Is Dallas a "nanny" city?

[Spjz]

I'm not sure if there is a thread on this topic. If there is, please feel free to kill this one off.

[TheMapman]

Shouldn't "no" be a choice?

[Spjz]

Sorry, I was hittin the bong when I designed the "officially, scientific" poll of polls.

[eirin]

I really can't make a selection, but I guess I will go with "I don't follow the rules" because while Dallas does have some whacked out rules, their enforcement can be quite lacking at times. So I have no idea.

[trolleygirl]

what is "ebraced to to too great an extent" even mean????

Oh I get it- it means that I'm too high to give a shit.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Sorry, I was hittin the bong when I designed the "officially, scientific" poll of polls.
Amen, brother. :cigar:

[LH_Newbie]

I apparently am no longer hip, as I don't even understand what the question is asking...

[AeroD]

It depends.

Saggy pants as example. I am not a lawyer, but no way could a full-proof ordinance been drafted. An ordinance would have failed. I am sure Caraway knew that, but he still wanted to do something about this issue. I don't see anything "nanny" when organizations or communities get involved to raise public awareness of an issue.

Also intent matters. Some will argue red-light cameras have less to do with public safety, and more to do with revenue. Is finding clever ways to raise revenue a "nanny" thing, or more of a greedy thing?

Smoking bans in bars, while they may seem nanny, it is just misplaced pretentiousness. "I want to be able to poison my liver and kill off a few brain cells, but f-you buddy if you think you are going to mess with my lungs."

[mjblazin]

Nanny activities involve me trying to make you a better person. Banning smoking is me not trying to improve you. It's keeping someone with a disgusting, stupid behavior out of my sight and smell. I and almost everyone else that don't smoke don't care if you smoke yourself into the grave. We don't want you doing it while we're around. If you don't like it, tough. When I went to business school 25 years ago filled with a lot of people that now would be considered key decisionmakers, we asked my section of 90 people how many smoked. 2 people smoked. Those 88 of 90 are now making their voices heard.

[AeroD]

When I went to business school 25 years ago filled with a lot of people that now would be considered key decisionmakers, we asked my section of 90 people how many smoked. 2 people smoked. Those 88 of 90 are now making their voices heard.

You get a gold star.

FYI...I don't smoke.

[RobertB]

In a lot of cities, red-light cameras are almost exclusively a revenue generation system (just go to thenewspaper.com for several highly slanted "articles" per day on the subject). But Dallas *does* have a problem with red-light runners, and adding the cameras actually helped... to the point where they had to shut down some of the cameras because those corners were no longer unsafe enough to justify their expense. (Oddly enough, thenewspaper.com doesn't seem interested in reporting on a valid use of the technology -- go figure.)

And while the smoking ban is debatable, especially when it involves bars and other places I don't frequent, red-light running affects me directly. If you smoke near me, I'm moderately peeved. If you run a red light while I'm in the middle of the intersection, I'm moderately dead. Big difference.

So I voted "I'm smoking weed in a Swisher". :)

[mjblazin]

You get a gold star.

FYI...I don't smoke.

Thanks. My "you" was not directed to anyone in particular unless he/she was out in the cold alley smoking and tapping into the Blackberry.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Nanny activities involve me trying to make you a better person. Banning smoking is me not trying to improve you. It's keeping someone with a disgusting, stupid behavior out of my sight and smell. I and almost everyone else that don't smoke don't care if you smoke yourself into the grave. We don't want you doing it while we're around. If you don't like it, tough. When I went to business school 25 years ago filled with a lot of people that now would be considered key decisionmakers, we asked my section of 90 people how many smoked. 2 people smoked. Those 88 of 90 are now making their voices heard.
waaaah waaaah waaaaah. My throat feels a little scratchy at the bar! Big government come save me!

If you don't want to inhale my goddamn smoke, go buy yourself a 40 and get drunk at home.

[smudoode]

waaaah waaaah waaaaah. My throat feels a little scratchy at the bar! Big government come save me!

If you don't want to inhale my goddamn smoke, go buy yourself a 40 and get drunk at home.

Now that's the Alex I missed! Sounds like a good evening to me. I do agree that smoking in bars is justifiably not a right, that's what patios and balconies are for. A smoking ban in bars and restaurants is a healthy measure that any responsible municipality should consider.

[AndyIvey]

It is as if we do not care enough about smoking to stop going to places that allow it, but we do care enough to use the regulatory power of government to control them.

[trolleygirl]

It is as if we do not care enough about smoking to stop going to places that allow it, but we do care enough to use the regulatory power of government to control them.

Hwy! what are you smoking in your smoker on your avatar???

[AndyIvey]

Hwy! what are you smoking in your smoker on your avatar???
nothing worth recording for eternity on the Internet

[downtownguy25]

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=7155F7796F354F21B1183937D847D6DF&tier=4&id=F01FBFE1C2CC4C44B00FB9D29B619836&AudID=29CB3DCAC7E94A08B642EC371FE6E70B

[RobertB]

http://www.dmagazine.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=7155F7796F354F21B1183937D847D6DF&tier=4&id=F01FBFE1C2CC4C44B00FB9D29B619836&AudID=29CB3DCAC7E94A08B642EC371FE6E70B
Hmm, bad news for me:

Let’s concede that smoking is an issue that can affect more than the smoker or the business owner. But what about bicycle helmet laws for adults? How can that possibly affect anyone else? Yet there it is in the City Code, Section 9-8: “A person commits an offense if he operates or rides upon a bicycle or any side car, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle without wearing a helmet.”

The roughly 400 riders who did so operate or ride upon such devices in Dallas between July and October 2008 got popped with no-helmet tickets that cost between $74 and $135. Then it gets even weirder. Dallas City Code, Section 9-3 says you can’t even take your hands off the handlebars, or race a friend, if you’re on the street. What else are bikes for?
Uh oh. I feel like the guy in the old saying, "First they came for the smokers, but I wasn't concerned, because I didn't smoke." Apparently, my ride to White Rock Lake last month could have come with a budget-busting bill -- because I haven't gotten around to buying a helmet.

I've just gotten started riding my bike again, but I guess I won't ride into Dallas any more, which means no Gatorade at the 7-11 by White Rock Lake. I'm already scared of driving in Dallas, with the mandatory towing if some computer somewhere forgets that my car insurance hasn't gone unpaid in a decade or more -- and God forbid I should have the nerve to get into a wreck in Dallas without living in the city.

I'm finding more and more reasons to stay in the suburbs. And that's a sad state of affairs.

[downtownguy25]

I love how i can not ride my bike with out a helmet but I can ride my motorcycle with out one... where is the logic there.

[mjblazin]

Motorcycle - You need to carry license meaning you understand risk and are of age. You also need to carry health insurance card to avoid ticket. Why - because we don't want to pay for your dumb behind at Parkland.

Bicycle - no requirement to carry an ID or health card and mostly used by children. Since we can't make sure some insurer was dumb enough to cover you, we go by helmet on/off. The why is the same as above.

Again, we don't really care about an adult that can't figure out to wear a helmet. We just want to minimize the cost to us. You are not the important person. We matter, you don't. That's not being a nanny; it's strictly our self-interest.

[smudoode]

MJBlazin, your name led me to believe that you might have something insightful to say. ("dumb behind" and "bicycles mostly riden by children")

COME ON!

I don't believe that this is a liability issue for one minute. It's an issue of personal freedom and liberty. These laws are totalitarian and against the historical spirit of Dallas. When did we stop valuing individual rights and seek to conform the masses?

Just like the redlight cameras and tollways, Texas compensates for it's lack of state income tax by outlawing my right to do whatever the hell I want. I got a curfew ticket for being at White Rock Lake at 12:30AM. The cop told me that it was for my own good and safety. BULL SHIT! It's better for the coffers of city hall than it is for my personal well-being.

I am excited for the day when my generation wakes up and realizes that their parents have been supporting an ever growing police state under the guise of "The land of the Free."

Until then, I will continue watching Current and riding my unicycle without handlebars OR a helmet.

:censored:

[mjblazin]

Leave your name at the desk at Parkland in the special file and when you show up needing head injury treatment, we'll know how to triage your case. If you are in an employer funded plan, we probably want to also let them know.

Individual choice is only mature when you face the full consequences of your choice. Otherwise, regardless of age, it's just being a brat. If you accept those consequences and allow us to write you off or are paying for your care out of pocket, ride away sir.

[smudoode]

Leave your name at the desk at Parkland in the special file and when you show up needing head injury treatment, we'll know how to triage your case. If you are in an employer funded plan, we probably want to also let them know.

Individual choice is only mature when you face the full consequences of your choice. Otherwise, regardless of age, it's just being a brat. If you accept those consequences and allow us to write you off or are paying for your care out of pocket, ride away sir.

Wait a second, I am not sure I follow. Individual choice matures? How can something intangible and abstract, like choice mature? That sounds like you should only make choices after you endure their consequences. Sorry not in this universe. We have a principle called cause and effect.

Dallas's laws are causing me to realize that there need to be some change on the local governing level.

It's time people became responsible for their own actions. It's not the responsibility of the city to mico-manage my liberty. Accidents will happen whether or not the city has forbidden dangerous activities.

Dallas is a Nanny city. :2damn:

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Leave your name at the desk at Parkland in the special file and when you show up needing head injury treatment, we'll know how to triage your case. If you are in an employer funded plan, we probably want to also let them know.

Individual choice is only mature when you face the full consequences of your choice. Otherwise, regardless of age, it's just being a brat. If you accept those consequences and allow us to write you off or are paying for your care out of pocket, ride away sir.
You know, there are still a few of us out here that actually have health insurance and don't mooch off the system.

[smudoode]

You know, there are still a few of us out here that actually have health insurance and don't mooch off the system.

And there are some of us that would prefer to visit Parkland and mooch of the system as a way to avoid higher premiums and outrageuos deductibles, even if we had health insurance.

[mjblazin]

Being in a health plan means you are sharing risk with the rest of us. Unless you pay 100% out of pocket, your risky behavior costs the rest of us. When people take dumb risks, they increase the probability that our shared expenses will rise. We should share the risks of things like childhood cancer, a brick falling from a skyscraper, or a rampaging moose attacking your car on the road. We should not share the risks for people that don't understand what happens when a car hits you while riding a cycle and throws you head first into the street.

Unfortunately, given existing laws, and the growing likelihood of increased government health care support, it's unlikely we can screen these people from the risk pool. Consequently, to protect ourselves, not with any thought for their welfare, we pass laws to force them to minimize the damage to the shared pool.

Nanny laws are there to make you a better person. Helmet laws are there to minimize the damage to our collective wallet.

[smudoode]

How about regulate the charge at the doctors office so that people can afford to pay 100% out of the pocket AND get rid of this laws prohibiting individual acts of freedom.

What's the alternative? A bicycle license?

[mjblazin]

You'd infringe on a doctor's right to market price her services so you don't have to wear a helmet? Tiers of individual choice do exist and the freedom to bring your skills to market ranks quite a bit higher than not having to suffer the indignity of a piece of styrofoam strapped to your noggin.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

Being in a health plan means you are sharing risk with the rest of us. Unless you pay 100% out of pocket, your risky behavior costs the rest of us. When people take dumb risks, they increase the probability that our shared expenses will rise. We should share the risks of things like childhood cancer, a brick falling from a skyscraper, or a rampaging moose attacking your car on the road. We should not share the risks for people that don't understand what happens when a car hits you while riding a cycle and throws you head first into the street.

Unfortunately, given existing laws, and the growing likelihood of increased government health care support, it's unlikely we can screen these people from the risk pool. Consequently, to protect ourselves, not with any thought for their welfare, we pass laws to force them to minimize the damage to the shared pool.

Nanny laws are there to make you a better person. Helmet laws are there to minimize the damage to our collective wallet.
STOP NAGGING EVERYONE LIBERAL SCUM

PS: Oh, and don't pull the fiscal responsibility card on me. What's the point of being a fiscal conservative if you're going to support big government? It's the worst of both worlds.

[RobertB]

I consider myself quite liberal -- but I'm torn on motorcycle helmet laws, and I'm frustrated by many of the nanny laws being passed. I mentioned bike helmets for adults, and I'm even worried about the direction anti-smoking legislation is heading.

I don't see how regulating personal liberties can be construed as "liberal", anyway? Is it "liberals" who turned potheads into criminals with draconian laws against a substance that is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco? Was it the flaming liberals who wrote Texas' famous anti-sodomy law? Or how about those radical liberals who established the idea of "free speech zones" and set up the checkpoints at Love Field, where toddlers have to take off their princess slippers for inspection?

I don't see "nanny-state" regulation as a liberal concept at all. If anything, it's conservatism run amok. But it's probably deeper than that, neither liberal nor conservative... it's simply the human desire to prevent other people from doing things that we'd rather not see, and/or be tempted by.

[smudoode]

I consider myself quite liberal -- but I'm torn on motorcycle helmet laws, and I'm frustrated by many of the nanny laws being passed. I mentioned bike helmets for adults, and I'm even worried about the direction anti-smoking legislation is heading.

I don't see how regulating personal liberties can be construed as "liberal", anyway? Is it "liberals" who turned potheads into criminals with draconian laws against a substance that is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco? Was it the flaming liberals who wrote Texas' famous anti-sodomy law? Or how about those radical liberals who established the idea of "free speech zones" and set up the checkpoints at Love Field, where toddlers have to take off their princess slippers for inspection?

I don't see "nanny-state" regulation as a liberal concept at all. If anything, it's conservatism run amok. But it's probably deeper than that, neither liberal nor conservative... it's simply the human desire to prevent other people from doing things that we'd rather not see, and/or be tempted by.


Well said!

[mikedsjr]

The problem today is individuality run amok. People think their rights are so important that they don't care about the greater good. That is one thing I like about Barack, but don't like about liberals as a group. He gets it. I consider myself an Obama Republican. I can live with his ideals, because he has legitimate middle grounds. And he also says EVERYONE must be willing to make sacrifices.

Is Dallas a nanny city? I would say that the individuals crying the loudest about their rights over these issues don't care about the greater good anyway. Their more concerned with smoking pot.

[mjblazin]

I consider myself quite liberal -- but I'm torn on motorcycle helmet laws, and I'm frustrated by many of the nanny laws being passed. I mentioned bike helmets for adults, and I'm even worried about the direction anti-smoking legislation is heading.

I don't see how regulating personal liberties can be construed as "liberal", anyway? Is it "liberals" who turned potheads into criminals with draconian laws against a substance that is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco? Was it the flaming liberals who wrote Texas' famous anti-sodomy law? Or how about those radical liberals who established the idea of "free speech zones" and set up the checkpoints at Love Field, where toddlers have to take off their princess slippers for inspection?

I don't see "nanny-state" regulation as a liberal concept at all. If anything, it's conservatism run amok. But it's probably deeper than that, neither liberal nor conservative... it's simply the human desire to prevent other people from doing things that we'd rather not see, and/or be tempted by.

I'd agree that many of the laws are not liberal or conservative. The previous poster was the first time anyone accused (yes, it's a pejorative use) me of being a liberal. Conservatism at its core is about individual responsibility. Some clubs we join freely and others we are forced to "join." But once in the club you follow the rules. Consequently, while I don't agree with government healthcare financing or even subsized corporate financing, I'm mature enough to acknowledge its existence and my resulting responsibilities.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

I don't see "nanny-state" regulation as a liberal concept at all. If anything, it's conservatism run amok.
You're confusing neoconservatism with convervatism.

Willy Nelson/Kinky Friedman/Ron Paul = Conservative

George W. Bush/John McCain/Rick Perry = Neoconservative

[trolleygirl]

You're confusing neoconservatism with convervatism.

Willy Nelson/Kinky Friedman/Ron Paul = Conservative

George W. Bush/John McCain/Rick Perry = Neoconservative

I don't think so. And mjblazin is right.

I have a degenerative auto-immune disease. I work for a small non-profit and I can't get group health insurance because I am the sole employee. I have a "choice" in my meds: I can either take this awful crap that they prescribe to cancer patients that make me puke my guts out, gain wait, depressed, tired, and light sensitive, all while not having an appetite, OR I can take the stuff that costs me $1,500 a month because I don't have good insurance. On an individual plan, I am uninsurable so I have to rely on the Texas Risk Pool which costs me $700 a month and only covers four doctor visits a year (with my meds, I have to go every month for blood checks), even that is crappy insurance. I do all the right things, I eat well, I exercise, I don't smoke, I had to give up drinking, and I take my meds like I'm supposed to, even when they make me feel like shit.

Meanwhile, I pay taxes on two houses to support morons dying of lung cancer, diabetes and a whole host of other preventable ills. Shouldn't there be a balance somewhere?

But you're right: it's my fault for working for a little non-profit that can't provide group health insurance. I should just be thankful that we live in such a wonderful free market and shut up with all my liberal whining, right?

[AndyIvey]

I’ve taken a couple of jobs I hate because they pay enough money to support my family and provide me with the health insurance I need to stay upright and breathing.

[RobertB]

Careful... while there's merit in discussing the need for universal health care (versus, I dunno, the need to let people die on the side of the road, whatever), we may want to consider focusing on the topic of the thread. You know, Dallas, and city regulations.

[mjblazin]

My comments were not meant to discuss Universal Healthcare. It's just an example of the networks of which we are members that force us to accept individual responsibility if we are mature adults. HOAs, another misunderstood hot button on this forum, are another network.

[trolleygirl]

Careful... while there's merit in discussing the need for universal health care (versus, I dunno, the need to let people die on the side of the road, whatever), we may want to consider focusing on the topic of the thread. You know, Dallas, and city regulations.

You're right Robert.

I've changed my mind- I used to think that banning smoking was a good idea, and I do in certain situations, like in restaurants, but in bars? People need to eat, people go to restaurants to eat, but people don't need to drink (anything other than water, that is).

So with that in mind, my answer to the question of "Is Dallas a Nanny City?" is YES.

But, spjz, you never answered my question: what is "ebraced to to too great an extent" even mean????

[Spjz]

But, spjz, you never answered my question: what is "ebraced to to too great an extent" even mean????Instead of looking at the regulation as black or white, yes or no, instead look at it as a continuum. On one end is permissible regulation (you example of no smoking in restaurants) at the other end is completely impermissible regulation (again your example of no smoking in bars). Somewhere there is presumably a line. "Too great an extent" (poorly worded) is beyond that point on the continuum. I should have been more specific.

My apologies for creating a piss poor poll. I really just wanted some discussion on the topic and couldn't resist creating a poll to boot.

[F4shionablecHa0s]

But you're right: it's my fault for working for a little non-profit that can't provide group health insurance. I should just be thankful that we live in such a wonderful free market and shut up with all my liberal whining, right?
To be blunt, yes.

You have a disease. It sucks, but you're gonna have to make some sacrifices if you want health care. The price you pay for working for a quaint little non-profit is that you don't get healthcare. You knew this going in. You still made the economic cost benefit analysis to work for the non-profit, so your situation must not be that dire, sweetheart.

I'm not even going to get into the logic of a one person nonprofit that supports the one person...

[Spjz]

^Whatever. I'm sure other carriers are going to line up to insure someone with a pre-existing condition.

[AndyIvey]

^Whatever. I'm sure other carriers are going to line up to insure someone with a pre-existing condition.

All of the plans I have been offered by an employer have a waiting period. This perios is limited to 12 or 18 months depending on when you enter the plan. After that, your pre-existing condition is covered.

[smudoode]

The state should offer nationalized health coverage for people as a default if they can't afford private coverage.

What are some other irritating nanny laws in Dallas? How about the no liquor on Sundays? or all drunks leave the bar at the same time and drive home so that the cops can pull you over! that's safe.

How about no cell-phone usage in active school zones? In California, the school zones I noticed didn't have blinking lights and draconian laws about using your ipod or cell in the zone, they simply said, 20mph if children are present. What makes Dallas children more likely to get hit in school zones than children in California? Any excuse to pull someone over!

Got to love this city and it's micro-management of it's people. The spirit of Texas is serious lost in Dallas. Or is it? :confused:

[trolleygirl]

The state should offer nationalized health coverage for people as a default if they can't afford private coverage.

What are some other irritating nanny laws in Dallas? How about the no liquor on Sundays? or all drunks leave the bar at the same time and drive home so that the cops can pull you over! that's safe.

How about no cell-phone usage in active school zones? In California, the school zones I noticed didn't have blinking lights and draconian laws about using your ipod or cell in the zone, they simply said, 20mph if children are present. What makes Dallas children more likely to get hit in school zones than children in California? Any excuse to pull someone over!

Got to love this city and it's micro-management of it's people. The spirit of Texas is serious lost in Dallas. Or is it? :confused:

What? A sensible. non "nanny" law in California???

How about the whole stupid wet/dry zones? I think dates back to the 60's, why doesn't the City Council ever bother to take that up at the horseshow? There are entire city council district that are dry (and also have less crime, I'm thinking of District 12, 11 and possibly 10), then you have district 7, flooded with liquor stores and high crime. Let's even it out across the city, I say.

[trolleygirl]

To be blunt, yes.

You have a disease. It sucks, but you're gonna have to make some sacrifices if you want health care. The price you pay for working for a quaint little non-profit is that you don't get healthcare. You knew this going in. You still made the economic cost benefit analysis to work for the non-profit, so your situation must not be that dire, sweetheart.

I'm not even going to get into the logic of a one person nonprofit that supports the one person...

My point in my original post was about the difference between health care for people with preventable diseases and people who have diseases that they are born with. Maybe the argument was weak, but this is a thread about Dallas being a nanny city, not about the merits of nationalized health care.

I could just leave it at that, but since you just had to refer to me as "sweetie", I won't.

I have been paying for my health insurance out-of-pocket for years without complaining because, as you say, I knew it going in and because I am at a point in my life where I don't have to worry about it, as long as I can pull my own weight around the house and have some fun money, my s/o and I do quite well.

But there will come a time in the future when I will need to get better health care, when it becomes unmanageable, and it will at some point. Right now, I'm managing it with drugs and that will work fine for probably the next 20 years.

Since you brought it up, as far as one-person non-profits, we do support a full-time summer staff. When the winter comes along, we are engaged in planning, fundraising, grant-writing, etc., and we manage our funds very well, in fact we leverage our funding at a ratio of 5:1, because we are a volunteer-based organization. This one employee isn't getting rich over here and my salary accounts for 30% of the budget, which isn't necessarily eye-raising, but if we added another full-time employee for, say marketing, then that would go up and funders would start to raise eye-brows. You should really look out for non-profits that spend too much on employee salaries who justify their jobs by pretending that they're actually doing something. If I can personally raise enough funds every year to cover my own salary, then who's to complain about it being a one-person staff? You should really take a long look at some of the big non-profits that have extensive staffs and spend their money on expensive mailers with little personalized stickers or glossy day-planners and crap like that. I know many people who won't give to United Way for this reason; they think their donation will never reach its intended target.

[smudoode]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I got a freggin ticket for not wearing a helmet on Main St. in Dallas today. Does anyone have any personal advice or acecdotal experience with this dumb ordinance? I've read on various websites that it may cost as much at $147. The city hall website says the fine is $10 for first offence and you can defend yourself by purchasing a helmet and proving to the court that you bought one.

What do ya'll know?

[cmacemm]

The state should offer nationalized health coverage for people as a default if they can't afford private coverage.

What are some other irritating nanny laws in Dallas? How about the no liquor on Sundays? or all drunks leave the bar at the same time and drive home so that the cops can pull you over! that's safe.

How about no cell-phone usage in active school zones? In California, the school zones I noticed didn't have blinking lights and draconian laws about using your ipod or cell in the zone, they simply said, 20mph if children are present. What makes Dallas children more likely to get hit in school zones than children in California? Any excuse to pull someone over!

Got to love this city and it's micro-management of it's people. The spirit of Texas is serious lost in Dallas. Or is it? :confused:

I believe it is still an ordinance that I can not walk down the street with a can of spray paint or anything else deemed "graffiti worthy" to a cop even if i have not been painting.

[trolleygirl]

Wait, I thought you weren't required to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.