Innoculation

[KantoSooner]

Okay, so, after millenia of suffering and death, we finally put paid to smallpox. Yay. Major killer and maimer of humankind, gone. How did we do this? Innoculation. Pure and simple. Nothing else played any role worth discussing. We, speaking now in my 'on behalf of humanity' voice, denied the little microbes a base from which to operate and they died. Excellent.

So, now we know how. We can knock these scourges out, one after the other. So long as we have vaccines. But we can worry about that later, we have plenty of vaccines for diseases that are still rampant. Much work to be done before we have to start worrying or wringing our hands because we don't have a vaccine for 'X', yet.

And, in fact, we've got polio on the ropes. Or did. It's now making a comeback. Good Lord, why? How? What parent would want to risk their child having withered, spavined limbs and living a life of unnecessary suffering and limitations? Why? In this case, Islamic preachers are why. They've decided that, since 'The West' wants this, it must be haram or unclean. Not to be outdone, in our own country, we have various fundamentalist groups who believe innoculation is the work of the debil...or at least that we should not intervene in this way but rather should leave matters to God's will. And let's not get started with the utterly discreditted 'scientific views' of Jenny McCarthy whose other contribution to health science seems to be encouraging electronic cigarette use. That and posing for nudey shots. But apparently having a child somewhere on the arc of autism qualifies her to draw data-less conclusions that have escaped medical science. And the Volvo moms of America seem to be buying it in depressing numbers. So, polio has found allies in antiquated mummery and the confusion of opinion for science and has at least for a while staved off defeat.

My question is: When is it permissible for government to compel action?

To me, it seems that innoculation is perhaps the most clearcut case, involving negligible harm/risk, prevention of a large harm/risk to others and a massive savings of common resources. But I am sure there are opposing views. So, to them we go.

[achiro]

You say compel, I say force. There are several religions that limit certain healthcare actions, I am opposed to the government forcing anyone to go against religious beliefs. It's a slippery slope and where does it end?
Before you get into the whole, "but when lives are at risk" argument...I always find it funny that someone arguing the benefits of vaccinations uses the idea that someone that is not vaccinated is endangering those who are. If the vaccinations are truly as effective as we are told, then the ones not vaccinated should be eliminated from the gene pool pretty quick and the ones who are should be safe.

[Ton Loc]

Slippery slope should be forced out of existence and never relied on for any argument.

That aside, inoculate your kids. The people who don't won't just die out instantly and strengthen our gene pool. Besides, who wants to see a bunch of kids to die because their parents are morons?

[olevetonahill]

Kinda Like wearing a Helmet when Riding a Motorcycle and wearing a seatbelt when in a Car or truck. Its the SMART thing to do, Yet its Not the Role of the Gov. to Try and force us to do the smart thing.

[KantoSooner]

Achiro, I was using 'compel' in precisely the way you suggest: making someone do something by force if necessary. It states the question in the harshest way possible, so you get a better discussion.

Two observations.

First, no one I know of asserts that vaccinations are 100% effective. They give vastly improved immunity from whatever they are aimed against, but it's not perfect. What you do accomplish with a population-wide vaccination program is 'herd immunity', a situation in which it so hard for the microbe to gain a foothold that they die out. So, regardless of the motivation, the fewer people who innoculate, the higher the risk to all, even those who do.

Second, religious liberty is one of the items I had expected would come up. At what point do we say enough is enough even if 'religion' is claimed as a shield? Do the Westboro Baptists get to do whatever they want? How about the use of fireworks at Christmas? If you're in the midst of a drought and the fireworks risk forest fire, is it permissible for the state to tell the church to cancel their fireworks display even if they consider it an integral part of their worship? How about the denial of medical care to children below the age of consent? Let's say a cougar mauled a five year old. And the parents wanted to pray the wounds away (note here that I do not name a denomination. You're not allowed to take offense; I'm accusing no one.) Do you as a law officer allow the child to bleed to death in the house of worship? Or do you call an ambulance, declare that the nonsense has officially ended and put the child into protective custody? I'm curious as to your take on these extreme examples...they might give us some ground from which to walk back to more mundane circumstances.

As to where the slippery slope of inteference in religious life might end, I'd suggest that the constitution offers a pretty decent guide as to limitations and providing a lowest common denominator set of rules. But that might well not satisfy you. I freely admit that I"m distinctly unimpressed by 'faith' when it comes to 'faith' vs. 'data' and thus am probably biased.

[KantoSooner]

Kinda Like wearing a Helmet when Riding a Motorcycle and wearing a seatbelt when in a Car or truck. Its the SMART thing to do, Yet its Not the Role of the Gov. to Try and force us to do the smart thing.

Is that the same thing? In both of your cases, the risk is mostly on the person making the choice. I'd say it's more like making the choice to drive a car without brakes. Not only are you putting yourself at risk, but everyone you come into contact with, as well.

[olevetonahill]

Is that the same thing? In both of your cases, the risk is mostly on the person making the choice. I'd say it's more like making the choice to drive a car without brakes. Not only are you putting yourself at risk, but everyone you come into contact with, as well.

Like Ton-Loc said, If they are vaccinated, Whats the risk to em?

[olevetonahill]

Personally I'm Vaccinated against everything I can be.
Hell back in the 60s the Army Vaccinated us against every known disease in the world that they had a Vaccine fer.

[KantoSooner]

The vaccines aren't 100%. Kind of like condoms. I've got a 21 year old daughter who's proof positive they aren't 100%.

[olevetonahill]

The vaccines aren't 100%. Kind of like condoms. I've got a 21 year old daughter who's proof positive they aren't 100%.

So shes making ya a Grandpa?


TeeHeehee. I crack myself up sometimes.

[KantoSooner]

Not yet. That I know of. No, I was referring to her own origins and the really disappointing quality control exhibited by the Japanese latex industry. Shocking.

[olevetonahill]

Not yet. That I know of. No, I was referring to her own origins and the really disappointing quality control exhibited by the Japanese latex industry. Shocking.

I know, I was being Funny. Hence the TeeHeeHee :friendly_wink:

[KantoSooner]

Just keep it 'haha' funny and not 'what's that smell?" funny...

[badger]

Someday I may feel differently, but for now, I view not vaccinating my child as a selfish decision.

It is hard for parents to watch their child get a needle stuck in them and be in pain for a few seconds. The real tears, the painful crying, it's hard to endure, even if it's finished in less than a minute.

I'm also now hearing the rationale that has nothing to do with religion or science: If everyone else gets vaccinated, my child doesn't need to, because everyone else is.

Our household all got flu shots. She gets all recommended vaccines at the times she needs them. When she was born, her parents both got the TDAP vaccine too.

Funny side story: I told NP that the TDAP was not painful, not realizing that I was hopped up on post-childbirth drugs in the hospital when they issued it. So, he went out and got his, and was holding his arm afterward. "Oh, I guess I was medicated. Sorry" lol

[achiro]

Is that the same thing? In both of your cases, the risk is mostly on the person making the choice. I'd say it's more like making the choice to drive a car without brakes. Not only are you putting yourself at risk, but everyone you come into contact with, as well.
I think Vets analogy was spot on in this case. You are making big assumptions when you assume that herd immunity is real. Although it sounds great on the surface, there is very little actual research behind it. I read an article a while back that had some interesting points. I'll try to find it for you. I am not going to debate pro vs anti vaccine but I will say that many that decide against are not "morons" and have actually taken the time to research before making the decisions they do.
The pro/anti debate has been brought up several times here at SF and I will not rehash it. I stand by any parent that has actually taken the time to research this stuff before making their decision, regardless of which side they fall in.

[Ton Loc]

I think Vets analogy was spot on in this case. You are making big assumptions when you assume that herd immunity is real. Although it sounds great on the surface, there is very little actual research behind it. I read an article a while back that had some interesting points. I'll try to find it for you. I am not going to debate pro vs anti vaccine but I will say that many that decide against are not "morons" and have actually taken the time to research before making the decisions they do.
The pro/anti debate has been brought up several times here at SF and I will not rehash it. I stand by any parent that has actually taken the time to research this stuff before making their decision, regardless of which side they fall in.

Its smart to wear seat belts or helmets = Its smart to get kid's shots. I agree - Vets analogy was spot on.

Also -for a recent example of herd immunity. (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1733704)

Depends on what you define as "quite a bit", but it has been researched.

[achiro]

Here is a link to the article I mentioned.
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/

[KantoSooner]

So, to return to our base argument, is it legitimate to use the government's coercive power to enforce vaccination?

We use governmental force to enforce other behavioral norms, after all. For example, we will allow the government to actually kill people who insist on certain behaviors; so we're no where close to an absolute prohibition on the government having such a right.

Where is the line? And what generalized criteria are we going to accept as a society to define that line?

I think we'd need to cover risk to others, risk to self, legal/moral age of majority issues, individual vs. group risk/reward, availability of alternative(s), cost/burden, facility of enforcement...what else, what else?

[KantoSooner]

Okay, Chiro,
I read the article, then I googled the org and Dr. Humphries, the author. Findings here, among others:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/16/dr-suzanne-humphries-and-the-internation/

I'm sure she has her supporters, but she sure has her critics, as well. To call her opinions fringe is to be extremely generous. Whether it is right or permissible for government to require vaccination is one thing. It is quite another to reject 200 years of observed results as simply the ploy of money hungry big pharma.

[badger]

So, to return to our base argument, is it legitimate to use the government's coercive power to enforce vaccination?

We use governmental force to enforce other behavioral norms, after all. For example, we will allow the government to actually kill people who insist on certain behaviors; so we're no where close to an absolute prohibition on the government having such a right.

Where is the line? And what generalized criteria are we going to accept as a society to define that line?

I think we'd need to cover risk to others, risk to self, legal/moral age of majority issues, individual vs. group risk/reward, availability of alternative(s), cost/burden, facility of enforcement...what else, what else?

Hell, they're forcing us to get health insurance or pay a fine. What's to stop them form forcing us to get vaccinated or pay a fine?

[KantoSooner]

At this stage, next to nothiing, I'd think. I'm curious to see what sort of rule set we'd come up with the define whether such an act would be logical or simply an exercise in authoritarianism.

[achiro]

Okay, Chiro,
I read the article, then I googled the org and Dr. Humphries, the author. Findings here, among others:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/16/dr-suzanne-humphries-and-the-internation/

I'm sure she has her supporters, but she sure has her critics, as well. To call her opinions fringe is to be extremely generous. Whether it is right or permissible for government to require vaccination is one thing. It is quite another to reject 200 years of observed results as simply the ploy of money hungry big pharma.
Like so many of those "rebuttal" pieces, all focused on slamming the author instead of a scientific discussion. Now re read what I said about it, that she makes some interesting points. BRB...

[achiro]

Sorry, had to change computers, my ipad is going crazy.
The problem with these discussions is that people on both sides are sure they are right and immediately dig their heels in instead of opening their minds. They take it personal and instead of having a real discussion, it turns into name calling and mud slinging. If people wanted real answers, it's pretty simple... Compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups and look at various aspects of it. Who actually gets sick in outbreaks? Is there a difference in affected percentages in the two groups?(many kids who have been vaccinated still end up sick) What are rates of various issues ie Autism in the two groups? The list goes on and on. The few things I've seen on it aren't very scientific, usually more in the form of questionnaires but they usually do show a much lower rate of illness in the unvaccinated kids. The problem again is that they aren't very well done and usually are done by the anti vaccine groups.

What I do know is that many of the anti vaccine folks believe that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. The science is very limited to prove for or against and until there is more, I can't imagine forcing anyone to have them.

[KantoSooner]

I must have failed to see them. The rebuttal piece was pretty much as you describe: a personal attack on the Dr.; but then, her piece was pretty much as the attacker described. It was assertions devoid of any fact or analysis. Simple anecdotes followed by conclusions are not science.

On this, I"m going with Steve Jobs, who advised a friend with a fresh cancer diagnosis to go ahead and eat right, exercise, follow holistic healing paths...and also go get his chemo and radiation.

Are there circumstances in which you feel the state can legitimately force an individual to take any form of medical treatment? If so, what and on what grounds? If not, on what grounds do you exclude cases like enforced quarantine of a person with a deadly and communicable disease?

[badger]

Are there circumstances in which you feel the state can legitimately force an individual to take any form of medical treatment? If so, what and on what grounds? If not, on what grounds do you exclude cases like enforced quarantine of a person with a deadly and communicable disease?

I can think of a few situations... medical quarantines immediately come to mind. There was some bizarre case a few years ago where some wealthy guy (from Tennessee I think?) decided to travel overseas against better recommendations and had to sneak back into the country through Canada to get to his doctor because he was flagged.

I also remember a case where Jehovah's Witness parents decided under church advisement to not give a life saving blood transfusion to their infant. A judge ordered the blood transfusion for the baby.

[diverdog]

Okay, Chiro,
I read the article, then I googled the org and Dr. Humphries, the author. Findings here, among others:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/02/16/dr-suzanne-humphries-and-the-internation/

I'm sure she has her supporters, but she sure has her critics, as well. To call her opinions fringe is to be extremely generous. Whether it is right or permissible for government to require vaccination is one thing. It is quite another to reject 200 years of observed results as simply the ploy of money hungry big pharma.

There are a few of us on here who have travelled to some real third world **** holes. I can tell you I was more than happy to get vaccinated. Some of the diseases you can be exposed to offer fates worse than death.

Having said that my AF Squadron was the one interviewed on national news because the anthrax shot really ****ed some people up. I got lucky because I had very mild side effects. Some of my friends are disabled.

http://www.mvrd.org/showpage.cfm?ID=23

[olevetonahill]

There are a few of us on here who have travelled to some real third world **** holes. I can tell you I was more than happy to get vaccinated. Some of the diseases you can be exposed to offer fates worse than death.

Having said that my AF Squadron was the one interviewed on national news because the anthrax shot really ****ed some people up. I got lucky because I had very mild side effects. Some of my friends are disabled.

http://www.mvrd.org/showpage.cfm?ID=23

I went to Utopia myself.

[KantoSooner]

DD, As I recall, you guys got the Anthrax vaccine because there were legit fears you'd get hit with bio-weapons. The vaccine was known at the time to be imperfect and largely untested to the extent the FDA requires for release to the general market. I'm not sure about the legalities of either making it available to you or in forcing you to take it; but it was pretty openly and clearly known to have significant safety risks.
That is not the case for the standard immunizations given to the majority of American kids every day.

[achiro]

That is not the case for the standard immunizations given to the majority of American kids every day.
This is blatantly not true! There are certainly known risks, the debate is only in what the percentages(benefits vs risks) are and whether there are risks that are not proven yet. Denying risk at all is ignoring facts and putting your head in the sand.

[KantoSooner]

Are you asserting that the risk involved in innoculation of US military with the experimental anthrax vaccine during the Gulf War is the same as that involved in innoculation with say, polio, typhoid, MMR or any of the 'normal' range of vaccines? Because that is what I pretty clearly was drawing a distinction between.

I get it: you feel vaccination is some sort of money game drawn up by a secret cabal and that somehow only a brave band of clear thinkers in 21st century America figured it out. Fine.

Can we at least agree that there are a variety of risks posed by various vaccines; that some are greater than others and there just might be some range of risk that is acceptable presuming you believe a certain (though not perfect) degree of protection is thereby afforded?

[achiro]

Are you asserting that the risk involved in innoculation of US military with the experimental anthrax vaccine during the Gulf War is the same as that involved in innoculation with say, polio, typhoid, MMR or any of the 'normal' range of vaccines? Because that is what I pretty clearly was drawing a distinction between.

You ask this as a question so I'll give you the benefit here, no, I never said the risks between any two vaccines were the same, not sure how you ever got that.


I get it: you feel vaccination is some sort of money game drawn up by a secret cabal and that somehow only a brave band of clear thinkers in 21st century America figured it out. Fine.
Man what a leap. Remember when I said that thing about how people that can't debate always seem to jump to mudslinging? Here we are.


Can we at least agree that there are a variety of risks posed by various vaccines;
Seriously, WTF do you think I just said in the post above?

that some are greater than others and there just might be some range of risk that is acceptable presuming you believe a certain (though not perfect) degree of protection is thereby afforded?
Again, as I said before! this is THE debate.
I use to think that you were just contrary, always looking for an argument. Now I have to wonder if it's not just a communication/comprehension issue. I've laid out the debate much of which you've ignored, I've never given my personal opinions on the matter, there are tons of info out there if you are truly interested in the topic. There are also lots of folks that would give you the argument you want. Not hard to find but you better go much more prepared than you think you are because personal insults aren't going to cut it.

[KantoSooner]

Personal Insults? Seriously. If you think I've insulted you, you've led a remarkably sheltered life.

I've ignored zero of what you've posted. Youir argument on innoculation seems to be based on the Dr. Humphries article which quite clearly labels those in favor of innoculation to be misinformed 'shills' for big pharma. If you wish to disassociate yourself from her views, I can only wonder why you chose to quote her in the first place.

So far, you seemingly side with the 'all innoculation is bad' position and then reverse field and seem to agree that some have the desired effect. Then there's a side bet placed on the possibilty of something bad being discovered in the way of side effects at an undisclosed time in the future. Can't really argue with you at all since you've taken every conceivable side of the issue at once.

However, there's a way forward here. Going back to the orginal point: presuming whatever you choose on innoculation, do you care to suggest some rule set on when it is right for the government/collective/group to demand action in this area? If so, what is/are those rules? If not, do you hold to the position that it is never permissible to demand an indivdual innoculate themselves/their children or take any other course of medical action?

[Ton Loc]

Wait, I thought the debate was can or should the government enforce vaccinations?

I don't think they should but they can. Those sneaky bastards can pull of just about anything when we're not paying attention. Which is easy, because we're never paying attention.

[KantoSooner]

Pretty much. I'm interested in knowing whether anyone thinks it's right for them to do so and if so, under what circumstances. My suspicion is that we get to a consensus of 'gray area' and that absolute positions are going to be pretty easy to demolish, but who knows?

[diverdog]

Pretty much. I'm interested in knowing whether anyone thinks it's right for them to do so and if so, under what circumstances. My suspicion is that we get to a consensus of 'gray area' and that absolute positions are going to be pretty easy to demolish, but who knows?

I would say that a massive outbreak of weaponized anthrax or small pox would be a reason to force people to get shots. You know the end of all life as we know it scenario.

[SoonerorLater]

Pretty much. I'm interested in knowing whether anyone thinks it's right for them to do so and if so, under what circumstances. My suspicion is that we get to a consensus of 'gray area' and that absolute positions are going to be pretty easy to demolish, but who knows?

No, never. No gray area. No ambiguity. No human being should ever be forced to have anything injected in their body because some government bureaucrat(s) thinks it's a good idea.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

No, never. No gray area. No ambiguity. No human being should ever be forced to have anything injected in their body because some government bureaucrat(s) thinks it's a good idea.

And if my vaccinated child through extreme exposure to your unvaccinated child ends up infected with the herpe your unvaccinated child is spreading like peanut butter on toast, feel free to deal with the repurcussions of your decision, namely me and a number of parents with sick children beating the ever loving crap out of you.

[SoonerorLater]

And if my vaccinated child through extreme exposure to your unvaccinated child ends up infected with the herpe your unvaccinated child is spreading like peanut butter on toast, feel free to deal with the repurcussions of your decision, namely me and a number of parents with sick children beating the ever loving crap out of you.

Then I guess by definition the efficacy of the vaccine would have to be questioned. I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. Nobody needs to tell me either. Capiche?

[olevetonahill]

And if my vaccinated child through extreme exposure to your unvaccinated child ends up infected with the herpe your unvaccinated child is spreading like peanut butter on toast, feel free to deal with the repurcussions of your decision, namely me and a number of parents with sick children beating the ever loving crap out of you.

I see no Prob with gettin Vaccinated, I do have a Prob with the Gubment FORCING us to take said Vaccinations. Now I dont have a Prob with If a Kid aint Vaccinated then the little bastard should be Home schooled and kept away from other kids.

Kinda Like the Helmet, Seat belt deal. It aint the Gubs place to force us to do this stuff . I also believe that If you choose to excercise these FREEDOMS of choice then YOU and ONLY you pay the consequences In No Gubment help with Medical bills, No Gubment help for anything . LIVE FREE if ya want Or DIE FREE

[rock on sooner]

Pretty sure there a large numbers of elementary schools that won't
enroll kids who are not current on their shots, same with reputable
day cares. It is so easy for "bugs" to spread at warp speed among
children anyway. Seems to me that it is common sense to use what-
ever means available to protect the most vulnerable, religion and/or
anti-gov't notwithstanding.

[olevetonahill]

Pretty sure there a large numbers of elementary schools that won't
enroll kids who are not current on their shots, same with reputable
day cares. It is so easy for "bugs" to spread at warp speed among
children anyway. Seems to me that it is common sense to use what-
ever means available to protect the most vulnerable, religion and/or
anti-gov't notwithstanding.

What Im thinkin. Hell I know when I was a Kid I wernt going to school with out my Shot recoed up to date same with My kids. No Clue about todays PC world.

[SoonerorLater]

The question in this thread isn't if it's a good idea to get any particular vaccine but whether the government should be able to force you you to get vaccinated. To that I give a resounding no. Never have understood why people would want to turn over life decisions to a bunch of idiot politicians who think they know what is best.

[achiro]

Most states have wavers a parent can sign. AND again, I find it comical when someone argues that an unvaccinated child is a danger to their vaccinated kiddo. If it works, it works.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It does, but not with 100% effectiveness.

Even a condom isn't 100% effective. Pretty simple concept.

[jkjsooner]

I always find it funny that someone arguing the benefits of vaccinations uses the idea that someone that is not vaccinated is endangering those who are. If the vaccinations are truly as effective as we are told, then the ones not vaccinated should be eliminated from the gene pool pretty quick and the ones who are should be safe.

I've jumped into this conversation late so what I'm saying here might have already been said.

No vaccination is 100% effective but they don't have to be. If a vaccination is 98% effective and 100% of the population is vaccinated we've essentially reached a point of herd immunity. The members of the population who had ineffective vaccinations are so spread out that it's becomes virtually impossible for a virus to gain a foothold in the population. In that sense, those who would otherwise be at risk are protected by this herd immunity.

You are also ignoring the fact that very young children can't be vaccinated so they are always at risk.


I'll close this by mentioning that I have a son who is on the Autism spectrum. It sucks. I trust the science but of course there will always be that little question in the back of my mind. But I have that question about many different things. Was it the induction with Pitocin which caused my son to go into stress? Was it the mold in our rental house that they never could get resolved?

[KantoSooner]

Okay, here's one part of what I think the rule must address:

Is a government 'rule' called for in any case where the harm risked is only to the actor? Or must the harm at least theoretically involve harm to another person? (assuming legal age of majority, sanity, etc, etc.)

[jkjsooner]

Okay, here's one part of what I think the rule must address:

Is a government 'rule' called for in any case where the harm risked is only to the actor? Or must the harm at least theoretically involve harm to another person? (assuming legal age of majority, sanity, etc, etc.)

The problem with that question is that in so many cases it's hard to contain the risk to just the actor. Take drug use. The direct risk is limited to the person using the drugs. However, there is a general harm to society as well. You can punish some of the behavior that results from drug use but in many cases that's too late. It's too late for the child who neglected or abused. It's too late for the person who was a victim of crime. Then there's the damage to society (lost productivity, etc.) that isn't within the realm of criminal laws.

That aside, I think you're not going to get anywhere near a consensus. A person who feels that it is society's role to care for others will be more likely to feel that society should be able to have some expectations from others as well.

If society is going to bear some of the burden of a person who was in an auto accident, then maybe society has a right to demand that person wear a seat belt.

If one believes society has no responsibility at all to an accident victim then society might leave it up to the individual to take or not take precautions like wearing a seat belt. But, really, to get to that point we'd have to give emergency rooms the freedom to turn away critical patients who are uninsured.

One last point, using the seat belt example, if you choose not to wear a seat belt, you should accept the responsibility for your own injury that would not have occurred had you been wearing your seat belt even if you are not the cause of the accident..

[KantoSooner]

Which is kind of getting around to the point of all this which is: if we can't reach a consensus fairly quickly and easily, then we are going to be left with shades of grey/compromise.

For instance, I don't buy your argument that 'society' has any right whatsoever to my productivity...but from the overall tenor of your post, I still feel confident that the two of us could work out reasonable rules.

[jkjsooner]

Which is kind of getting around to the point of all this which is: if we can't reach a consensus fairly quickly and easily, then we are going to be left with shades of grey/compromise.

For instance, I don't buy your argument that 'society' has any right whatsoever to my productivity...but from the overall tenor of your post, I still feel confident that the two of us could work out reasonable rules.

I definitely think we could work out reasonable rules.

I don't think the lost productivity argument should have much merit until it gets to an absurd point. I suspect some people think that the lost productivity due to legalized marijuana would hurt our standard of living and our country's position in the world. (We don't live in a vacuum and a less productive society would harm everyone - even those who remain productive.)

[olevetonahill]

If it concerns Kids Leave it at the Local school district level to decide Adults? Until you are ready to Endorse Forced Quarantine of ALL Aids patients then the Gov. needs to stay the **** out of every ones business

[KantoSooner]

I definitely think we could work out reasonable rules.

I don't think the lost productivity argument should have much merit until it gets to an absurd point. I suspect some people think that the lost productivity due to legalized marijuana would hurt our standard of living and our country's position in the world. (We don't live in a vacuum and a less productive society would harm everyone - even those who remain productive.)

I'd oppose the productivity argument on philosophical bases. No one else has any right whatsoever to demand that I work or work to the best of my ability. I may end up suffering for laziness, but no one else has any 'right' to see me do my best.

[soonerhubs]

Late to the thread, but here goes: I will patiently wait for someone to show me the peer-reviewed research that says vaccines are bad for you in the long-term. They cause autism, eh? Bull****!

Anti-vaccine crowds have yet to show me, but maybe I'll be shocked. I've seen some folks point to certain compounds and use other bad correlation designs, but not one study shows causal evidence.

They may as well be boycotting ice cream to lower crime rates. It's research methods 101, here.

[Soonerjeepman]

Hell, they're forcing us to get health insurance or pay a fine. What's to stop them form forcing us to get vaccinated or pay a fine?

THAT is very scary and possible...

[Soonerjeepman]

I'd oppose the productivity argument on philosophical bases. No one else has any right whatsoever to demand that I work or work to the best of my ability. I may end up suffering for laziness, but no one else has any 'right' to see me do my best.

lol..after reading this all I could think of is all the folks on welfare (especially around my school)...hell, they get rewarded for their lack of productivity..

[soonerhubs]

No they shouldn't force anyone to vaccinate their children, and they sure as **** shouldn't force doctors or hospitals to admit or to treat the children of these dumbasses when they come down with the red measles.

People are entitled to be stupid, I am given the liberty to call these modern-day typhoid-Marys out for their stupidity.

[KantoSooner]

Originally, I had wanted to discuss the boundaries of personal liberty vs. community interests in a free association. But that ship seems to have sailed.

[soonerhubs]

Originally, I had wanted to discuss the boundaries of personal liberty vs. community interests in a free association. But that ship seems to have sailed.

My apologies. I think it's a valid discussion.

I just get blown away by the anti-vaccine movement and their nonscientific approach to a problem's very simple solution.

It's reasonable to take these as matters of public safety. By definition, requiring someone to stop at a light that turns an arbitrary color is a restriction upon their liberty. However, I doubt anyone would argue against the merits of this invention and the accompanying laws.

I could see restricting those who are not vaccinated from public education and other settings where they may cause harm to other children or infants. A hospital with newborns should ban everyone of these individuals. Perhaps they should have a specialized independent hospital with vitamins and snake oil repositories, since they have no regard for the amazing accomplishments of Western Medicine, anyways.

Often, it's not a matter of "If the vaccine works, then what are you afraid of?" Infants receive a scheduled set, and if they haven't received the pertussis vaccine, they are vulnerable to this population of individuals refusing vaccines.

[badger]

I haven't contributed to this discussion in awhile --- my opinion on myself and my family getting vaccines hasn't changed (yes across the board).

At the same time, I realize that there's nothing the government or I can do to change people's mind if they are firmly against vaccines. Therefore, just like when I'm out on the road and drive defensively as if they're all dumb teens texting and talking instead of breaking at red lights, I'm going to take extra precautions to try to stay healthy --- exercise, eat better, use hand sanitizer, etc.

I also am conditioning myself in a few weeks when I airport travel with my toddler --- no, strange elderly person, you cannot hold or even touch my "baby."

[TAFBSooner]

Which is kind of getting around to the point of all this which is: if we can't reach a consensus fairly quickly and easily, then we are going to be left with shades of grey/compromise.

For instance, I don't buy your argument that 'society' has any right whatsoever to my productivity...but from the overall tenor of your post, I still feel confident that the two of us could work out reasonable rules.

How much of the opposition to legal pot is based on the desire to avoid lost productivity, do you think?

Henry Ford was a big proponent of alcohol Prohibition, due to the effects of his employees coming to work drunk.

[KantoSooner]

Henry Ford was an amazing person, but that doesn't mean we have to respect his views on eugenics or the efficacy of the Nazi party. Human beings are typically not consistent. Gandhi beat his wife.

I have no doubt that some of the anti-pot sentiment is based on concern that stoners won't 'pull their fair share'. And, to the extent that the rest of us are called upon to support them, it's a fair concern. I'm fascinated with how to define that line, however.

Just where can the big 'WE', demand compliance from 'I'? I think a lot of our current political ferment comes down to this question. Which is very cool, since we have an extensive body of thinking available on the topic ranging back to biblical times and before. One is tempted to conclude that we never really settled the issue when we stopped hunting and gathering and started living in villages.