All of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
All of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
hey this is not a bad thing, kids should be vaccinated, so should adults. It's a public health issue.
Just because someone is concerned with public health doesn't mean there is a vested interest. I'm part of the at risk population, I get vaccinated, haven't had the "flu" in years. I think we should be proactive about disease prevention where we can be, we just need to use appropriate methods, no DDT incidents
BS ,there is little evidence that mandatory vaccination for the flu would have any meaningful effect .This is just the mini-emperor of NYC sticking his nose where it has no business. The scary thing is I'm sure this putz has national ambitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You need to get out more Tom as there are many cases of unvaccinated children dying of flu complications and they are high risk healthy or not.
Even Healthy Kids Can Die From Flu Complications | digtriad.com
I don't know about mandatory, but parents do need to be aware, and responsible.
people die from many reasons . The most effective vaccine is live culture which can also cause deaths and complications . The inactive vaccine is less effective and only works to prevent the flu if they guessed correctly which strain will be floating around this year (a cr@p shoot at best since it is constantly mutating ) .
The correct position for the government is educating the public about ALL the risks . Neither local officials or the CDC do a particularly good job of it .
If you see a doctor twice a year for a regular check up, you would get that information. Nobody can ignore the free flu shot advertisements that pharmacies and food stores have during flu season.
Actually taking advantage of it may be a challenge for some.
really ? little accountability*, no prescription necessary, and no check up from the doctor required for some pharmacy clerk to inject you . Yeah that's a plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
[* vaccines enjoy complete immunity from lawsuits in the market place. If you are injured or die from a vaccine, you or your family cannot sue the manufacturer of the vaccine. This law was upheld bySCOTUS in 2011.]
Hello wingers:
Let's call a spade a spade, shall we??? You're INTO nanny stating your damn self. You BELIEVE the BIG government should protect us ALL from the horrors of marijuana. Oh, I know you'll disavow any connection to it, and SAY you're in favor of it... But, I DON'T see any posts about it... Nahhh... You're HAPPY with the DEA NANNY STATE!!!
Smoking a joint ain't no worse than drinking a big gulp. Ceptin you can get 20 years in Texas for smoking a joint...
STOP THAT, and I'll support you in your war against the "nanny" state. Otherwise, you're HYPOCRITES out for a day of gum flapping..
excon
Flu shots are voluntary, and best done by a doctor, but you have to have a doctor first right? Don't have one, now what? Pay 25 bucks, at Walmart, or CVS, or do without, and take your chances.
Where would you get a prescription without a doctor? Do nothing? You just said people can die from anything.
Yeah I'm not thrilled when 30 percent of fatally injured drivers test positive for drugs other than alcohol, with pot being the main culprit. Other than that I am neutral about pot .
not if Nanny Bloomy gets his way.Quote:
Flu shots are voluntary
Hello again, tom:That's NANNY STATE thinking.. SOME people abuse it, so to protect EVERYBODY we need to BAN it...Quote:
Other than that I am neutral about pot .
Only HYPOCRITES would be FOR banning ONE thing, and screaming about the government banning another....
Over to you, wingers..
excon
no it aint . there has to be laws against being high and driving .
Hello again, tom:
Let's talk, shall we??? Or do you go insane when it comes to drugs?? I think so...Quote:
no it aint . there has to be laws against being high and driving .
Let's be clear.. NOBODY.. That would be NOBODY is advocating driving while high. If you think I did, you need to read my posts again.
That said, YOU believe that because SOME people abuse it, the state should BAN it from EVERYBODY... That's NANNY state thinking - pure and simple..
Look.. I'd STOP calling you a hypocrite, if you'd admit you're ONE way about nanny stating... The stuff YOU like should NEVER be banned, but the stuff you DON'T should...
Until you do, I'm gonna keep on calling a spade a spade.
excon
You also must be reading someone elses posts because I haven't said that .Quote:
That would be NOBODY is advocating driving while high. If you think I did, you need to read my posts again.
That said, YOU believe that because SOME people abuse it, the state should BAN it from EVERYBODY... That's NANNY state thinking - pure and simple..
Hello again, tom:If it shouldn't be banned from EVERYBODY, why don't you simply say it??Quote:
You also must be reading someone elses posts because I haven't said that .
Can we STOP with all the gotcha crap??? Plain and simple... Since you're AGAINST the nanny state, do you favor LEGALIZATION of pot? That would be YES, or NO.
excon
I think calling us hypocrites for assigning positions to us is a pretty shameful game of gotcha.
Hello, Steve:Yeah. I'm a pretty shameful fellow..Quote:
I think calling us hypocrites for assigning positions to us is a pretty shameful game of gotcha.
But, if the shoe fits...
Look.. I KNOW you don't like me calling you on this, and you TRY to make it different.. But, it's NOT.. You COMPLAIN about bloomberg banning soda, but you're FINE with the government banning pot - FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON... It's not GOOD for you.
I'm WILLING to hear WHY you do that. But, rather than TELL me, you make ME the bad guy instead..
excon
but it should be banned from SOME people . Oh let me guess. You're fine with people getting drugs without prescriptions.Your fine with minors smoking ..I'm not. You're fine with driving under the influence ? operating heavy equment ..I'm not What I am in favor of is taking pot out of the narcotics class.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You let people drink until they get caught or kill somebody, so make it the same for pot. And no prescription needed.
Hello again, tom:
I got it... If you LIKE something, and they BAN it, the state is a NANNY.. But, if you DON'T like something, and the state BANS it, you're a concerned citizen.Quote:
What I am in favor of is taking pot out of the narcotics class.
I understand.
excon
I believe there should be controlled substances. But they should be able to be gotten freely. The thinking behind that is that there is some control of the system. And if a user seems to be abusing a drug then they can have access to help. With a sript, information and help can be given. I dont care if it is for recreational use. But I do like the assurance of a clean product rather then the crap that some are pushing on others today.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
if a soda or salt is consumed it may or may not hurt the person consuming it. If someone gets in an accident high on pot ,they are putting others at risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I can agree with regulating pot like alcohol for now but getting scripts for recreational use of medicines for health conditions may be a stretch for a doctor, but I favor help by those who have a problem over jail.Quote:
By Cdad,
I believe there should be controlled substances. But they should be able to be gotten freely. The thinking behind that is that there is some control of the system. And if a user seems to be abusing a drug then they can have access to help. With a sript, information and help can be given. I dont care if it is for recreational use. But I do like the assurance of a clean product rather then the crap that some are pushing on others today.
Drinkers do that all the time since they invented cars. Why is pot more dangerous than Jack Daniels?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
there are plenty of restrictive laws regarding alcohol..Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yes Tom most of them disregarded by many
Given the obesity epidemic and the drug epidemic it is clear that society must be made aware of the dangers of certain substances and consumption must be restricted to minimise the impact on state provided health services as well as maintaining the common good..
There are those who think this impinges on their personal liberty and having no interest in the common good oppose such measures.
Hello again, tom:
You're the only one talking about driving... I'm talking about sittin in your living room. But, even so, should the rights of responsible people be denied because a FEW might abuse them???Quote:
If someone gets in an accident high on pot ,they are putting others at risk.
excon
that word is not might but DO
Hello again, clete:
Let's say 10% do. Let's say 20% do. Should the rest of the law abiding people be denied the ability to smoke pot?
Look. I KNOW you're a committed drug warrior, so I don't expect any of my very sensible arguments to sway you. Do you drink, clete?
excon
let me put it this way Ex I would have been a lot better off if an uncle hadn't introduced me to alcohol in early life and if my mother hadn't died from the effects of an alcohol addiction. Yes Ex I drink in moderation and forty years ago I smoked, free of that addiction, thank God. I have seen and experienced what drug addiction did to my son, ruined his life so I am against dangerous drugs being readily available and in favour of all drugs of addiction being closely controlled with the intention of phasing out their use
Should pot be legalised? No.
Should Tobacco be banned? Yes
Should the sale of alcohol be restricted? Yes
Should the possession of these substances be criminalised? No
Should the sale of illicit substances be criminalised? Yes
Hello clete:
Your personal story aside, you DON'T understand marijuana.
I'm NOT gonna try to convince you here of your errors, because you're a COMMITTED DRUG WARRIOR and you've got your mind made up.
excon
If that were my position you'd have a point. So, as I was saying, calling us hypocrites for positions you assign to us is a pretty shameful game of gotcha.Quote:
Look.. I KNOW you don't like me calling you on this, and you TRY to make it different.. But, it's NOT.. You COMPLAIN about bloomberg banning soda, but you're FINE with the government banning pot - FOR EXACTLY THE SAME REASON... It's not GOOD for you
There you go again, making it personal to play victim. I don't think he meant JUST you.
Playing the victim is for liberals, just like refusing to discuss it honestly.
step aside Nanny Bloomy there is a new Nanny in town
NYC Mayor Eric Adams wants residents to 'voluntarily " tell the city what food they purchase. This way the city can evaluate if your diet is carbon friendly .
Plant Powered Carbon Challenge - Food Policy (nyc.gov)
The goal of this project is getting the people of the city to “commit to decarbonizing food purchases 25%” by the year 2030.
This one has Nanny Bloomy's soda ban and salt shaker bans beat . Of course with the abundance of cockroaches to consume in the city ; the city diet should be carbon free in no time ,
Amazing how people can so voluntarily just give up their freedom.
That's an impressive necropost, tomder ;)
I could've created a new posting for the viewing of 2 or 3 participants . But then I would've linked to this one for context anyway .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:59 PM. |