I hope you know that it's impossible to enforce every law, all the time. I mean, the government can try, but part of being a government lies in understanding the difference between being cautious and being invasive. I'm sure the government, had they wanted to, could send riot troops into every home and set up roadblocks on every road, checkpoints and speed readers and cameras on every interstate. But that would be a little overbearing, wouldn't it? Not only that, but imagine the resources that would cost. That's why America maintains a comfortable level of law enforcement. Maybe not enough, but it gets the job done. Hell, our jails are overflowing as it is.Yeah, the government does implement a lot of laws in an attempt to help sway improper driving, but this doesn't mean they actually enforce it...
Anyway, when law enforcement gets too tight, people like to bitch about how "the man is putting them down". How many stoners whine about stoners going to jail, despite the fact that it's expressly illegal? Every time laws get enforced, the government is apparently on a "powertrip", amirite.
Yes, and it's disappointing. But, like I said, we can't always account for that. It's impossible to always have an eye on every cop.Do you see how many cops break the laws they are supposed to enforce?
TBH, given how bad people are at driving these days, I wouldn't be able to tell between a tailgater and your average driver. /shrug Sorry.Or how many tickets are actually given out for tailgating.
I admit that this was an exaggeration on my part. But still, //MOST//. Either way, bad luck is bad luck. Nothing can control that.Also, no. You can't blame anything bad that comes on the stupidity of people. Most cases, probably, but there are circumstances that are out of people's hands.
Please cite this.That's why congress wants to propose limiting the definition of forced rape.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. At this point, it almost sounds like you're insinuating that the government is a standalone organization. Don't forget that America is a representative democracy. The reason gay marriage isn't legalized in many states is not because the homophobic hivemind that is the government doesn't want it. It's because there are an equally large number of average citizens, like you and me, who don't approve of gays getting married. They are the ones tipping the scales, turning ballots, signing anti-gay petitions and downplaying the issue. Don't say it as if the government is just 4 or 5 guys sitting around a table cursing gays. What we're challenging with the whole gay marriage issue is not the government: it's Americans and their conservative values. Personally, I love the idea of gay marriage. /shrugThat's also why many states won't give two consenting adults the right to marry, even if it's harming NO ONE.
Yes, to push funds towards other things like, I don't know, resuscitating our dying economy. I hope you understand that the act of "cleaning up the environment" would take up huge amounts of resources, commitment and time. Hell, letting the Earth cleanse itself is projected, scientifically, to take hundreds of years. But, in the state that America's economy is going, we won't make it another //four// years before we're all on welfare.That's why many in the government want to de-regulate and take funds away from the EPA (which is already not getting enough money.)
Which is why those have already been deemed illegal.../nodIf a person really cares about the people's health they'd stop wasting time debating the legality of marijuana (which is not even in the same league as something like heroine, meth, X, LSD, or cocaine)...
Compared to the number of drug-related crimes and consequent deaths a year, I don't think the number of deaths caused by angry trees and bad air stack up. Sarcasm aside, the government needs to prioritize. It can only have so much money in circulation at once (printing any more would inflate the dollar further) and it has to decide what to do with that money. Besides, I grew up in this generation of bad air and bad food and I maintain beyond average health, simply because I have the responsibility to take care of my personal being. But TBH, I believe the government should have no say over what we eat--harmful or not. That would be extremely invasive. Besides, it takes a lifetime of eating harmful food to kill you (over which time, if you hadn't learned your lesson, then you had it coming). It only takes one instance of holding Marijuana to end up in jail, and 10oz of alcohol to get you into a DUI-induced accident, or one cigarette to hook you for life. /shrug The difference in circumstance is evident. And it's not like the government doesn't try to help us eat healthy, what with FDA testing, required-by-law Nutritional Content labels and lists of active ingredients, mandatory disclaimers, etc, etc....and start really regulating and lowering the amount of emissions from our cars, pollutants from factories, and chemicals sprayed on the food we eat...
But I hope you realize that reducing emissions is easier said than done--by far. Reinventing the catalytic converter, turning people (and companies) over to green energy and getting people to buy hybrids is an extremely lofty and //expensive// ideal. Americans nor their government have that kind of money or resources right now. Esp. in this economic recession, nobody is going to shell out 10k for a new hybrid. It's not even like they make those things affordable.
And government has been trying to limit pollutants for ages now, ever since the first FDR administration. They've been taxing the hell out of corporations, putting them through intense inspection regiments and consequently fining them for every time they exceed their waste quota. They can only do so much. Besides, American economy works on a supply-and-demand basis. Factories will produce products (and the resulting waste) for as long as Americans want them. Whatchugonnado.
On the topic of food: chemicals and fertilizers are added to our foods in order to make them cheaper to produce and, consequently, cheaper to buy. I appreciate that, personally. And, like I said, you can still maintain a healthy lifestyle regardless. Have you ever tried to buy organic food? The reason there is hardly a market for it is because it's simply //not affordable//. I'm not paying 3 dollars for a potato just because it has real dirt on it. I'm sure if said chemicals had noticeable long-term effects, the FDA would put a disclaimer on them. But I don't walk down the aisle in a supermarket and see signs stating "These eggs are dangerous - love, the FDA".
If anything, what you really have to worry about is how said food is //prepared//.
ALSO, Pajamajam: I'm gonna quote you something I just wrote to B_D in response to your anecdote. I hope it answers your question.
"...TBH, I believe the government should have no say over what we eat--harmful or not. That would be extremely invasive. Besides, it takes a lifetime of eating harmful food to kill you (over which time, if you hadn't learned your lesson, then you had it coming). It only takes one instance of holding Marijuana to end up in jail, and 10oz of alcohol to get you into a DUI-induced accident, or one cigarette to hook you for life. /shrug The difference in circumstance is evident. And it's not like the government doesn't try to help us eat healthy, what with FDA testing, required-by-law Nutritional Content labels and lists of active ingredients, mandatory disclaimers, etc, etc..."