Right Turns on Red and the Destruction of Society
Is allowing a right turn on red a major contributor to the breakdown of society?
Yes, I realize at first glance, that this sounds silly, but I hope that you will bear with me and listen to my argument.
The other day, when I was driving the car, my daughter asked me why I had gone through a red light. I asked what she meant, and she referred to the fact that I had turned right at a red light. She told me that "red meant stop". I tried to explain the concept of "red" and it quickly dawned on me that she was thinking that I was telling her that red was a "conditional" concept... and that Red meant stop, except when it did not. And I quickly noticed throughout the rest of the day that at least some of her behavior was impacted by this. My command of "no, don't do that" was less respected and so forth. What it appears that we are doing is teaching our children that laws do not represent absolutes, but rather are there to be obeyed or ignored at our pleasure. The concept of "right on red", as a nationwide concept, is now about 35 years old. (Its older in California). We now have whole generations that have been "taught" to conditionally obey the law.
And, of course, adding to all of this are "silly" new laws in which we regulate (or overregulate) just about everything.... from overly complex food and nutrition labels which bury real information in a morass of information to ridiculous no smoking policies which unfairly stigmitize smokers.... what's next....
Yes, I realize at first glance, that this sounds silly, but I hope that you will bear with me and listen to my argument.
The other day, when I was driving the car, my daughter asked me why I had gone through a red light. I asked what she meant, and she referred to the fact that I had turned right at a red light. She told me that "red meant stop". I tried to explain the concept of "red" and it quickly dawned on me that she was thinking that I was telling her that red was a "conditional" concept... and that Red meant stop, except when it did not. And I quickly noticed throughout the rest of the day that at least some of her behavior was impacted by this. My command of "no, don't do that" was less respected and so forth. What it appears that we are doing is teaching our children that laws do not represent absolutes, but rather are there to be obeyed or ignored at our pleasure. The concept of "right on red", as a nationwide concept, is now about 35 years old. (Its older in California). We now have whole generations that have been "taught" to conditionally obey the law.
And, of course, adding to all of this are "silly" new laws in which we regulate (or overregulate) just about everything.... from overly complex food and nutrition labels which bury real information in a morass of information to ridiculous no smoking policies which unfairly stigmitize smokers.... what's next....
posted by prophet of doom | 8:38 PM
2 Comments:
Second hand smoke may well be harmful to others. But so are many other things, from auto emissions to noxious gases released by industrial plants. The problem is that we "identify" second hand smoke as an evil and target it, while ignoring many far bigger problems. (I do not believe most of the economic numbers cited by antismoking advocates. What are needed are nice neutral numbers produced by groups not advocating for either side. The author of the Hopkins study clearly has a view and, frankly, it sounds like it may have colored his work...)
Consider the comment that "98%" of bar and restaurant workers are subject to second hand smoke. How does this reconcile with the fact that 12 states (including some major states) have smoking bans on restaurants? How much second hand smoke are they subjected to? What is the period of time? If a worker is subjected to second hand smoke once in a three month period do they call within the 98%? What percentage of these bar and restaurant workers smoke? Are there less restrictive measures that would produce the positive result? (For example, could the restaurant have a specially venilated smoking room in which no one but Customers were to go. If the Customer wanted a drink or food, he would have to leave this room, place his order, pick up his order and return to the room. The room would only be cleaned after the smokers had finished using it and the air had been cleaned...)
I am not denying that second hand smoke is a problem. The question is the magnitude of the problem and whether or not the proposed solutions to the problem work. And, frankly, I am not sure that they do work. It is my own personal experience that I have been exposed to MORE second hand smoke since the antismoking bans became so strident. The smokers have been forced out onto the street near building entrances.
Post a Comment
<< Home