Actually I was just in a kind of pissy mood when I posted, and should have gone to the Flame board, but didn't feel up to it.

But some interestnig discussion has been generated, so I guess that redeems me a little.

Regarding spanking, I haven't heard of any in depth testing (though I'm sure it is out there), and I doubt if judiciously applied swats given under serious circumstances (to try to teach a child to avoid harmful things, for example) cause actual psychological damage. However, I have a number of other problems with spanking:

1. "Don't" (swat) "you ever" (swat) "hit your brother" (swat) "again!"

2. A 250 pound man vs a 30 pound child.

3. Violence is an acceptable problem solving technique in everyday life.

4. The incongruity, in my mind, of a nurturing, protective adult using physical force to cause pain to a child. Yes, the mama lion cuffs the cubs when they get out of line, but I think humans have other means at their disposal to teach their children right from wrong.

Making spanking illegal, though, may not be the right route.

Regading helmet laws: yes, it seems silly that, when cars have to have seatbelts and airbags and side impact beams, etc, etc, that people are allowed to ride motorcycles, even with the very best protective gear. Ditto bicycles on public roads. But it doesn't seem right, either, that someone else should have to pay for the medical costs incurred by motorcycle accident "victims", as you describe. Drawing lines is, as always, the hard part. (Motorcycles, or for that matter cars, that can go three or even four times the maximum speed limit seem incongruous, too, but I would be the first to decry a Ferrari limited to 70 mph).

As an aside, maybe it's ok for you to have the right to splatter your brains all over the side of a school bus, but what about all the witnesses, all the survivors (family and otherwise)? Even with the tenuous connection of the HZ, I would feel something of a hurt if I found out that had happened to you, and those close to you more so by orders of magnitude.

Trans-fats - yes, disclosure and market pressure should ba all that is required, but then a big chunk of the public health system woud have to be disbanded, too. Would it be OK for manufacturers to put a known carcinogen in their food products, as long as they disclose the information? (well, that's about describes cigarettes, but that's another topic). How about insect parts and rodent feces? OK to have hamburger sitting out at room temperature for days as long as it is labeled? Addictive drugs in soft drinks? (ok, so they already use caffeine).

What about all those people - many of them educated, intelligent and thoughtful, but many not so much - who simply want to grab something quick and easy, and want it to taste good? One would have to be a biochemist, a nutritionist, a cardiologist and an oncologist (and maybe a few more -ists) to be fully informed about everything one eats. Shouldn't the general public be able to expect that, if something is for sale, it should not be harmful to their health? then there is the issue of consumption levels....

Drugs - yeah, as TB mentioned, legal alcohol and illegal marijuana doesn't make much sense. Education and awareness of possible problems should allow most drugs to be legalized, and think of the cash boon for governent! Instead of spending huge amounts on enforcement and prosecution and incarceration, they could be raking in billions in licence fees and taxes! Why else are cigarettes still available? A lot of lawyers and cops would be out of work, though, if pot and coke were legal.

Speaking of rambling, this is the most I've posted for a long, long time. What am I procrastinating about? Oh, yeah, the looming deadline for my book. Back to the grind....