Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.

View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
1510 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 347


  Reply # 984389 11-Feb-2014 19:20 Send private message

I'm with Klipspringer on this one.

Personally I have never been a smoker, don't like the smell, and can (sort of) see why they want to discourage it. However, this does seem a bit too much like nanny state and government nosiness/bossiness for me to be comfortable with it.

What's next:
- Schools searching all lunch boxes and confiscating the contents if the breadroll fillings aren't on the government approved fillings list, calories are excessive, or they don't like the flavour of the drink that has been included?
- While they are at it, they can also confiscate the book the kid has because it's too "adult" or not on the government-approved approved reading list?
- And maybe parents could be sent to compulsory education classes about the "harm" they are causing and/or have their "privilege" to own a TV revoked if they let a child stay up late and watch "inappropriate" TV programmes?

They should stick to presenting sound scientific information about risks and options to parents, and rein in some of these petty bossy interfering bureaucrats.

393 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 66


  Reply # 984500 11-Feb-2014 20:47 Send private message

JimmyH: I'm with Klipspringer on this one.

Personally I have never been a smoker, don't like the smell, and can (sort of) see why they want to discourage it. However, this does seem a bit too much like nanny state and government nosiness/bossiness for me to be comfortable with it.

What's next:
- Schools searching all lunch boxes and confiscating the contents if the breadroll fillings aren't on the government approved fillings list, calories are excessive, or they don't like the flavour of the drink that has been included?
- While they are at it, they can also confiscate the book the kid has because it's too "adult" or not on the government-approved approved reading list?
- And maybe parents could be sent to compulsory education classes about the "harm" they are causing and/or have their "privilege" to own a TV revoked if they let a child stay up late and watch "inappropriate" TV programmes?

They should stick to presenting sound scientific information about risks and options to parents, and rein in some of these petty bossy interfering bureaucrats.


In the UK, they will not confiscate the lunch. A primary school kid has just been suspended for a few days and then expelled altogether because the parents were putting a pack of cheese crackers in the kids lunch and after the suspension was imposed they point blank refused to stop putting the crackers in the lunch.

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 292
Inactive user


  Reply # 984569 11-Feb-2014 21:57 Send private message

Up to what age is somebody in New Zealand and the UK classified as a child?

I seem to recall you only an adult when you turn 20 .... Here in NZ we have plenty of "children" that smoke LOL... Good luck on them trying to implement this one.
We have "children" that smoke and have kids ....

We have legal drivers at 15 ...

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 292
Inactive user


  Reply # 984576 11-Feb-2014 22:00 Send private message

JimmyH: I'm with Klipspringer on this one.

Personally I have never been a smoker, don't like the smell, and can (sort of) see why they want to discourage it. However, this does seem a bit too much like nanny state and government nosiness/bossiness for me to be comfortable with it.

What's next:
- Schools searching all lunch boxes and confiscating the contents if the breadroll fillings aren't on the government approved fillings list, calories are excessive, or they don't like the flavour of the drink that has been included?
- While they are at it, they can also confiscate the book the kid has because it's too "adult" or not on the government-approved approved reading list?
- And maybe parents could be sent to compulsory education classes about the "harm" they are causing and/or have their "privilege" to own a TV revoked if they let a child stay up late and watch "inappropriate" TV programmes?

They should stick to presenting sound scientific information about risks and options to parents, and rein in some of these petty bossy interfering bureaucrats.


Its happening already ...

- We not allowed to put sweets or chocolates in our kids school lunches... And at one stage we were "warned" about peanut butter sandwiches ......

jpoc:

In the UK, they will not confiscate the lunch. A primary school kid has just been suspended for a few days and then expelled altogether because the parents were putting a pack of cheese crackers in the kids lunch and after the suspension was imposed they point blank refused to stop putting the crackers in the lunch.


Good on these parents ...


1510 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 347


  Reply # 984631 11-Feb-2014 22:55 Send private message

The peanut butter angle I get - and actually agree with if they know they have a child in the class with a serious peanut allergy. Exposure to the sandwiches could actually kill the child with the allergy, so there are good grounds for them trying to stop that happening.

As for the cheese crackers, or sweets/chocolates, I think the school is dramatically over-reaching its authority. If a parent chooses to let their child have a sweet, that isn't remotely the business of the state.

I hope the expulsion was legally challenged by the parents in question.



3314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 647

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 984637 11-Feb-2014 23:05 Send private message

Klipspringer: I would much rather see the banning of stupid parents.

We don't need laws to tell us we cant smoke with kids in our cars. Its common sense. Parents should write a test before having kids...

/tongue in cheek 


I've said this - and that a test should be introduced for voting also.

I usually get called a fascist, not that I find that particularly insulting.








2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 292
Inactive user


  Reply # 984638 11-Feb-2014 23:08 Send private message

Geektastic:
Klipspringer: I would much rather see the banning of stupid parents.

We don't need laws to tell us we cant smoke with kids in our cars. Its common sense. Parents should write a test before having kids...

/tongue in cheek 


I've said this - and that a test should be introduced for voting also.

I usually get called a fascist, not that I find that particularly insulting.


If you live your life unoffended like I do you just can't get insulted. People "take" offence, you cant hand it out to somebody.

Ive been called a bigot, racist and a bunch of other things too LOL



3314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 647

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 984639 11-Feb-2014 23:10 Send private message

Klipspringer: Up to what age is somebody in New Zealand and the UK classified as a child?

I seem to recall you only an adult when you turn 20 .... Here in NZ we have plenty of "children" that smoke LOL... Good luck on them trying to implement this one.
We have "children" that smoke and have kids ....

We have legal drivers at 15 ...


In the UK you have to be 18 to buy tobacco but you can smoke it legally at 16.

Driving age there is presently 17 but the government is considering introducing a one-year "learner stage" beginning at 17, during which drivers would have to total at least 100 hours of daytime and 20 hours of night-time practice under professional supervision. Learners can then take their test at 18 and, if they pass, will get a probationary licence and have to display a green "P" plate.








3076 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 235

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 984641 11-Feb-2014 23:16 Send private message

What if the children smoke also?





2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 292
Inactive user


  Reply # 984642 11-Feb-2014 23:17 Send private message

JimmyH: The peanut butter angle I get - and actually agree with if they know they have a child in the class with a serious peanut allergy. Exposure to the sandwiches could actually kill the child with the allergy, so there are good grounds for them trying to stop that happening.

As for the cheese crackers, or sweets/chocolates, I think the school is dramatically over-reaching its authority. If a parent chooses to let their child have a sweet, that isn't remotely the business of the state.

I hope the expulsion was legally challenged by the parents in question.


I don't get the peanut butter angel at all. Peanut allergies tend to be a lifelong allergy. Why ban it only in the schools?

The exposure part is also a little over rated here in NZ. Casual contact with nuts and even touching peanuts is actually fine and its not likely to cause a severe reaction. Contact needs to be made with the eyes, nose or mouth. The kid would have to firstly get the peanut butter on his/her fingers and then rub his/her face/eyes with it. I have a friend that has a son thats super allergic to nuts. This is how it was explained to me.

If somethings bad for your kid you educate them accordingly. There are many other substances that a child can come into contact with every day that can cause death. We dont remove those substances. I prefer the means of education, and educating the kids on whats good/bad for them.

Its better to teach the kid to avoid contact. Peanuts are everywhere and contact can be made anywhere. But banning it from a school because one or two kids have allergies is ridiculous.

528 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 101

Subscriber

  Reply # 984664 11-Feb-2014 23:35 Send private message

Klipspringer:

If somethings bad for your kid you educate them accordingly. There are many other substances that a child can come into contact with every day that can cause death. We dont remove those substances. I prefer the means of education, and educating the kids on whats good/bad for them.

Its better to teach the kid to avoid contact. Peanuts are everywhere and contact can be made anywhere. But banning it from a school because one or two kids have allergies is ridiculous.




If only that were true. The Govt has restrictions on the strength of dishwasher powder. Due to cases of kids getting poisoned with it. Supposedly it was happening when the powder dispenser was loaded, the dishwasher door left open. Powder dispenser at kid height. Even though this is just lazy / careless parenting.

Displaced Viking
4373 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1577

Subscriber

  Reply # 984703 12-Feb-2014 07:02 One person supports this post Send private message

Klipspringer:
JimmyH: The peanut butter angle I get - and actually agree with if they know they have a child in the class with a serious peanut allergy. Exposure to the sandwiches could actually kill the child with the allergy, so there are good grounds for them trying to stop that happening.

As for the cheese crackers, or sweets/chocolates, I think the school is dramatically over-reaching its authority. If a parent chooses to let their child have a sweet, that isn't remotely the business of the state.

I hope the expulsion was legally challenged by the parents in question.


I don't get the peanut butter angel at all. Peanut allergies tend to be a lifelong allergy. Why ban it only in the schools?

The exposure part is also a little over rated here in NZ. Casual contact with nuts and even touching peanuts is actually fine and its not likely to cause a severe reaction. Contact needs to be made with the eyes, nose or mouth. The kid would have to firstly get the peanut butter on his/her fingers and then rub his/her face/eyes with it. I have a friend that has a son thats super allergic to nuts. This is how it was explained to me.

If somethings bad for your kid you educate them accordingly. There are many other substances that a child can come into contact with every day that can cause death. We dont remove those substances. I prefer the means of education, and educating the kids on whats good/bad for them.

Its better to teach the kid to avoid contact. Peanuts are everywhere and contact can be made anywhere. But banning it from a school because one or two kids have allergies is ridiculous.


Kids share lunches, 5 year olds don't understand allergies, anaphylactic reactions can kill. Trying to save lives of those we as a mature society have a duty to protect is not rediculous.




Mike

just because it can be said does not mean it should be said

231 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 13


  Reply # 984725 12-Feb-2014 08:22 Send private message

What about women that smoke and are pregnant ....shouldn't they get a fine too? I mean they do have a passenger on-board err in-board.

5787 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 306

Subscriber

  Reply # 984732 12-Feb-2014 08:50 Send private message

TimA:
KiwiNZ: Well done UK

I would like to see smoking banned period.


Ditto, would cost this country a lot less.


Then they'd have to find other way to garnish tax revenue  to replace the duty and sale tax from tobacco sales plus the health problems will  still be there for years to come. 

Once tobacco is banned the dogodders will start of other things..




Regards,

Old3eyes

Displaced Viking
4373 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1577

Subscriber

  Reply # 984742 12-Feb-2014 09:01 Send private message

old3eyes:
TimA:
KiwiNZ: Well done UK

I would like to see smoking banned period.


Ditto, would cost this country a lot less.


Then they'd have to find other way to garnish tax revenue  to replace the duty and sale tax from tobacco sales plus the health problems will  still be there for years to come. 

Once tobacco is banned the dogodders will start of other things..


Banning would be the honest thing to do. If a drink, medicine, chair, electric gadget etc etc were to be released and caused the deaths that smoking does they would be removed from the market immediately, sued from here to hades, probably fined and more.




Mike

just because it can be said does not mean it should be said

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




Twitter »
Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





Trending now »

Hot discussions in our forums right now:

Considering Snap - do you rate them?
Created by gsmithnz, last reply by Lorenceo on 4-Mar-2015 23:55 (33 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Another long term prisoner released - will we see the same dodging re compensation?
Created by Geektastic, last reply by scuwp on 4-Mar-2015 16:23 (26 replies)
Pages... 2


Galaxy s6 announcement and owners thread
Created by Shoes2468, last reply by Shoes2468 on 4-Mar-2015 22:06 (95 replies)
Pages... 5 6 7


Why does Lightbox have a suicide wish?
Created by dafman, last reply by Wade on 4-Mar-2015 21:45 (109 replies)
Pages... 6 7 8


Whats your USB charging solution?
Created by macuser, last reply by Journeyman on 4-Mar-2015 17:52 (37 replies)
Pages... 2 3


Two orders blocked by vendors going to Youshop - I wonder how many more will occur?
Created by lchiu7, last reply by JimmyH on 4-Mar-2015 19:57 (17 replies)
Pages... 2


Privacy concerns on returning faulty microSDXC
Created by dpw, last reply by andrewbnz on 3-Mar-2015 22:41 (34 replies)
Pages... 2 3


HTC One M9 (2015) Announcement and Discussion
Created by Dingbatt, last reply by Dingbatt on 3-Mar-2015 22:25 (48 replies)
Pages... 2 3 4



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.