not the cause of the accident (someone else is), that person is responsible for whatever damages I sustain. My not wearing a seatbelt caused no harm to anyone, and wasn't going to either. It's only after I get hit while it is someone else's mistake, that it becomes an issue. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for anyone's damages, but charities will choose to do so.
Your argument for the driver needing a seatbelt with a passenger in the car is about the best argument I've ever heard for seatbelt laws. The second best is that the driver (or anyone in the car) is a potential projectile when not wearing a belt. Again, I think it should be up to cities and towns to figure this out for themselves. I'm still not big on this law for how rare these circumstances that we just described actually occur, and I also think that someone harmed in the passenger seat for a driver's mistake of not willing to wear a seatbelt has grounds to sue for negligence, if it can be proven. No seatbelt law required, but justice is still served.
No drug should be made illegal at a federal level-- and I personally would advocate the same at state and local levels-- but again, allow each locality to figure these things out on their own. It is up to people to educate themselves about any substance they put into their body, whether the FDA approves it or not. It's something you HAVE to do anyway, if you wish to live a longer, healthier life. If you don't, that's also your prerogative. Your family and friends should have more to do with influencing your personal behavior than a government agency, which will be inevitably co-opted by special interests, who ultimately impose their will on you by force.
My idea about car seats is simply that a parent should be able to provide an equal substitution for a car seat if they so choose. Whatever this contraption is, I have no idea. Some sweet harness with roll bars might suffice
Do I think taxpayer dollars should pay for car seats? No. And not because I don't sympathize with the cause. Most people sympathize with the cause. It's more of a question if government is the best vehicle to deliver the solution to this problem. I don't think it is. Actually, I think people see government as a solution because of it's sheer size and power ONLY.
So is there a moral obligation on the part of all people to help each other out? I would say that I personally feel it in myself, but I'm not going to advocate holding a gun to someone else's head who doesn't feel this way, only for the end result to be not delivered as well as it would have been if it was done charitably and voluntarily.
in this world we are all too interconnected....
if my town does not reacquire seat belts but then I drive 3 blocks down to a hardware store in the other town which requires seat belts..... should I be required to follow your laws
a good example is towns or counties that are dry, don't you think that people drive ten minutes to get beer in the next town/county then take it home to drink it?
That's why freedom just happens to work best almost everywhere.
Also, if you like to drink, it's best that you don't live in a dry town.
I disagree. I think the person who hit you is responsible for the damages you would have sustained had you been wearing a seat belt, and you are responsible for the additional damages you sustained due to not wearing a seat belt. I think both people need to take responsibility for their part. The guy who wasn't wearing a seatbelt may not have been the primary cause of harm or chosen to get hit, but he did chose to put himself at greater risk, knowing an accident was a possibility.
We can agree or disagree about what SHOULD happen, but do you not think it's a good argument given was DOES happen?
Yeah, the projectile scenario is pretty much what I had in mind - for drivers or passengers. I really don't think this is extremely rare, though, and I think it would be common if not for seat belt laws. While I agree that whoever in the car is hit by the flying seatbeltless dude should be able to sue, I hardly think the ability to sue means justice is served and therefor no law is required. The idea of regulation is to keep innocent people from getting hurt or killed in the first place. Being able to sue will hardly make up for the loss of a life.
But what do you say about regulation of legal drugs?
Okay, so let me add another dimension to this problem - one of taxpayer self-interest rather than moral obligation: There are many times, at the state hospital where I work, when our labor and delivery unit has to turn laboring women away because we are full. The #1 reason we are full is because we can't allow babies to go home without a car seat. We've already determined in this conversation that the state should protect babies by requiring car seats (or some other such as-yet-non-existent device that would probably be too costly for some as well). I would argue that, in the long run, it would save us (the taxpayer) money and protect the health of the other patients if we could get car seats to these parents and discharge them. So, in this case, should we provide car seats?
regulation=less freedom
even with laws or regulation there is still free will, I only wear my seat belt about 60% of the time and that is my choice
you still have the freedom of choice however there might be consequences, either a ticket from a police officer or your head going through the windshield.... make your choice and live your life
I feel this loss of freedom thing is a taking point
some could argue that under Bush, the deregulation king, we had less freedoms.. remember he was the one the gave telecom companies immunity for allowing the government to spy on our emails and text messages
Simply put, not having a car seat demonstrates a pretty large lack of foresight after a 9 month pregnancy.
you can not hold everyone to your own standards or expectations
You see, that's EXACTLY the problem. Allow people to think, and they will have to think. Thinking has just about been criminalized in this country, or at least HIGHLY discouraged. Giving away a car seat isn't exactly going to teach those parents to put the bottle in the baby's mouth, and not its ear either. Seriously, if the hospital wasn't going to allow you to take your baby home, what would YOU do? Call someone up and get some money Western Union? Beg a little? Maybe hit up the ATM assuming you might have been socking away what you could to prepare for your bundle of joy to enter the world?
whilst driving i wear a seatbelt(when i do) not for safety reasons but cause if the cops pull me over im gone.
when im a passenger(an extremly rare occurrence) i wear a seatbelt not for safety reasons but so as not to disadvantage the driver due to lost points and fines attributed to them.
oh and i never wear a seatbelt if its provided in a coach or bus.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Aside from the problem I have with your judgment/stereotype of people with poverty levels that are incomprehensible to most Americans, you didn't answer my question.
The idea that people without resources just need to be taught to think is offensive. As for what you would do if the hospital wasn't going to allow you to take your baby home, people do find a way (it's not like they live at the hospital 'til their kid's too old to need a car seat) - it's just that it takes longer and in the meantime we have to turn patients away. For the record, not having a (safe) ride home is the number one reason discharges are delayed hospital-wide, not just on the maternity wards.
incorrect it is not about thinking, it is about knowledge and education
I say give them the car seat then refer them to a parenting class which will teach them the difference between the ear and the mouth.
I can not compare what I would do what they should do, since we have a difference in means
I thought I did, honestly. To clarify: No, I don't believe it's the taxpayer's responsibility. I believe that if this problem is as big as you say it is, that it would be better if someone stepped up and started an organization to provide for this cause directly, and fundraise. What about seeking help from a nearby church?
I didn't judge anyone, and I live in one of New York's poorest cities. I'm sure I witness exactly what you're talking about every day without quite being on the front lines like you are. I don't feel that the best way to break the cycle of poverty is to always give things away at the taxpayer's expense.
Let's see where knowledge and education takes you without the ability to think.
Again, I'm all for giving the car seat. I'll donate a car seat tomorrow to the hospital down the street in honor of this thread. However, the rest of the city / state / country shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's car seat when putting away 50 cents per day over the duration of the pregnancy would probably cover it.
not to mention that you keep bringing up thinking which is an abstract brain function
we all are thinking all the time, even while we sleep
your are confusing thinking with education and decision making
Nowhere did I even say that people need to be taught to think. Thinking occurs naturally. It simply blows my mind that at some point, it doesn't to occur to someone that they have to take their baby home from the hospital, and that there's probably a best way to do it-- especially if money IS the issue. We all know that money problems DO NOT happen overnight, unless you've got a severe gambling problem.
I could never find myself in that situation. I just couldn't. So what does that make me? Even if I some how was in that every situation, give me a phone and an hour and I believe I would have it solved.
But does it pay for parenting classes?
Privileged.
Okay, then, I challenge you to do it! Tomorrow, without spending any money, without borrowing money or a car seat from friends or family, and without doing anything illegal - and maybe we should also say without a car - obtain a car seat within an hour. (We really should also have you assume that you're 73 hours post-cesarean and have no support from a partner or family.) Then donate the car seat to a local hospital (preferably one that serves a resource-limited population).
Edit to add: I forgot to mention that you live in a rural part of the state, 150 miles away.
I think your comment is in jest here, but it does raise a good point. The line does need to be drawn somewhere, no?
150 miles from where? NYC? Try 60. Also, come to Newburgh and use the world "rural," see if anyone knows what you're talking about.