Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Not Every Human Problem Deserves a Law

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,380

    Not Every Human Problem Deserves a Law

    I must say I am impressed by Democrat Gov Brown, from Cali no less!

    [QUOTE]Print|Email
    "Not Every Human Problem Deserves a Law"
    Katherine Mangu-Ward | September 8, 2011

    California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) has been [URL="http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/09/07/browns-veto-messages-simple-philosophical/"]dropping some surprisingly sweet vetos recently[/URL], including nixing a bipartisan bill which would have imposed a $25 fine for kids who ski or snowboard without a helmet.
    Here's his [URL="http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_0105_Veto_Message.pdf"]pithy veto letter[/URL]:

    [IMG]http://reason.com/assets/mc/kmw/2011_09/veto.png[/IMG]


    BOOM!
    Brown has also vetoed new rules for paid signature gatherers (I blogged about the bill [URL="http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/19/hello-my-name-is-paid-signatur"]here[/URL]):
    [INDENT]"If it is acceptable to force paid signature gatherers to place identifying badges on their chests, will similar requirements soon be placed on paid campaign workers? I choose not to go down this slippery slope where the state decides what citizens must wear when petitioning their government"[/INDENT]And he killed [URL="http://blogs.kqed.org/capitalnotes/2011/09/07/browns-veto-messages-simple-philosophical/"]another bill[/URL] increasing penalties for texting or calling without a hands-free device while driving.
    More Reason on Brown's unexpectedly pleasing vetostravaganza [URL="http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/17/jerry-brown-vs-democrats-cavan"]here[/URL].
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,187
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133760]I must say I am impressed by Democrat Gov Brown, from Cali no less![/QUOTE]

    Yes. Fines for texting while driving are dumb.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,380
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4133773]Yes. Fines for texting while driving are dumb.[/QUOTE]

    I assume you are being sarcastic. Do you think the fines stop anyone from texting? One study found that the laws just force people to hide their texting taking their eyes even farther from the road.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,380

    Driving While Texting Laws Did Not Reduce Crash Rate, Says Study

    [URL]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/texting-driving-bans-make-roads-safer-study/story?id=11744804[/URL]

    [QUOTE]
    [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/number-distracted-driving-deaths-unchanged-11679789"][COLOR=#336699]Texting while driving[/COLOR][/URL] may be very dangerous, but state laws banning the activity are not reducing the number of auto crashes, a new study claims.
    Researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute reported today they found [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/texting-bans-add-risk-roads/story?id=11742164"][COLOR=#336699]no reduction in car collisions[/COLOR][/URL] after [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9605969"][COLOR=#336699]texting-while-driving laws[/COLOR][/URL] took effect.
    The researchers calculated rates of collision claims for vehicles in California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington, immediately before and immediately after those [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9605615"][COLOR=#336699]states banned texting while driving[/COLOR][/URL].
    Not only did the researchers find that crashes did not decrease after texting bans, they found that in three states, crashes actually increased slightly.
    "We want to be very, very clear. Texting while driving or [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/illinois-killer-cop-workers-comp/story?id=11738010"][COLOR=#336699]using a cell phone while driving[/COLOR][/URL] is definitely hazardous. It's just that laws enacted to reduce this behavior are not reducing crashes," said Anne Fleming, a spokeswoman for the Highway Loss Data Institute.
    Although the study only focused on four states, she said there's no reason why the findings wouldn't apply to the 26 other states that have also adopted texting-while-driving laws.

    Transportation Secretary: Report Doesn't Square with Previous Research

    [B]"The point of texting bans is to reduce crashes, and by this essential measure the laws are ineffective," Adrian Lund, president of both HLDI and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (HLDI-IIHS), said in a statement. [/B]
    [B]He also said that the finding that collisions went up after texting bans indicates that those bans might even increase the risk for texting drivers.[/B]
    The study will be presented today at the annual meeting of the Governors Highway Safety Association. It comes as U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood ramps up the Department of Transportation's efforts to combat distracted driving.
    "This report is completely misleading," said LaHood in a statement after the study was made public. "Distracted driving-related crashes killed nearly 5,500 people in 2009 and injured almost half a million more. Lives are at stake, and all the reputable research we have says that tough laws, good enforcement and increased public awareness will help put a stop to the deadly epidemic of distracted driving on our roads."


    [B]Transportation Secretary Says New Study Is Flawed[/B]

    [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/texting-bans-add-risk-roads/story?id=11742164"][COLOR=#336699]LaHood[/COLOR][/URL] said the new report is not in line with previous research supported by the HLDI-IIHS, which shows that drivers are four times more likely to crash if using a handheld device behind the wheel.
    In a blog post, LaHood said there are several flaws in the study, chief among them that "they have created a cause and effect that simply doesn't exist."
    "For example, we have a national law against drunk driving. People are also required to wear seat belts," he wrote. "But if the number of fatalities in a state goes up one year, would it now pass as "research" to say that seat belt and anti-drunk driving laws are to blame?"
    [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/highway-deaths-tied-phones-texting-government-hold-distracted/story?id=11681681"][COLOR=#336699]Distracted-driving[/COLOR][/URL] laws may be the first step but enforcement must follow it, he said, adding that in pilot programs pairing the two have "drastically" reduced distracted-driving behavior. In Hartford, Conn., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that texting while driving has dropped 68 percent over the past six months. In Syracuse, N.Y., it has declined 42 percent.

    Sec. LaHood's statement about the pilot programs did not mention collision rates -- the department's own study will take a year to complete -- but he pointed out that while NHTSA found that distracted-driving fatalities rose from 10 to 16 percent of all traffic fatalities between 2005 and 2008, the figure plateaued for the first time in 2009.
    The reports coincide with the transportation department's national anti-distracted driving campaign and other public awareness efforts.

    Governors Highway Safety Association: More Enforcement Needed

    Last week, LaHood convened a second National Distracted Driving Summit in Washington, D.C. to draw attention to distracted driving, which, the department says, is responsible for one in every six highway deaths.
    Jonathan Atkins, a spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, said his organization welcomes the dialogue and research.
    "We don't necessarily agree with the results or like the results, but we want to learn from them and see how we can strengthen these programs and bans," he said, adding that the HDLI-IIHS study is just one of several studies.
    He said the association continues to support texting bans and wants every state to adopt one, but said they need to strengthen enforcement to make them more effective.
    "This is not definitive, this is not the end. We're really just at the beginning," he said. "We're really where we were with drunk driving about 20 years ago. We know there's a problem, but we don't quite know what to do about it."
    [/QUOTE]

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133760]I must say I am impressed by Democrat Gov Brown, from Cali no less![/QUOTE]

    Cali is headed straight down the ****ter and it's legislature is passing helmet laws??? Holy freakn' crap!!!!!:eek:

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,380
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4133814]Cali is headed straight down the ****ter and it's legislature is passing helmet laws??? Holy freakn' crap!!!!!:eek:[/QUOTE]

    I agree but suprisingly their Governor seems to have a little common sense.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133824]I agree but suprisingly their Governor seems to have a little common sense.[/QUOTE]

    Brown has always been adept at morphing into what works. When he was mayor of Oakland he adopted Rudy G's broken windows philosophy. And I'm not being critical of Brown for being so maleable. I give him credit for being smart enough to change with the times.

  8. #8
    Thank goodness laws that would have an affect on the rich families get shot down. Their nannies have enough to worry about. :zzz:

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,380
    [QUOTE=cr726;4133859]Thank goodness laws that would have an affect on the rich families get shot down. Their nannies have enough to worry about. :zzz:[/QUOTE]

    I guess you could look at it that way. I choose to see it as preventing dumb laws from hitting the books. They are laws that would achieve nothing.

    I agree with SW that it is mind boggling that the California legistlature is wasting time on BS laws like this in the first place. What is your complaint exactly?

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133865]I guess you could look at it that way. I choose to see it as preventing dumb laws from hitting the books. They are laws that would achieve nothing.

    I agree with SW that it is mind boggling that the California legistlature is wasting time on BS laws like this in the first place. What is your complaint exactly?[/QUOTE]

    It is amazing that when a law may effect the rich it simply goes away. Money matters not common sense when it comes to laws.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,380
    [QUOTE=cr726;4133879]It is amazing that when a law may effect the rich it simply goes away. Money matters not common sense when it comes to laws.[/QUOTE]

    I think you are projecting. How is a law against texting while driving only about the rich?

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133892]I think you are projecting. How is a law against texting while driving only about the rich?[/QUOTE]

    Rich people have drivers and personal assistants to send their texts for them.

    Doesn't add up.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133892]I think you are projecting. How is a law against texting while driving only about the rich?[/QUOTE]

    I'm talking about what the thread was initially about, helmets when snowboarding. How do you think the people of Crenshaw feel about this law not being enacted.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Trades;4133780]I assume you are being sarcastic.[/QUOTE]

    Is he ever anything other?

    Going to go with "safe assumption" on that one.;)

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=cr726;4133879]It is amazing that when a law may effect the rich it simply goes away. Money matters not common sense when it comes to laws.[/QUOTE]

    Not sure if this logically pans out, wouldn't a rich kid on the slopes be more likely to wear a helmet than let's say a lower/middle class 16 year old hitting the slopes on a snow board he bought at a garage sale?

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,187
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4134036]Not sure if this logically pans out, wouldn't a rich kid on the slopes be more likely to wear a helmet than let's say a lower/middle class 16 year old hitting the slopes on a snow board he bought at a garage sale?[/QUOTE]

    Sure.

    What they should do instead of a fine is refuse medical care to any child who gets a head injury while skiing whose parents don't have medical insurance. Same thing they should do to idiots who ride motorcycles without a helmet...let the morons bleed to death on the pavement.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,997
    Even though I always wear a helmet while skiing, I agree that it shouldn't be forced by law. It isn't a big enough problem or public safety hazard such as not wearing a seat belt while driving.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,003
    Yea, but the Gov can't seem to pull the trigger on shooting down something that will actually maim and kill some folks by allowing a mandate that is being pushed forward for the dubiously safe, questionably effective/necessary vaccine for HPV, Gardasil. This is the same vaccine that Perry got raked over the coals for in the debate the other night. You'd think Brown would learn from the (admitted) blunder that his peer made.:rolleyes:

    I realize this is a piece written with a partisan slant, but the main talking points are salient.

    [quote=Michelle Malkin]The California legislature is quietly pushing forward with a sweeping proposal to mandate that Gardasil — the vaccine marketed as a shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) — can be dispensed by the state to children as young as 12 without the permission of their parents.
    I confirmed by phone on Friday with the staff of the bill’s sponsor, California Democratic Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, that the legislation had been voted out of the state Senate Appropriations Committee by 6-3. There were no witnesses or testimony at the hearing. The bill, AB 499, had previously been suspended over cost concerns. Now, it is expected to head quickly to the Senate floor for a full vote this week and supporters believe Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown will sign it.
    A previous push to require all California girls entering sixth grade to be vaccinated with the HPV Vaccine was withdrawn from the state legislature in 2007. The current bill would circumvent the state’s parental consent laws and “allow a minor who is 12 years of age or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.” The bill states: “The minor’s parents or guardian are not liable for payment for medical care provided pursuant to this section.” So, who is?
    From the state Senate Appropriations Committee’s fiscal summary:
    [INDENT]As this bill could result in the administration of vaccinations for hepatitis B and the HPV to Medi-Cal beneficiaries between the ages of 12-17 inclusive that would otherwise not have received these vaccinations, there could be increased costs to the Medi-Cal program, which pays a $9 administrative fee to physicians who administer the vaccines to Medi-Cal beneficiaries. All other costs related to vaccines for Medi-Cal beneficiaries under age 19 are paid for by the federally funded Vaccines for Children Program.
    Based on Medi-Cal counts as of January 2010, it is assumed there are over 466,000 females and 457,000 males (923,000 total) aged 12 through 17 who are Medi-Cal beneficiaries. Although the main focus of HPV prevention has been on young women, there has been recent research indicating the case for also routinely vaccinating young men for the HPV as well. As a result, there could be costs to administer vaccinations for both young women and men.
    For the 923,000 minors aged 12 through 17, a five to ten percent immunization rate for hepatitis B would result in administrative costs ranging from $415,350 to $830,700, fifty percent of which would be a cost to the General Fund. A five to ten percent immunization rate for HPV, which is a three-dose series, would result in administrative costs ranging from $1.2 million to $2.5 million in total funds.[/INDENT]
    Outside a few pro-life and parental rights activist websites, there has been zero coverage of the latest major attempt by a state government to legislate Gardasil coverage for minors.
    California Catholic Daily reports:
    [INDENT]“The bill was unexpectedly called back to that committee when it was pointed out that if minors do not need to obtain their parent[s'] consent for the controversial Gardasil HPV vaccination, then the state would have to foot the bill,” explained the Catholic Legislative Network in an email. “Analysis undertaken for the Senate Appropriations Committee could not project the number of children, 12 -17, who might seek the vaccination without letting their parents know. The document, however, estimated the cost at $75,000 to $155,000 per 100 children vaccinated. The drug maker is now recommending the shots for boys as well, making it even harder to project total costs according to the staff report.”
    …“This bill is an end run by the pharmaceutical giant Merck to push their vaccine, Gardasil, on California children at taxpayer’s expense,” said May. “A major public outcry in 2007 killed an effort to make the vaccinations mandatory when Merck proposed it then…“It is time for parents and anyone who cares about the welfare of California’s children to mobilize,” said [Catholic leader Bill] May. “Let’s flood senator[s'] offices with phone calls and letters.”[/INDENT]
    There was another major public outcry in 2007 regarding a separate, but related Gardasil mandate, of course — the Texas GOP Gov. Rick Perry’s Gardasil executive order debacle.
    Perry supporters continue to invoke the “opt out” clause as a defense of the Texas measure. But undergirding the Perry decree is the anti-free market belief that it is necessary and right to force private insurance companies to pay for middle-school-age children’s Gardasil injections. Under Texas law, health insurance plans must provide coverage for all mandated vaccinations. There is no “opt out” provision from this mandate. So if Perry’s EO had been implemented, every private insurance plan would have been required to pay for Gardasil vaccinations.
    This is not merely a “social” issue. It goes to core fiscal and free-market principles. Forcing insurers to cover treatments is generally referred to by us limited government advocates as a, yes, mandate. Interfering with existing contracts between private companies and their clients is generally referred to by us fiscal conservatives as, yes, big government. These bottomless benefits mandates drive up the cost of health insurance and contribute to the problem of the uninsured (be sure to click that link and check out page 3, which shows that Texas has the 4th highest number of mandated benefits laws in the country). Texas, perhaps not coincidentally, also has the highest rate of uninsured in the country.
    Those of us who have opposed Obamacare from day one have argued that policymakers should be trying to reduce the cost of health insurance, not increase costs by mandating coverage of every A-to-Z treatment and procedure.
    I’ve already addressed the critical distinction between traditional school-age vaccines for communicable diseases such as polio and measles versus behavioral/lifestyle immunizations for sexually-transmitted diseases such as HPV and Hepatitis B. They are simply not comparable.
    As a follow-up to debate over my recent Perry/Gardasil post, I’ll add a few more points.
    My intellect, integrity, political motives, and sanity have all been questioned as a result of my long-held opinions on the need for vigilant scrutiny and skepticism of top-down vaccine initiatives sponsored by both Republicans and Democrats. I’ve been called “anti-vaccine” despite the fact that my kids are up to date on their plethora of vaccines with the exception of Gardasil, which I have refused for my 11-year-old daughter for now. Vaccine experts themselves admit the wear-off time for Gardasil is uncertain; some estimate it might be 10 years. Why not wait then until my daughter’s 15 or 16 instead of 11?
    Unlike the old days (which some of my critics who may not have children seem to still be operating under), the current CDC vaccine schedule is clogged with more than a dozen different vaccines, many of which must be taken several times during the course of childhood. The long-term synergistic effects of all of these vaccines are unknown; as the vaccine pipeline fills up, concerns about those synergistic effects should give parents even more pause.
    My husband and I chose to delay — delay temporarily, not deny permanently — several vaccines for our infant son nearly eight years ago. After researching health problems with the rotavirus vaccine and others, we determined that it’s not a bad idea for parents to wait a few years after a new vaccine hits the market to see how things go. (When Rick Perry signed his Executive Order, Gardasil had been on the market for a matter of months and had been tested on only several hundred 11- and 12-year old girls.)
    We were treated like pariahs by our then-pediatrician for delaying some vaccines. I know from personal experience that the pressure to submit children to government-minted vaccine schedules without question or challenge is immense. I blogged in 2007 about the appalling plight of parents in Prince George’s County, Maryland, who were threatened with jail time by public school officials if they didn’t get their kids vaccinated with chickenpox and hepatitis B shots.
    Gardasil mandate-promoters glibly point to “opt out” provisions with a naivete or willful blindness toward the hostility conscientious objectors face in the government-run health care and education systems. Just ask Catholic medical providers in the Age of Obama how it’s working out for them.
    I have been a staunch defender of the pharma industry against anti-capitalist attacks from the left and right. But I have refused to be coerced or bullied into anything regarding my kids’ health– especially when it comes to new behavioral/lifestyle vaccines. I cannot ignore lobbyists and politicians who provide incomplete/incorrect information and obfuscations about the duration of vaccine protection. And whether the mandate-pusher has an “R” or “D” by his or her name, his or her crony ties to Big Pharma lobbyists and donors are and will be fair game for scrutiny and exposure.
    If this makes me “fringe,” I’ll wear it proudly.
    If more taxpayers and patients were as immune to Nanny State schemes, imagine how much healthier we’d all be.[/quote]

    [url]http://michellemalkin.com/2011/08/29/californias-gardasil-mandate-moves-forward/[/url]

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;4134036]Not sure if this logically pans out, wouldn't a rich kid on the slopes be more likely to wear a helmet than let's say a lower/middle class 16 year old hitting the slopes on a snow board he bought at a garage sale?[/QUOTE]

    How many of the lower/middle class kids could afford a lift ticket? Or how about skis? They won't have much money left for Golf or gas for their boat.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=cr726;4133954]I'm talking about what the thread was initially about, helmets when snowboarding. How do you think the people of Crenshaw feel about this law not being enacted.[/QUOTE]
    Instead of being a nudge, why don't you respond to his response about texting? Or do you think poor people don't have cell phones?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us