By Rob Holston
February 12, 2007
I side with Carl and Dave on
this issue. As society gains in complexity, we need laws to
protect those who can not protect themselves. It is easy for
folks like Ron to degrade the argument to "firing squad"
statements. The Big Brother fear factor is always there but
to play that card negates the real questions at hand.
Dinah has some great points and I have authored past articles
on SitNews that deal with many of the various "choices"
she draws our attention to. Dnah's discussion has merit but
in fact we depend on the government being a "good big brother"
nearly every time we buy a product! We expect Firestone tires
NOT to blow out on every turn. We expect Pinto gas tanks NOT
to explode on impact. We expect 2% milk to have less fat than
whole milk. We expect the hundreds of products with aspartame
to actually be safe. Sorry, the FDA failed all of us miserably
on that one.
If we are to take Dinah's interpretation of the child abuse laws
seriously, then many cases brought to light in recent years involving
children kept in cages or closets and fed dog food should NOT
be considered child abuse because the danger was not eminent?
Perhaps because the malnourishment or the mental abuse would
not lead to immediate death it is not a crime? If the existing
child abuse statutes need to be rewritten, so be it. Fortunately
legal precedent by decision has defined "child abuse"
and forcing kids to breath second hand smoke IS child abuse.
It is now time for the statutes to catch up to that scientific
reality. Google secondhand smoke.
Received February 11, 2007 - Published February 12, 2006
About: "Retired teacher,
father of two, promoter of health."
Note: Comments published
on Viewpoints are the opinions of the writer
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sitnews.
Send A Letter -------Read
E-mail the Editor at
Stories In The News