A lie perpetrated on the masses by crack addicted doctors trying to sell their book on Oprah. If a glass of red wine a day is good for you then the earth is flat.

__________________
Painters Vancouver

Well we'll just see now won't we. I'll bet you 500 Canadian dollars I live until I'm 200.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Jawn

I hope you *do* live to 200. Keep in mind however that correlation doesn't equal causation so it might not be the daily glass of wine that should get the credit. It's probably more likely that you scared the grim reaper away with your hatchet.

\o/

__________________
Painters Vancouver

You can call the research of the American Heart Association “party line tripe” if you want, but Why?

I will post the following AHA link and quote because yes, there are risk with alcohol consumption which should be considered.

Alcohol and Heart Disease -- Pearson 94 (11): 3023 -- Circulation

Also, The benefits are limited to certain individuals...

Well it's a bet I'm not scared to make at all. Mainly because if I lose, you'd have a tough time collecting money from a dead guy. Ha!

That would be J for jawn_tech.

I'm here all week, try the veal.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Why? Because it's not true. "May" be beneficial is a far cry from "being beneficial". Don't believe the lies Clicken. Alcohol is poison, plain and simple...and having just a bit doesn't change that fact. Saying a bit of alcohol is ok for the body is like saying a few cigarettes a day is cool. Good one.

Rick

__________________
Painters Vancouver

Okay then, are you suggesting that Jesus was intentionally poisoning the people when he turned the water into wine?

__________________
Clicken
Math Flash Cards Online

The Bible speaks of "fermented" and "unfermented" wine.

__________________
Painters Vancouver

Dunno about anyone else, but I see where this is going...

...and water is necessary for life, but you can give yourself water 'intoxication' if you drink too much of it because you can upset your body chemistry.

Much of modern medicine is a doctor trying to weigh the net effect of certain substances on the body. I'm not a scientist so I will defer judgment to the experts on the subject, but the cigarette example is a poor analogy.

__________________

cw

take a sip, a small sip of...lets say, gin, now watch how your body naturally reacts to it....it convulses...and rejects it

now take a drag of a cigarette and inhale.....take note of how the body naturally convulses...and rejects it...

one doesn't have to be "an expert" to know that both are poisonness.

thats all we really need to know.

Rick

__________________
Painters Vancouver

Does that imply that he could not do the opposite?

__________________
Mini Network:: Financial information at your fingertips
Learn object oriented programming where it started

I will use a search engine before I ask dumb questions.

lol
Well, at least the industry is trying hard to achieve it:
30 Second Wine Advisor - wineloverspage.com

__________________
Impossible? You just underestimate the time.

That analysis is superficial at best. Your body would have a similar reaction if you took a mouthful of saltwater from the ocean and yet there are many times where they will literally stick a saline solution IV drip right into your arm. While I am not sure of the actual salinity of one versus the other, the IV drip's salinity is clearly greater than the salinity of fresh water. If your point is that no matter what quantity, alcohol will have a harmful effect, I agree with you, your body must always metabolize it and that metabolization will always stress the liver and other parts of your body. Notwithstanding, while the alcohol is in your blood, its doing other things besides being metabolized and again the scientists have apparently conducted studies which suggests that small quantities of alcohol benefit the cardiovascular system.

Many chemicals act in this manner. Steroids and narcotics both have legitimate uses, both of which have serious side effects.

__________________

Me too, and the direction is definitely...


... OFF TOPIC!
Just trying to be subtle here... My poor "guns and crime" thread.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Darn, you beat me to it JT...

Well, did you think it would go like this…



HUH? In the book it doesn’t specify which kind, it simply refers to wine. Regardless...


You asked for a demonstration of when it would not be stupid. You have been offered references to enlighten you that there are circumstances for certain individuals for which it is not considered to be stupid.

If you do not accept the information then fine, that is your privilege. If you want to continue with stupid comments which you can not defend, then fine however I do not see the purpose of taking the thread off course any further.

__________________
Clicken
Math Flash Cards Online

OK, back on topic.

To address your previous post, I agree, as a condition of parole the states can impose virtually any rational condition on a parolee, after all the alternative for the parolee is to remain in prison.

I also agree with the general premise that the mere difficulty of enforcing a law is not an excuse not to have a law. It is difficult to enforce many laws and there are many 'difficult' to enforce laws which must remain on the books.

As a general rule I tend to approach regulation from an economic point of view, which I am sure our friend kgun will appreciate. Essentially you seek to regulate in a manner where the benefits of the regulation exceed the cost of enforcing the regulation. With respect to the 'enforceability' of a regulation, I also prefer regulations which are 'self-enforcing' or to have regulations which are enforceable because there is a clear 'chokepoint' of enforceability.

To illustrate this point, we will return briefly to your example of speeding. I agree, it is difficult to enforce and no, it wouldn't be wise not to have a speed limit. The way the system is currently set up, the police have to see a vehicle speeding, pull the car over, write a summons, potentially have a court appearance, etc. (very costly if you think about it). In theory if you wanted to get 'serious' about speeding you could impose a regulation on car manufacturers to place governors on the cars. Now of course this won't eliminate speeding, particularly in residential zones, but it could eliminate excessive speeding on interstates / state highways. As a society we would weigh the cost of the governors vs. the benefit of having fewer injuries/deaths / less property damage / potentially lower insurance rates (etc). Would a system like this be subject to 'foul play'? Of course. People could tinker with the cars, disable the system temporarily perhaps, etc. etc. etc. But in terms of 'enforceability' the regulation is relatively easy to enforce WITH RESPECT to the manufacturers because there are only a handful of auto manufacturers and there would be an obligation to build a car with a governor.

In the firearms industry we have manufacturers (importers)/distributors/end users just like many industries. To approach the question, I think that we should first look to regulate the manufacturers and to require that manufacturers produce the safest firearm possible - with safeties, trigger guards, perhaps biometrics might be possible (ie. only the owner can shoot the weapon). This list by no means excludes other potentially reasonable safety devices.

With respect to distribution, pretty much the only regulation that you can impose is to require a distributor to sell firearms only to licensed individuals. (If you can think of something else let me know). This regulation will actually work well and as an example you need only look at the liquor industry. Does liquor get into the hands of people under 21? Of course. But by and larger (at least as I can remember), the states have actually done a decent job preventing the direct sale of liquor to those under 21. The reason why it works is because if a store sells liquor to minors and is caught enough times, the store will eventually have a liquor license (which in NJ where I reside is currently selling for approximately $250,000.00) revoked. The store can't risk losing the license (plus the fine itself is pretty nasty), so virtually everywhere you go, the store will check ID and at least make some effort to ensure sale to those over 21. (Overall this was my experience when I was 18-20, I could get liquor at underage parties but wouldn't even think about trying to get it at the store). Of course, guns aren't liquor, so I would imagine the regulation should be even stricter, ie. if you sell a firearm to an unlicensed individual not only would you lose your license to sell firearms, you could be imprisoned?

Now of course this leaves us with the end users. The problem is that we intuitively know who the people are who we definitely don't want to possess firearms including ex-convicts, the legally incompetent. The problem is trying to identify the types of people who would commit a Columbine or a Virginia Tech type of shooting. I would suggest to you that it would be difficult to draft a statute preventing the sale to these people because to do so would be akin to pre-judging an individual for actions they haven't even taken yet and you would likely be judging them with some form of psychoanalysis which seems inherently subjective to many people. Unfortunately its still difficult to look into the hearts and minds of people to determine what their true intentions are.

Naturally I would support any regulation which would condition licensing on enrollment in a gun safety course where an individual should demonstrate at least some form of minimal proficiency with the weapon, ie. how to fire it, load it, UN-load it, clean it, etc. with a class to teach about the legal ramifications of ownership, ie. you must transport it in you trunk, locked in a box, make sure you don't take it out of state, or whatever else might be relevant, and I would also definitely include a spousal/parental notification, ie. if you're married, your spouse is informed of your request for a license, if you are a dependent on someone's tax return, the people claiming you as a dependent on their tax returns get notified (that is usually the parents of course).

Just some thoughts to get the thread back on topic.

__________________

Clicken

If a person drinks or takes cigarettes, they are by definition, stupid.

I don't need to defend it....it's just the way it is. If you want to declare them smart for poisoning themselves...then dig in.

And yes, the Bible speaks of two types of wines...fermented and unfermented.

Thanks for bringing JC into it....I love talking about God. From guns to God in under five minutes. Dig it!

\o/

__________________
Painters Vancouver

Then maybe you can appreciate this… ( forgive me JT, everyone, )

I Timothy 5
Verses 17-24 Honor the Elders
That verse correlates with the research done by the AHA which refers to the middle aged and older individuals.

Deuteronomy 14:26 New International Version - (KJV states,… “wine or strong drink”…)
It is clear and evident in the AHA research and in the scripture that it is not wise to over-indulge in alcoholic beverages it is also evident in both resources that it is recommend and okay to partake under certain circumstances.

Yes, it is a respectable characteristic of those who refrain from addictive products. (pat yourself on the back)

Those who find health benefits from products that can be addictive without becoming dependant or abusive in use are no less commendable. IMO

It is commendable also that a person would not make exaggerated remarks on subjects based on personal beliefs and prejudices. <<< Read that again and understand how important that is when engaging in beneficial conversation and how it is most appealing to the participants. Everyone is capable of slipping occasionally however we should strive to post with this as the rule. It just makes for a better experience.

Anyone want to comment on Gun laws and or Crime?

Click

What's cute is that you think your Bible quotes actually mean something....I love it when people quote cavemen.
Next you will be having us all "pluck out our eye" if we look lustfully at someone. Thats a lot of people walking around with no eyes. You should probably just say thank you that I haven't included my pic in my profile or you'd be bumping into furniture for the next twenty years.



Back to guns anyone?

__________________
Painters Vancouver

It says in Hezekiah 14:3, "Thou shalt doest and think what thine moderator sayeth, put down thy guns and taketh up tomahawks and partake of the wine. Abstain from topics of perpetually insolvable discourse, of which king jawn son of tech is the smartest among you anyway."

I will be taking an offering.

cw1865 - good points to consider. I confess that to a degree I'm thinking it out as I go. I'm not interested though in restricting guns from responsible people. Just thinktanking (is that even a verb?) solutions to reduce instances where guns are used spontaneously in domestic disputes by people who probably shouldn't even drive a car, much less have incidental access to a gun. So a case-by-case approach is probably the way, as a broad restriction in a general sense is largely impractical, which I believe you've proven. So I think if judges, for example, don't already have the means to make certain restriction to certain convicted individuals with regards to guns, then they should, I think.

__________________
Domain Name Registration and Website Hosting :: DesignerTrade

Suffer us not the iniquity of our hearts and consider .rickanderson as the offering!

Offering a god to God, now we're getting somewhere.

__________________
Painters Vancouver