Do Proposed Warning Labels Go Far Enough?

The newly proposed cigarette warning labels seem to be stirring a bit of controversy,  some find them to be a bit harsh and graphic.  I’m trying to wrap my head around how anyone could possibly be offended being forced to subject their children to graphic images plastered on cigarette advertising while walking to the counter of your local convenience store or gas station.

The proposed rules  would require the images to occupy at least 20% of any advertising space and the 50% of the space on the front and back of cigarette packs.  I see nothing wrong with a healthy overdose of reality for the youngsters in this country.  It’s not like we would have the audacity to force them to watch the absurd violence of watching Elmer Fudd shooting the tail off poor defenseless Bugs Bunny on a Saturday morning.

I am even pondering if the proposed rules go far enough.  Sure they may have cigarettes covered for now, but what about some of the other health issues we face daily.

Take vehicle crashes for example, in 2009 there were 33,808  deaths due to vehicle crashes in the U.S.  We are constantly being reminded that seat belts and airbags greatly reduce the possibility of death during a crash.  It seems to me that a large permanent warning image placed on the passenger’s dash and the center of the steering wheel of all vehicles should be made mandatory.  The image should also be placed prominently on all “click it or ticket” road signs.  That may get people’s attention and remind them to buckle up better than that insistent distracting light on the dash.

OK, maybe a seat belt might not have saved this girl, it doesn’t appear that the airbags helped much either.  Regardless, the message is a good one and if a message like this would save one life wouldn’t it make it worthwhile to make sure everyone sees it?

One of the major causes of car crashes is the use of alcohol, which many times negates the life saving characteristics of seat belts.  If you decide to drink and don’t kill yourself when you crash, you are still taking health risks.  Brain damage & liver disease might get you.  So I propose these images be placed on alcoholic beverage containers, advertising billboards, and television commercials. The first image shows the long term effects of alcohol on the brain.  With that much structural change one’s thought processes is also bound to change.  Thus, scientifically proving true the T-shirts you’ve seen, “Instant Asshole – Just add alcohol”.  On the second thought the instant part may not necessarily true, some people are assholes before they start drinking.  On a further note, once this damage is done it cannot be reversed, so you will then forever be an asshole.  No one likes an asshole, so most would just as soon see you keep drinking you pathetic life away until you liver resembles the second image.  To avoid this scenario from becoming an actuality to today’s youth in America these images should be seen by all children early and often.

Another big fat health concern in the forefront is well, big and fat, and the dangers it can pose.  Dealing primarily with the fast food industry can keep today’s youth from succumbing to coronary heart disease later in life by simply displaying images of the effects the happy meal they are about to devour may have on them. 

Displaying images similar to this on the menu board, food wrappers, sacks, boxes, billboards, and television advertisements should raise awareness significantly.  Current proposals are to ban including toys with kids meals. But think about it, the kids like the toys in a kids meal, but they like the food too.  The toys will break on the way home, you will throw it away, and it will not be missed.  How is this going to reduce the sales of the toxins we happily keep poisoning our children with.  It won’t.  But with gruesome images constantly being drilled into our children’s consciousness they will eventually not even want these products.

We can eventually expand this into other health issues as well:

I am not going to go into great detail below, just trying to get my point across, as far as dietary issues we have.

  • Red Meat – Increased risk of cancer
  • Fish – Risk of increased mercury levels
  • Pork – Risk of parasites
  • Eggs – Risk of Salmonella
  • Dairy – Risk of cancer & cardiovascular disease
  • Vegan diet – Risk various vitamin and mineral deficiencies

That pretty much leaves water.  Water is needed to survive but does not provide any nutrients that the body also needs.  Some water sources contain arsenic and other contaminants that can be unhealthy as well.

To avoid the risks of these issues warning stickers should be put on all foodstuffs,  and advertising materials of each.

After reading all the warning stickers on all food stuffs. No one will want eat or drink anything for fear of the health risks associated involved.  So I came up with another warning label, but I can’t figure out anything to stick it on.

Furthermore, I have not been able to come up with any activity, or inactivity for that matter, that does not have at least one health risk associated with it.

Knowing this, maybe our government needs to stop and realize that life itself is a terminal disease with a 100% mortality rate.  It is not the government’s responsibility, obligation, or right to protect its people from their own decisions.

It is also high time the people of this country take responsibility for their own actions, quit trying to blame others for the consequences of decisions they have made themselves, and wake up to the fact Hank Williams and Fred Rose penned so eloquently, “I’ll Never Get Out of This World Alive”.

Share

Squashing Plans for Mosque using Eminent Domain

New York republican gubernatorial nominee Carl Paladino’s campaign promise to stop the building of a mosque planned near ground zero may be a fun fight to watch.

I am no fan of eminent domain myself. I have no personal experience of the government paying me pennies on the dollar for my home for the greater good of the community. However, even without any personal experience, I believe that a person owning land should not be forced from it because of community plans or the economic welfare of a local or state government whose track record is no better (or quite possibly worse) than mine.  In my mind I was here first, pay me an agreed upon price or take your plans elsewhere.

At the same time I don’t believe that a mosque being built near ground zero is such a good idea either. There may be nothing illegal about it, but in principle it would be worse than building a strip club next to you local elementary school (although some of the youngsters might enjoy going to school a bit more…Hmmm, I might be on to something there).  Many on the left decry the rights of a religious group to build a place of worship, which I also have no qualms with.  But the peaceful religions I know of would not attempt to build on a site knowing the amount of resentment and provocation their plans are promoting.

What a dilemma, which is the lesser of two evils?

Enter Carl Paladino, he claims to be against eminent domain. However, he must dislike the idea of a mosque being built near ground zero more so. He promises that if elected he would “use the power of eminent domain to stop this mosque and make the site a war memorial instead of a monument to those who attacked our country”.

If he is elected (don’t hold your breath, we’re talking about New York here), and if he keeps his campaign promise (again, keep breathing – this is a politician), and if he would play his cards right, one of two things could potentially happen.  On the outside chance that all of the above comes to pass there would be a very long, drawn out, and very expensive court battle.  In the end the mosque would be built but eminent domain would be dealt a devastating blow, or eminent domain would win out and there would be no mosque.  Either would be palatable in my opinion, but both would put whipped cream and a cherry on top.  Right off the top of my head I can only think of one way for that to happen.  Go to court, fight it out, and keeping fighting him until you bleed off all his financial resources and win. The ACLU would then need to step in and fund an appeal, which would overturn the lower court’s decision. That would be the devastating blow for eminent domain, and the investor for the mosque would have no monies left to carry on with his plan and would be forced to sell to Donald Trump, who offered $6 billion to buy the building from him…  Hey, it’s my fairy tale, I’ll tell it how I want to… And they all lived happily aver after.

To add a little more realism, I doubt Paladino’s plan is little more than a ploy to win out at the primaries and use this as a divide and conquer technique against the democrats that support both building the mosque and robbing people of their property at a reduced rate that is not negotiable by the current owner.

Good luck Carl, you’ll need it.

Share