Are Artificial Food Dyes a Real Problem for Kids?
Not sure what the big surprise and hype is all of a sudden here, or why it's news all of a sudden now.
They were saying this back in the 80's-90's when I was raising my truly ADHD youngster. We tried elimination diets, allergy diets, everything...he was perhaps sensitive to certain things (anything with red dye made him throw up; learned to avoid that. Anything with yellow dye #5 caused Mom to have anaphylactic shock allergic reaction...) But basically, none of that affected his brother or sister, who were not ADHD.
We generally try to avoid things with additives, just because it's healthier, and because of my allergies, but ADHD son struggled all his life, regardless of what he ate, and now at 24 working and on his own, lives on Mt. Dew, which is full of dye.
People who blame ADHD on parenting are idiots - sorry - if you've never parented a truly ADHD child, you really don't know. My kids all got plenty of attention, outside play time, no smoking, drinking or drugs in the home, were raised in a home where education and culture was important, and were also taken to Sunday School and church every Sunday. Only one child had ADHD/learning disabilities/psych issues; the other two are fine - complete polar opposites.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
There is good evidence going back many years that indicates quite clearly that food additives are detrimental to everyone, especially CHILDREN.
This should not be controversial, and those "experts" who are paid to cast doubt on good science and plain common sense should be horsewhipped in the town square for the harm they have done to our society by deliberately confusing people about what is and is not harmful in our food, our air, our water, and our environment.
NPR has assisted them in past articles.
These tactics are straight from the tobacco industry's strategies that for decades prevented people from understanding the harm they were doing themselves with tobacco products, and there is no ethical or moral justification for the negatively traditional "let's wait and see and do more tests" approach, which is only employed for corporate profits to continue.
Corporations that produce "foodlike products" have no conscience, and will destroy your children's health for profit just as they will gladly sell you addictive poison in many forms (cigarettes, alcohol, processed food, gasoline, television) for short term profit regardless of outcome.
Americans have been infantilized by advertising-time to grow up and take responsibility.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
I'm surprised by the unintelligent and uninformed responses dealing with ADHD. My 9-year-old deals with this disorder every day of his life. While he's not sliding down banisters, he struggles to maintain his attention on even the most mundane of tasks - getting dressed, a short quiz, playing a game. I don't know whether food dyes make a huge difference in this - he's never had those psychedelic cereals, we limit candy, and even TV is just a weekend treat.
To me, it's neurological and the evidence that it's genetic is really strong to me - I can now recognize a lot of his behavior in his dad. But, if dyes contribute to the genetic component (which is most likely) and if these dyes are all just marketing, we need to do something. Europe has been been successful in regulating this kind of thing, but mention that here and all you hear is that we're becoming socialists. We need to stop letting corporations rule our country and put people - especially children's health - first.
I challenge anyone who doesn't believe in ADHD to spend a week (full time, day and night) with a child who has been diagnosed, then tell me what your thoughts are. I expect more compassion and reason from NPR listeners.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
Oh, lord. Not this crap again. A kid - not a bastion of good judgement, but an adept at imagination - acts like a kid and he's labeled ADHD. And if he's ADHD, there has to be a smoking gun somewhere to account for it.
These food dyes have been around for decades. Many used today were used when my parents were children. They were fine, I am fine, but today's kids are labeled as dysfunctional. Maybe, just maybe, there is nothing wrong with kids. Maybe it's the adults who have lost touch with reality. One thing is certain: we are doing a terrible job as parents and mentors to our kids. We jump on the latest half baked touchy-feely idea and refuse to instill discipline, a healthy self-awareness and regard for others. Then, when the kids behave as they are allowed to behave, instead of questioning our methods, we put them on medications.
I feel so bad for kids today. Most of them never have the experience that I had: being a kid. They are poked and prodded and examined and structured and coddled and analyzed to the point of distraction. It's no wonder they are growing up into dysfunctional adults who cannot cope and must be handled with kid gloves.
Read the article NPR/
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
<>
My now 9 year old son was almost diagnosed with Autism, among other things. His behavior was off the charts and he was even placed in behavioral preschool.
We saw every specialist under the sun to help him. After several years and tears, I discovered his one and only true issue was Red Dye #40. Not one doc ever suggested this! He was immediately a new child. Red Food Dye is in medications (including antibiotics), toothpaste, and even items that are not red. Read every label.
My son is an intelligent, wonderful child who learns easily and is doing fantastic in school and has many friends. The Red dye caused him to loose all control of himself and his emotions. Some kids react to yellow as well, but he does not. If your child is acting out and you have tried everything, do a google search about red dye #40 and behavior issues and you will be alarmed. I have taught my child how to be proactive and ask questions about what he eats, no one wants to feel out of control
Read the article CNN/FDA weighs food dye, hyperactivity link
Holy Rolls! Study Suggests Link Between Churchgoers and Obesity
Most people are going to use this article to either claim that the elitists are church bashing again or they're going to go the other way and say that church goers are fat rednecks.
I think, no matter what the intent of the researchers or the writer of this article, churches should take more time asserting more emphasis on taking care of the body.
I have often said that churches should sponsor "safe" walks for senior women, but they could also do more things like "safe" walks for stay at home moms...or Saturday bike-rides for youth or whatever.
Churches should get pro-active about getting their congregations up and moving. It would add to the dynamics of the church and make it more fun for people and be a very positive thing.
Churches get too stuck in the minutia of the church calendar.
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
I believe that bashing religion is tasteless, even though I’m not religious myself, and I hate generalizing a group of people, but here’s my take on this.
Getting lean and staying lean takes a lot of time and effort, it’s not easy for the average Joe. I spend at least 8 hours a week in the gym lifting and doing cardio. I know how many grams of Protein, Carbs, and Fat that goes into my body. I control what and the amount of food I eat. It’s completely in my control. But this also takes a lot of work and time. It’s easy to eat unhealthy. It’s hard to eat “clean”. I have very little free time left in my life for anything else.
My point is, living this lifestyle (it’s not a diet, it’s a way of life), takes time. The average person is already strapped for extra free time in their hectic modern day schedules.
Being actively engaged in church and church functions I believe also takes time (although I am not religious, I grew up in a religious family so I know from first hand experience). These two activities, living a healthy and active lifestyle, and being actively engaged in church, are competing for the little free time that most people have in their lives.
Thus, most religious people (and once again, I hate to stereotype) will probably choose serving god over exercise if forced to choose.
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
The body is the temple of the soul. I don't remember where I first heard that, but it was drummed into me by my Latin teacher in high school.
He was extremely abstemious in school, eating lunch at this desk, which always consisted of a piece of cheese and a piece of fruit and sometimes a roll of some sort. He kept his classroom open so that we could eat there if we wished and discuss Latin, ancient history, philosophy.
I've not always been a thin person, a serious sin in Santa Monica! But, I was always athletic and busy and it wasn't until, oh, about 30 years ago, that I realized that body types like mine were not the body types revered at the beach.
I still adhere to the tenets learned in my Latin class, am devoted to Thetis, Goddess of waves. You don't eat that much when you are surfing!
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
In the early church, most of people barely had enough food for sustenance, so the communal "breaking of bread" was common. I think the application of the breaking of bread with overabundance of food may be the cause for this type of conclusion.
Churches may just need to be more restrictive or frugal with the amount of food they prepare for these "breaking of bread" fellowships.
Read the article TIME/Why going to church can make you fat
<>
This study specifically targets middle-aged, church-going adults. Tell me who this can be if it isn't parents... Almost every person I know in the mommy / daddy years is carrying too much weight primarily because they spend too much time doing kid functions. Get two kids going, and you'll likely have dance class, gymnastics, baseball, and soccer all going at the same time. Now add church and both parents working, and heading to the gym is a real challenge.
A lot of church is about family, and the church provides a lot of kid activities like basketball and football. It also tries to keep people married (not sure of success vs outside church). Isolate for the differences in single vs. married with children vs. divorced across the sample populations, and I doubt you will see a difference.
When I was single, I worked out like a mad man to get women. Priorities are different while kids are at home. If I were divorced or the kids were out of the house, things would be different pretty quickly. Case in point; my brother's kids just moved out last year, and he found himself with "free time". He started cycling again, and dropped 40 pounds. He has kept it off, and is really lean now.
Read the article TIME/Why going to church can make you fat
<>
It's clear to me that whomever wrote this article has never taken any courses on world religions, or has limited their view to one specific Protestant sect out of the 26,000 or so that are out there. In most religions, it's taught that overeating is sinful.
Historically, gluttony is known as one of the 7 deadly sins. In several religions such as Eastern Orthodox, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam and others, people fast/abstain from foods at certain assigned times of the year.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair the infamous atheist who took prayer out of the public schools was obese. So are other less famous atheists. Personally, I'm tired of the anti-obese persons/anti-religious people bias the media loves to cater to
Read the article MSNBC/Praise the lard? Religion linked to obesity in young adults
<>
I happen to be a sociologist myself. As well as 235 lbs and proud of every ounce! I have not gone to church in years. This headline, as well as equating obesity with gluttony is irresponsible!
Gluttony and sloth is a stereotype that has NO place in the debate. I think the theory that stigmatized people turn to religion has some credence! Since MSM, whose sole purpose nowadays is to create more customers for its sponsors harps about obesity nonstop even when there are far more important issues.
But it could also be that religious people are smart enough to realize that this body is only a shell we borrow, and there is no point in making some arbitrary weight standard a priority. After all, for those who are not naturally thin, they must devote considerable time and money into conforming. It sure is not a matter of walking a few minutes and passing up dessert.
The irony is that Marx though religion is the opium of the people. They become so distracted with heaven, they don't pay attention to the quality of life in the here and now. But for a secular society, it is weight obsession that is the modern opium! They get so absorbed in their Thinderella fantasies, they think diminishing themselves will solve all their problems!
Which is exactly why MSM uses weight stories to distract them when more important things are going on!
Read the article CHICAGO TRIBUNE/Can church make you fat?
Your Child's Life - Rear-Facing Car Seats Advised Until at Least to Age 2
AAP Recommendations
Holy smokes!
As a pediatrician and a father, I’m truly shocked by the excuse-making going on here. Excuses being made by parents and grandparents because they find the scientific data and evidence too inconvenient for them.
I do wonder what kind of parent is willing to use their own small inconvenience (really — is it that big a deal to keep your kid rear-facing until they’re two?) to justify accepting a risk to their child’s life?
Seriously, now. Stop – look in the mirror and remind yourself that once you have kids, it’s no longer all about you.
Legs too cramped? Put your child’s car seat on the passenger side, or have the passenger ride in back if they’re uncomfortable. Child too bored when rear facing? Give him/her a book or toy. Or get someone to sit in back with them.
My goodness: if you’re so selfish that you’re first thought is your own burden, then maybe you should’ve thought twice before having children.
Remember – kids have no say in the matter of safety – they don’t get to ask you to do what’s best (as determined by rigorous research). They depend on you to put their interests above yours.
I am so disappointed at some of these comments. I’d expect this type of evidence-denying, “don’t tread on my rights to jeopardize my children’s lives” on a certain far-right cable TV’s website, but not here.
Maybe the best way to address these issues is to set the evidence-based safety standard as the law, and parents who are caught violating the law are appropriately prosecuted (e.g., accident where their improperly restrained child is hurt or killed results in prosecution for child neglect or negligent homicide)
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Kids should ride in Rear-facing Seats Until Age 2: Pediatricians
<>
My 22 month old is still rear-facing (in a normal sized car). Yes, it’s harder to get them him in and out.Yes, the seat in front of him is harder to adjust. But, no, it is not impossible. And, yes, I do think he would be happier if he were facing forward. The bottom line is this: it’s MUCH safer. He’ll continue rear-facing until we absolutely cannot stand it any longer, because I have seen videos of crash tests with forward facing toddlers, and those with rear facing toddlers.
Better a broken leg than a broken neck. And that is the choice.
Read the article WALL STREET JOURNAL/Kids should ride in Rear-facing Seats Until Age 2: Pediatricians
<>
American in Sweden here, and a mother to 3. My first I turned at 1 year, my second, who does get carsick even to this day we turned just before 2, and my third, who is 19 months will stay facing backwards as long as humanly possible.
Do a simple search, folks. There are websites out there that show kids facing rear for YEARS and not complaining. We have our little guy facing rear for a couple of reasons... 3 kids, 2 in booster/carseats in the back mean that him facing rear gives the person in the middle a little more room.
Rear facing IS safest, period, and anyone wanting to argue it is just being egotistical and stubborn. Our carseat is in the back seat on the passenger side, and it's actually easier to put him in it when it's facing rear than it is when they race forward. He plays with his sisters and can see them better that way, too. Makes it hard for hubby, who is 6'3" when I'm driving and he's riding, but such is life, we live with it, it's our child and his safety is paramount to us! Something I had to learn when I moved here in order to not go nuts is that Different isn't bad, Different is just that, DIFFERENT!
You have to be able to adjust, and if this is something that can save your child's life, then adjust and stop being so durned stubborn and worried about 'government stepping on your toes.' It's your CHILD we're talking about here, and it IS safest, and Europe has been doing it for years.
Read the article ABC/Child s safety seat recommendations revamped..
<>
If rear facing is so much safer, why don't they just build cars where all the seats behind the front row face to the rear? Then kids wouldn't have to be endangered when they turn 3.
I find it annoying that after spending $28 000 on a minivan to cart my children around safely, I have to then buy and install a separate additional seat for almost every position in the minivan so that I can cart my children around safely. In fact, I have to buy THREE separate seats for these positions: an infant seat, a toddler seat (bigger and bigger every year) and a booster (which my child will have to take with him anytime he goes into a car until he turns 12, so that's 8 years of carrying his booster seat around with him!).
These laws make it almost impossible to take children anywhere. My sister brought her family to see me a few weeks ago and didn't bring her carseats because $50 extra to fly each one. Her flight arrival conflicted with a school meeting so I ordered a taxi for her. I had the devil of a time finding a taxi with toddler and booster seats in it.
When we flew to see her, we took our carseats with us. Bad idea. Just try carrying the combined weight of 50 pounds of two toddler seats around an airport, along with your three kids, stroller (for the youngest, a toddler), diaper bag, and other carry on luggage. Good grief. Kids are not turtles. We shouldn't have to carry their carseats around on our backs to protect them. Don't get me wrong I think carseats are great and use them daily but we need a better solution here.
Also, if cars are so dangerous, our community should be trying to make them less necessary so we can become a more walkable society. Maybe we should be returning to the time when there was a little grocery shop at the corner of most streets, so that we'd have to get into our cars less often.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Rear-Facing Car Seats Advised at Least to Age of 2
<>
My son rearfaced until almost age 4 in my compact hatchback. He loved telling me what was going on out the back window. He sat with his legs crossed. He never complained.
I don't text, or play with the radio, or even talk on the phone while I drive, but other people do. I am far from being a helicopter parent, but, in my opinion, when the statistics are this strong and the possible outcome is this serious safety definitely trumps convenience.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Rear-Facing Car Seats Advised at Least to Age of 2
<>
While it may be statistically safer for a child to be rear-facing for longer (it's safer for ALL of us to be rear-facing) in the event of a crash, I think it is irresponsible of pediatricians to make such strong statements as Dr. Baer did in this article without conducting studies on the likelihood of a crash occurring in the first place when children are rear- vs. front-facing.
It is my personal experience that rear-facing children over age 1 are 1) unhappy and uncomfortable (do NOT try to tell me otherwise, because children over 1 are able to talk and can communicate their discomfort), 2) more likely to be making a lot of very distracting noise, and 3) harder to interact with, which causes the driver to be spending more time looking the wrong way and/or contorting in ways that make it harder to control the vehicle.
If a child is 50% more likely to survive a crash when rear facing, but 1000% more likely to actually be in a crash, more analysis is warranted before making recommendations about what is or is not safe.
Read the article NEW YORK TIMES/
Rear-Facing Car Seats Advised at Least to Age of 2
Bullying is Not a Rite of Passage
This topic of bullying is something I have dealt with on numerous occasions, as a child for myself and with my son.
Bullying has turned into a whole new level from the times I was a child. Back then it was a matter of standing up for yourself and learning lessons, but now it is something very different in addition to that.
As the economy takes a down turn it has direct affect on social welfare and education. As parents become stressed to make a living and provide, their attention is pulled from their children and to some degrees, the attention is very negative. I believe everyone that touches a child is directly impacted in the affects of bullying and social welfare and being. There is no blame, there is a taking of responsibility and how each person defines their outlook in our future.
I have seen parents that directly impact their children and create a bully personality. I have seen schools that turn away because they do not want to deal with it, what is worse is I have seen teachers do the bullying which is where the government can play a role, and I have seen the impact of a child bullied and a bully that creates the situation.
There are far too many variables at play and a very big lack of support for creating solutions and working together. All it takes is one person with compassion to reach out and start a movement, whether it is a child, a parent, a school teacher, or a member of society.
As a parent, I would love to volunteer and work with schools to develop a counseling session with kids and students, reaching out to those troubled souls that do the bullying, that have been bullied. There are senior citizens that could be more involved with children if a setting was developed for interactions. Creating a law is an option but not a solution. The solution starts within and those wanting to make a difference. All of these children are our future.
Read the article ABC NEWS/
At White House Conference, President Obama, First Lady Focus on Bullying
<>
Sometimes people forget that the bullies themselves are children too, and if they are not dealt with properly, they grow to become maladjusted adults. It's easy to say blame the parents, but too often, the parents are young, immature, in denial or in some cases, simply absent from the child's life.
Whatever the reason, childhood bullies usually have some psychological issue that is causing the problem - they are sick children who need help. That is why anti-bully programs that focus too much on the victims do not work, and never will.
The problem is the bully, not the victim, and that problem needs to be solved with intervention, therapy and hard work. If the families aren't willing to do the work, social services needs to step in.
Read the article ABC NEWS/
At White House Conference, President Obama, First Lady Focus on Bullying
<>
My son was bullied consistently by a bully since he was in 3rd grade. I complained frequently to the principal and he had to call the child's parents to the office almost on a daily basis
. I figure I keep complaining the parents will chastise their child as they would be tired being called in for conferences. Well, come to find out the child never got punished by the parents and he turned up the heat with my son and started to even spread rumors that he was "gay". Found out the parents themselves have a long rap sheet so nothing good could be expected from them. He even tried to hit my kid once and that is where I drew the line.
I since then insisted that if the school wasn't going to do anything about this kid, then I wanted an adult to be his shadow at all times especially when going to the bathroom or else I would hold the principal and the school accountable. They complied.
Every kid has a right to education and to go to school in peace and not have to be fearful of anything or anyone, but here we are.
Until these students and their parents are held accountable for what they do in school, there will never be a relief when it comes to bullying
Read the article CNN/
White House conference tackles bullying
<>
Bullying is a part of adolescence only because it's still socially acceptable. Segregation was part of life in the south too...until somebody stepped up and said "Not on my watch. Not anymore."
You want to know what the real problem is? The problem is that bullying is most often perpetrated by the very students that districts are proud of. The beautiful, the talented, the star athletes. And the kids they're bullying are on the fringe; they're the weird ones, or the fat ones, or the poor ones.
But imagine for a moment that it was the other way around. if the stars were the ones getting bullied. You can bet your rear-end "zero tolerance" would take on a completely different meaning..because let's face it. No school wants to suspend or expel their stars, do they?
It makes.me.sick
Read the article CNN/
White House conference tackles bullying
Sex in Young America -- Not So Fast
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR REPORT 2011
I once was a TA (teaching assistant) for a human-sexuality class for college freshman most of whom were 17-19. We performed a questionnaire similar to this and I have to say I am not sure you can really rely on teens to be honest.
When i asked after compiling the results if anyone would lie on questionnaires even though they were anonymous, I'd say all but 5 out of 40 hands went up.
The majority of men in the class agreed that they would deny having a same sex encounter even though the reviewer couldn't tell who answered yes. Both groups of teens said they would lie on when they lost their virginity; the women agreed they would rather make it later, while men said earlier.
I don't think that applies to just this type of questionnaire, I believe that even when teens fill out any questionnaire. they will answer along the lines of what they believe will help them fit in and what would make their peers find them "cool". Even after class was over the groups were gossiping among each other about their answers.
Sex is huge in high-school and college, if you haven't had it you're mocked, If you do it too much you know how that can go and the back lash is very different for women compared to men. I'm not saying I'm right, I am just expressing my opinion how this can be flawed... i know the CDC performed in-person interviews.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Sexual behaviour and identity in young Americans
<>
Uh, to be fair, "abstinence" isn't up, it's the ever-increasing standards of attractiveness which are preventing many people from getting laid. And usually it's not that they're actually ugly, since science shows humanity is getting better looking with each generation, it's that they perceive themselves as ugly and so don't try to engage in sexual relations with others for fear of rejection.
The number of medications being used by many teens for "depression" (which I think is mostly over-diagnosis but whatever) and other mental "disorders" has also contributed to the decline in sex, since many of those drugs affect sex drive and performance.
To say that abstinence is up is also ignoring the fact that there are things called "lies" in the world. Even on completely Anonymous questionnaires, people will often give the answer they feel makes themselves look the "best", regardless of how sure they are that they won't be identified. Ignoring the surprisingly high odds that the people they questioned represent a much smaller portion of the population than the study claims (they didn't actually go out and interview the entire population so this is derivative math they're using), the chance that people were dishonest in the questionnaire cannot be ignored.
Honestly, how many people have used the "It's my first time" line? Because I have, and I know at least 10 other people that have too, and those are just my close friends that I've discussed it with.
Read the article HUFFINGTON POST/Sexual behaviour and identity in young Americans
<>
Why is it so hard to believe that young people make the sort of decisions so many adults want them to make? When there is news about young people doing "bad" things (which many of us did in our youth!), people rush to say, "Look! This proves that young people are out of control!" But when the study finds that youth are delaying sex, we attack the researchers without even reading the study.
BTW, the study summary can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf. The method was NOT verbally interviewing. The researchers gave the study participants a laptop and headphones that read the questions to them, and the participants entered their response into the computer.
The research finding that average age of first intercourse is 17.4, is logically compatible with the finding that just under 30% of youth (15-24) have not had a sexual encounter. Some of that 30% is in the 15-17 age range, and 30% (=those who have not "had sex") is less than 50% (=those who have "had sex" at age 17).
Read the article NPR/
Study: More Young People Scorn Sex
<>
Girls less appeal? Small segment grown less attractive physically? Spare me. Most young guys who are sexually active couldn't care less what their partner looks like. And most girls now think that their most important mission in life is to land a man. That's why at the school where I work, teen pregnancy flourishes, and girls wear their pregnancy like a badge of honor, as if to say, "wow, I've finally arrived". And in case no one has noticed some of the most obese and least attractive people have the biggest broods, so I doubt that lacking good looks precludes sexual activity. They probably did the survey in Utah with the parents listening.
Read the article NPR/
Study: More Young People Scorn Sex
<>
I love how they divorce sex from the context. Why does a person remain a virgin late in life? Is it for religious or moral reasons? Or because they lack the ability to interact with suitable eligible partners on a social level? Why do some lose their virginity earlier than others? Is it because they are confident and comfortable communicating with and forming relationships with eligible partners? Or is it because they sought out the services of a prostitute or engaged in some form of indiscriminate behaviour purely for the purpose of having sex?
The sex here isn't the important factor. We have the technology to greatly reduce the physical consequences of our sexual choices. The important thing is the degree of socialization. A well-socialized person -- even if he or she does not choose to have sex -- is going to be happier than a poorly socialized person, even if having sex.
Read the article SLATE/CDC Report: Virginity is cool again
<>
"The report, based on interviews conducted between 2006 and 2008 with 13,500 men and women between the ages of 15 to 44, found that almost a third of all 15- to 24-year olds had never had any sort of sexual contact with another person."
Read some social history. This has happened over and over again. You can document it in Canada's population for at least the past 150 years.
Bad economic conditions and more scarce resources delay the formation of young couples relationships, marriage and sexual activity. More young people stay in the family home longer because they have little other choice.
That there is a decline from 2002 to 2008 is to be expected.
With widespread prosperity comes the ability to afford the earlier formation of new households and a rise in activity.
Read the article GLOBE AND MAIL/
Virginity back in vogue among teens: study
Does Outdoor Smoking Ban in New York Go Too Far?
I am extremely happy about this ban. There is nothing MORE disgusting than running in the park, trying to enjoy the little amount of fresh air we have in this city only to be gagged mid breath by a big cloud of cigarette or cigar smoke.
Another thing that is gross is trying to find a place near the Bandshell where my two large dogs can sit down without laying in a pile of ashes and cigarette butts!! I am extremely pleased with this!
I will be the C.O.P. - Citizen On Patrol in Central Park and every other park letting people VERY aware that smoking is ILLEGAL there!!!!
I can only hope that next on Bloomberg's list is to ban smoking in ALL buildings. Residential and all. Even worse than inhaling cigarette smoke in the park or on the beach is having it creep in through the cracks in your doors and windows. It clings to textiles - and just stagnates in closed in areas. GROSS!!!!!
Read the article NY1/Mayor Bloomberg signs outdoor smoking ban
<>
The USA was built on Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms. Lets be honest...it is the insurance companies (lobbyists) who do not want to pay out billions of dollars to people suffering from smoke related illnesses.
Alcohol consumption continues to be one of the biggest problems in the U.S. Yet, we are still bombarded by alcohol commercials on television. Until, tobacco is considered Illegal, people(myself included) will continue to smoke.
Also, enforcing this law can lead to assaults and acts of violence against parks dept. personnel, they are NOT peace officers. I'd like to see tougher enforcement against the trucks, tour buses and construction vehicles for engine idling! They are the main culprits of pollution and causes respiratory illnesses in our city!
Oh, I forgot......the mayor cannot wage war on those who supported his campaigns and dump huge amounts of cash into the cities coffers.
Read the article NY1/Mayor Bloomberg signs outdoor smoking ban
<>
I'm from Dallas Texas also but I live in NYC. I have for five years now. I think my fellow Texan who comes here for a week a month needs to stay in Texas if she cares that much or mind her own business. She especially has no right nor does anyone else, to tell me what to do with my lungs.
Read the article NY1/Mayor Bloomberg signs outdoor smoking ban
<>
This is insane. As a smoker I try to make it a point to stay away from non-smokers out of respect (why I can't get the same in return is beyond me) That having been said I have a few things to say about this.
1. According to the New England Journal of Medicine spending a night in a smoke filled bar is the equivalent of smoking .004 cigarettes. You have to spend 250 hours in a smoke filled bar to get the effect of 1 cigarette. In fact, most researchers who have spoken on the subject say that any damage caused by second hand smoke are temporary and negligible unless you actually live with a smoker full time.
2. The Nazis banned smoking too.
3. There is no way to conduct reliable research on the subject because most of the adults have lived through a period were laws were more relaxed. I remember when teachers were allowed to smoke in elementary schools, smoking was allowed on planes, in elevators, in offices. So you can't use that data and apply it to a period when all of these things have changed. Non-smokers are not inhaling anywhere near as much second hand smoke as they were 10 years ago or even 5 years ago.
4. In recent studies scientists have found that the single most dangerous substance on the planet is alcohol. Alcohol kills more people than all others combined and this includes cocaine, heroine, you name it. Why aren't we up in arms to ban alcohol? The reason...trends. It's cool to hate smokers now. I've seen people mowed down by drunk drivers, saw a school teacher cut in half by a jeep in fact, given the choice I'd rather die from cigarettes.
Now lastly, if the problem is the odor - tough. I've dealt with smelly granola eating hippies in the East Village so they can just deal with me.
Read the article CBS NEWS/Big Apple Bans Smoking in Public: Have Health Police Run Amok?
<>
Whether you're a smoker or not is not the issue. We're not allowing smoking in public due to people's health? What about obesity or diabetes? Shouldn't NYC also ban fast food out of Times Square as well as soda and sweets?
Sure second hand smoke may be harmful to but all those car, bus, and truck fumes that we breathe in everyday I'm sure isn't good either. So where do we draw the line?
If someone is being loud and annoying around you- you walkaway
If someone is really smelly in that offensive way- you walkaway
If someone is being being be totally drunk and obnoxious- you walkaway
If someone is smoking a cigarette around you - just walkaway-what's the big deal?
Exercise your right to walkway- also that other thing that makes this country great-tolerance exercise that too.
What's going on with NYC are we all turning into a bunch of crybabies? Or perhaps it's just the tourists...
Read the article SYRACUSE.COM/SYRACUSE POST-STANDARD/Does New York city's outdoor smoking ban go too far?
<>
Oh look, someone here who ISN'T a smoker STILL has a BRAIN!:
I’m not a cigarette smoker, but what public safety purpose is achieved by banning cigarette smoking in New York City parks while actively soliciting hundreds of food-vending carts and trucks to set up in the exact same parks, many of which are using toxic fuel for cooking and are running their diesel engines 10 hours a day? There is far more pollution and smoke from one such truck than 10,000 cigarette smokers might cause in the same location.
Likewise, the Greenmarket in Union Square Park runs gasoline generators, as well as having the diesel engines of many trucks running all day while parked right inside the park. And the Holiday Markets that run huge fuel-powered generators for more than a month straight in various city parks — are their fumes supposed to be a healthy addition to the experience of our public parks? Just wondering where the consistency is in such a policy.
Why is it artists — who by law cannot even use a battery-powered light — must be eliminated? Could the answer be that the Parks Department gets $100 million a year from concessions and food trucks, but nothing from cigarette smokers or First Amendment-protected artists?
Read the article SYRACUSE.COM/SYRACUSE POST-STANDARD/Does New York city's outdoor smoking ban go too far?
READ MORE COMMENTS: FEBRUARY 2011
