Italy to ban plastic bags

[hooplala]

Probably write a dumb song about it.

He also used to say "don't vote", and then changed his mind about that before he died.  So, my guess is he very well might have changed his mind about it.  Penn & Teller changed theirs, and they did an entire episode of Bullshit about it.

[Suu]

Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.

Despite how much LMNO hates St. Zappa, the man was actually quite intelligent and was politically active. Chances are he could have changed his mind as the research was released. Hard to say, really...


....Though he'd be having a fucking field day with the shit going on these days.

[Epimetheus]

Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.

Despite how much LMNO hates St. Zappa, the man was actually quite intelligent and was politically active. Chances are he could have changed his mind as the research was released. Hard to say, really...


....Though he'd be having a fucking field day with the shit going on these days.

I miss him.
Wasn't alive while he was, but I miss him all the same.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I know! They've already done it to cocaine and even heroin... those poor farmers.

[Suu]

Zappa denied the harm of second hand smoke in his book. I do wonder what he would think given the amount of knowledge about it today.

Despite how much LMNO hates St. Zappa, the man was actually quite intelligent and was politically active. Chances are he could have changed his mind as the research was released. Hard to say, really...


....Though he'd be having a fucking field day with the shit going on these days.

I miss him.
Wasn't alive while he was, but I miss him all the same.

My dad says, "I miss Frank." all the time.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.

So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.

[hooplala]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.

So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.

Another reminder why I don't have kids.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I think that's a mis-characterization

I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking


and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.

The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.

Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.

But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH

Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.

Hold on a second.  Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.

If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?

As long as families with a history of cancer, smoking or non-smoking, get to have the same fun.

genetic profiling is illegal

behavioral profiling is not, yo.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.

So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.

Another reminder why I don't have kids.

I have a question

why do people say this? I hear it all the time, and yet it makes no sense. I assume the reason you don't have kids is because you don't want them... so what's up with the weird defensive "sour grapes" sounding posturing people make whenever something about having kids sounds like it's complicated or difficult? Is it supposed to make people who have kids feel stupid for having them? I don't get it.

Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up. Nobody says "Another reason to be glad I'm an orphan!" when someone's parent is having health issues. I can't think of a time anyone has said "Another reminder of why I don't date" when I've told them I can't go to a show because I have plans with my boyfriend... so why do people say it about kids?

I get that shit ALL THE TIME. If I say I can't go out because I have my kids that night, odds are about 50/50 that someone, usually an alleged "friend", will say exactly what you said. Or if one of my kids is sick and I have to miss something. Why the hell? I LIKE my kids. You don't want 'em, don't have them, but don't fucking imply that people I love are a MISTAKE.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry, not meaning all that vitriol at you personally, Hoopla. It's just a sore spot, especially after hearing it from two people in particular all last summer. I finally snapped and told them both off. I only have my kids half time, so when they're home I WANT to hang out with them, and having people act like it was some terrible burden I was suffering through really, really pissed me off. I finally told them that I was only saying I couldn't hang out with them to spare their feelings, because it seemed rude to tell them I'd rather hang out with my kids.

[Phox]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.

So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.

Another reminder why I don't have kids.

I have a question

why do people say this? I hear it all the time, and yet it makes no sense. I assume the reason you don't have kids is because you don't want them... so what's up with the weird defensive "sour grapes" sounding posturing people make whenever something about having kids sounds like it's complicated or difficult? Is it supposed to make people who have kids feel stupid for having them? I don't get it.

Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up. Nobody says "Another reason to be glad I'm an orphan!" when someone's parent is having health issues. I can't think of a time anyone has said "Another reminder of why I don't date" when I've told them I can't go to a show because I have plans with my boyfriend... so why do people say it about kids?

I get that shit ALL THE TIME. If I say I can't go out because I have my kids that night, odds are about 50/50 that someone, usually an alleged "friend", will say exactly what you said. Or if one of my kids is sick and I have to miss something. Why the hell? I LIKE my kids. You don't want 'em, don't have them, but don't fucking imply that people I love are a MISTAKE.

Because people don't realize the pleasure of being a parent. They don't understand the attachment a parent has for a child. They don't understand what it's like to have another person be a part of you. They should be pitied, not hated.

[AFK]

Well, for some people, kids just aren't their thing.  I can't fault someone for that.  My brother is one of them.  Dude just turned 30 and it doesn't look like kids are in the cards at all.  I don't know that they need or deserve to be pitied.  We all walk different paths.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

You can fucking bet your life that parents of a child with a life-threatening allergy are going to do everything possible to make sure their kid doesn't get exposed. In some cases this means they won't buy a house anyone else has ever lived in before.

So, in answer to your question, YEAH. DUH.

Another reminder why I don't have kids.

I have a question

why do people say this? I hear it all the time, and yet it makes no sense. I assume the reason you don't have kids is because you don't want them... so what's up with the weird defensive "sour grapes" sounding posturing people make whenever something about having kids sounds like it's complicated or difficult? Is it supposed to make people who have kids feel stupid for having them? I don't get it.

Nobody's like "Yup, that's why I only have sex with prostitutes" when relationship issues come up. Nobody says "Another reason to be glad I'm an orphan!" when someone's parent is having health issues. I can't think of a time anyone has said "Another reminder of why I don't date" when I've told them I can't go to a show because I have plans with my boyfriend... so why do people say it about kids?

I get that shit ALL THE TIME. If I say I can't go out because I have my kids that night, odds are about 50/50 that someone, usually an alleged "friend", will say exactly what you said. Or if one of my kids is sick and I have to miss something. Why the hell? I LIKE my kids. You don't want 'em, don't have them, but don't fucking imply that people I love are a MISTAKE.

Because people don't realize the pleasure of being a parent. They don't understand the attachment a parent has for a child. They don't understand what it's like to have another person be a part of you. They should be pitied, not hated.

That might be taking it a little far, but I'll go with it.

[Phox]

Because people don't realize the pleasure of being a parent. They don't understand the attachment a parent has for a child. They don't understand what it's like to have another person be a part of you. They should be pitied, not hated.

That might be taking it a little far, but I'll go with it.

I started to write something that started with "Because people are selfish pricks" then decided to be more subtle. 

[AFK]

Besides, maybe Hoops is just so traumatized from having to wade through vaginas all day, that the last thing he wants to see is a screaming, purple baby coming through one of those things.