BF2S Forums California Bans Trans Fat From Restaurant Food

In California, which passed a primary enforcement law in 1993, compliance rose from 71 percent to 83 percent in the first year, and other states that switched from secondary to primary experienced similar increases.

Seat Belt Compliance At All-Time High (NY example): http://readme.readmedia.com/news/show/S … igh/230295

Partly do to primary laws and state ad. campaigns for compliance (which has included ticketing to enforce the law). Cars are required by law to have them and almost every state has a primary law (requiring seatbelt useage). Child restraints are also required by law.

A study on developing countries (as an example, assess this as relevant information yourself):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18491656

INTRODUCTION: Trauma is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. A quarter of all fatalities due to injury occur due to road traffic crashes with 90% of the fatalities occurring in low- and medium-income countries. Poor compliance with the use of seat belts is a problem in many developing countries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of seatbelt compliance in motor vehicles in Benin City, Nigeria. METHODS: A five-day, observational study was conducted in strategic locations in Benin City. The compliance rates of drivers, front seat passengers, and rear seat passengers in the various categories of vehicles were evaluated, and the data were subjected to statistical processing using the Program for Epidemiology. RESULTS: A total of 369 vehicles were observed. This consisted of 172 private cars, 64 taxis, 114 buses, 15 trucks, and four other vehicles. The seat belt compliance rate for drivers was 52.3%, front seat passengers 18.4%, and rear seat passengers 6.1%. Drivers of all categories of vehicles were more likely to use the seat belt compared to front seat passengers (p = 0.000) and rear seat passengers (p = 0.000). Drivers of private cars were more likely to use seat belts compared to taxi drivers (p = 0.000) and bus drivers (p = 0.000). Front seat passengers in private cars were more likely to use the seat belt compared to front seat passengers in taxis (p = 0.000) and buses (p = 0.000). Rear seat passengers in private cars also were more likely to use seat belts compared to rear seat passengers in taxis (p = 0.000) and buses (p = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with seat belt use in Benin City is low. Legislation, educational campaigns, and enforcement of seat belt use are needed.

Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-28 21:20:14)

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ralph Nader would disagree with you.  He lobbied hard for the installment of seat belts at a time when most people didn't even know what they were or why they were important.

I'm not sure what you have against regulation that puts quality and safety ahead of the curve.

It's unnecessary. IF the problem is legitimate, the problem will solve itself relatively quickly. Any human death/injury in the meantime (usually still effecting people who know the consequences, but do it anyways due to the current social acceptance and rationalization) is a small price to pay to avoid other, failed quality and safety laws like prohibition.

edit: I agree with Kmarion about government education about health and safety risks.

Yeah... death is a small price to pay...  whatever...

quality over quantity

topal63 wrote:

You said seat-belt compliance was disconnected from regulation. That isn't true as that is: mandating they be in cars, enforcing the use, and campaigning educationally for their use. As for the mitigating factors regarding fatalities in car accidents I do not know based upon that chart what they are.

Certainly you can be killed in a car accident whether or not you wear your seat-belt. I do not know the percentage related to speeders nor do I know if the percentage increases are related to number of cars on the road (per capita changes). It could be that people aren't wearing seat-belts, of course some don't, but that doesn't show up in a graph. And, the other things mentioned previously, or other mitigating factors, may have a greater weight as an affect on # of car fatalities.

I'm sure there is a small group of people who happen to fall into the category of "I got caught and now I must wear a seat belt". This group of ignorant and uncaring people are putting themselves at risk by not buckling. I should not have to carry their burden of recklessness because they disregard common sense. I will not budge on this one. These laws are stupid, and they go against the principle role of the government.  I'm all for being a "do gooder" and educating people, but not at the cost of giving the government the right to dictate lifestyle in any sense. (So long as those decision does not effect others) I've read to much history and I understand how a government can seemingly appear to have good intentions in order to gain enough confidence only to strip individual rights. It may sound absurd initially, but there is a precedent for my beliefs.

I was just having fun with your funny. No biggie.


But anyways,

It is mandated that they (seat-belts) be in cars by law. It is mandated that you must drive the speed limit. It is mandated that you must wear a seat-belt. It is mandated that you must have auto insurance. It is mandated that you shall not drive under the influence. It is often safe to make a right-turn on red, but sometimes it's posted no-turn-on-red; or no U-turn (mandated that you shall not). And, not a single law was created to benefit you personally by protecting your personal sovereignty to govern yourself.

You wearing seat-belts - fine don't wear them or do - I don't care. No one is making you wear them but the government has the right to regulate you on a public-or-private road; or fine you; for that; or for jaywalking or any other minor infraction. I can't take my dog to certain parks in Coral Springs - hey that's they way it goes (I have to take him to a designated dog park; and they have some pretty good reasons for me doing so). Children often are required in certain municipalities, by law, to wear a helmet when riding a bike. They same is sometimes true for adults on motorcycles (in certain areas). And not a single law is an intrusion on a persons lifestyle. They (they meaning: anyone, people in general, me, you) are making choices that affect the greater public: directly even in relation to emergency response teams. That's what the myriad of these laws represent (what communities of people commonly do). It isn't even that much different than a zoning boards right to regulate certain things in the community. It's all in intrusion - right? Yes, a tonnage of minor ones - in every city in basically every corner of America.

Man-made trans-fat food additives are not a lifestyle choice. They were created to benefit a corporation primarily by extending product shelf-life. Nothing more and then they found their way into many many foods. No one is talking about banning milk, or CLA as a dietary supplement. Their talking about regulation; reduction of use; based on scientific knowledge about their negative side-effects.

PS: I am not all that interested in this issue. I am just arguing for the sake of arguing and BTW normally I go to bed by 11:00 PM, but I couldn't sleep so I figured I would waste some time here.

PS2: The dog park is a minor regulation (as well as that whole paragraph) it is in response to the minor regulation of wearing seat-belts issue that was introduced. But, of course you knew that was what it was in reference to (the myriad of minor regulations we endure).

Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-28 23:11:05)

And this is just one more minor regulation that Californians apparently embrace.

I was wondering what the support among the pubic was? I don't actually know.

Kmarion wrote:

topal63 wrote:

I was wondering what the support among the pubic was? I don't actually know.

Nor do I. This is one of the reasons I like smaller government. If that's what they want.. have a ball.

I assume when you say smaller you mean more divided in this case.

You're always screwing someone over. It might not be you this time, but I would rather not base my level of freedom on a roll of the geographical dice.

Kmarion wrote:

Yes, lessen the impact of the Federal Gov. Provide for the common defense (Mostly). Classic conservatism.

Well (as I understand it) conservatism means to have a smaller government that has less of a footprint on day to day life in all levels of government, then also is divides power to give the federal government the least relative power possible in relation to the states and even cities.

The former I generally agree with, a state should either be as free as possible or as limiting as possible, but the latter to me is nonsense. Dividing the power for anything but realistic regional necessities does nothing but promote hypocrisy and hurt national spirit. (ironic coming from Texas )

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Yes, lessen the impact of the Federal Gov. Provide for the common defense (Mostly). Classic conservatism.

Well (as I understand it) conservatism means to have a smaller government that has less of a footprint on day to day life in all levels of government, then also is divides power to give the federal government the least relative power possible in relation to the states and even cities.

The former I generally agree with, a state should either be as free as possible or as limiting as possible, but the latter to me is nonsense. Dividing the power for anything but realistic regional necessities does nothing but promote hypocrisy and hurt national spirit. (ironic coming from Texas )

Conservatism has become more of a brand instead of an ideology. The latter was (mostly). I do not think common defense should be the only role. It simply isn't possible. But everything else should be kept minimal. That allows for greater accountability. If you want to truly understand my position when addressing most issues read up on Thomas Jefferson. A very liberal minded conservative. If I can convert his writings to pdf I'll send it to ya.

I'm amazed to see how ignorant people are when it comes to history (not you). I was just reading a passage from "The Constitutionalist Manifesto". They claim to support smaller government and they are quoting James Madison..lol. He was all about building up the Fed.

Not that I have extensively read on him, mainly just quotes, but most of it sounds pretty good in theory. He seems to be firmly sitting in the moderate middle, and while ideally it sounds like it's pleasing everyone, things just don't work out that way. Sort of like how Washington was fully against political parties, and that sounds really good, but in reality humans just don't work like that. I mean, Jefferson though we should be an agrarian society right?

To me the ideal is in the extremes, and the reality is compromise in the middle. He seems a bit backwards from that.

and bedtime, especially since I don't think I made much sense. This place always makes me stay up half an hour to an hour later than I mean to

Good point

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

They specifically warned us about hitching up to these political factions.

The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers.

The wall of separation between church and state is the best method to keep religion free from intervention by the federal government, government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.

That's not extreme.. that's just common sense.

His writings included not only his words but what the people around him were saying.. good stuff.

agrarian society right.. you'll want to apply historical context to that one. The foundation of Jeffersonian ideals is sound.

Well that's what I was saying, they said it, but in all reality can a republic exist without political factions? Human beings band together in groups for mutual protection. You're fighting human nature to get away from it, even if it would be to move to an ideal.

You should show me something that isn't just common sense if you want to show how smart he is.

In historical context he was very wrong, no matter which way you look at it. Food is still food across the ages, and the idea of industry and the service sector, though far more primitive at the time, still existed. If I remember correctly he liked agriculture because it afforded individual reliability and independence, which would have fundamentally changed our core values as a nation. Progressiveness and American ingenuity as we know it today just would not be the same. The Civil War may not have been fought, we wouldn't be on top of the world technologically or militarily, honestly not even close. Maybe that sounds like not such a bad thing, but to be perfectly honest I think these are the only things that have kept the nation together over our very brief history. Most foreign nations have a very extensive history to anchor them, but that is one thing we don't have. The trials and tribulations we have gone through as a nation are what have brought us together, particularly foreign and domestic wars, and without them we would be crumbling. Who gives a shit about the flag when everyone is at home farming, 10 miles away from the next person who doesn't give a shit about the flag?

and yes I'm speaking in hindsight, but we don't give a pass to the guy at the U.S. patent office who said there was nothing else to invent do we?

I could show you much more kid but by your admission you'd argue just for the hell of it. He wasn't so naive as to think that the natural banding together of people was avoidable. His point was to keep an eye on it (the tree of liberty must be.. yadada". He himself banded together to fight the federalist and Madison (who was pushing for a Federal bank at the time). The common sense example was to counter your inaccurate remark about him being "extreme". His extremism was limited to taking on the crown. Thomas Jefferson was very progressive. If you had extended your education beyond quotes you would know that. He was talking about abolishing slavery from the get go. It was his moderation that kept him from pushing the issue. You also miss Jefferson's real vision of agrarian society.  The impact of needing an entire nation to take to the field and start to build would certainly not make sense in today political atmosphere. That is what I meant by historical context. His political philosophies preceded the industrial revolution. But you know that "..and yes I'm speaking in hindsight".

Things could have very well remained "Jeffersonian" if our ancestors followed in his footsteps and heeded his ideology. More common sense knowledge for you to amuse yourself with --> that doesn't mean verbatim.

BUT WAIT....


....the same state that is considering legalizing weed is banning TACO BELL!!!!



Irony