Another Reason I’m Glad I Left New York

From CBS New York:

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – After targeting distracted drivers, some New York lawmakers want to go after distracted walkers. They are looking to ban them from using iPods, music players and cell phones while walking and crossing the street.

At E.A.T. restaurant on Madison Avenue they still haven’t gotten over the death of co-worker Jason King, killed last month when a truck hit him as he crossed the street while listening to his iPod.

“He was everything to us. He was always laughing, always in a good mood,” co-worker Nunny Sanchez told CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer.

“We all miss him dearly like crazy. He was the light of E.A.T. I miss him a lot,” Josephina Medina added.

Jason was just 21 and his death and along with other accidents involving people using electronic gadgets while walking is why Brooklyn Sen. Karl Kruger is looking to ban things like cell phones and iPods for pedestrians crossing the street.

“We have people who are literally dying in the street,” Kruger said.

Dying, Kruger said, not because they are distracted drivers but because they are distracted walkers. Charles Tabasso, 14, admitted he’s one of them because he listens to his iPod constantly.

“I would probably get run over right now if it weren’t for my awesome parents,” Tabasso said.

His mom agreed.

“As a parent I am definitely in favor of banning these things,” Tullia Tabasso said.

The proposal was triggered by accidents like a woman tripping into a fountain while texting, but not everyone thinks the ban is a good idea, even King’s co-workers.

“I mean I, myself, I walk around in the street hearing music because I don’t want to hear nobody around me or nothing,” Medina said.

Living in NYC for many years I never understood people who would walk around unaware of their surroundings. I assume they just want to be raped or murdered which is what happens in a hell hole like New york when you don’t have your wits about you. But that the locals there think they have the right to keep you from listening to an Ipod or taking a call is typical New Yorker.

The key to keeping people safe is honesty. Instead of claiming people are going to die in accidents they should tell kids the truth – most guys under 25 are easy pickings and being distracted just makes you a more attractive target. In New York where you literally don’t have a right to defend yourself not knowing who is around you is just stupid.

It’s like drugs. The best way to end drug use is to have honest education about drugs, then remove the safety net drug users relay on to maintain their lifestyle. They give tickets to pot smokers for example – having one of those tickets on your record should make you ineligible for welfare and other government services. That way you don’t “fill the jails” with drug users (which isn’t really what happens anyway) but the rest of us don’t have to watch videos of someone our tax money is supporting make their babies smoke out of a bong.

Why not educate people to the dangers than pass Tort reform so that when one of these morons gets hurt they can’t sue? Oh right, that would hurt trail lawyers so Democrats aren’t interested.

Comments

8 Responses to “Another Reason I’m Glad I Left New York”

  1. Loup Garou on January 26th, 2011 4:06 pm

    doesn’t this fall under the “I didn’t kill him, the gun did” whatever…. every time you call on the government to fix it or help out you let go of your right and liberties. no thank you

  2. Ajax the Great on January 28th, 2011 2:56 pm

    I agree with you, Rob, up until the following passage:

    “It’s like drugs. The best way to end drug use is to have honest education about drugs, then remove the safety net drug users relay on to maintain their lifestyle. They give tickets to pot smokers for example – having one of those tickets on your record should make you ineligible for welfare and other government services. That way you don’t “fill the jails” with drug users (which isn’t really what happens anyway) but the rest of us don’t have to watch videos of someone our tax money is supporting make their babies smoke out of a bong.”

    Essentially, you want to replace one form of oppression with another I guess. And send them on a deeper downward spiral. Lose all access to government services for nothing more than a single doobie? What would you do about the drinkers, like yourself back in the day?

  3. Rob Taylor on January 28th, 2011 3:45 pm

    It’s “oppression’ to not give people charity when they use it to get high? Interesting.

    When I drank I never used any government services, nor have I taken any since or before. The “downward spiral” is essential for people with any substance problem to get help. If you people don’t have stand on their own to feet, they won’t and if people don’t have to stop using they won’t.

    If someone smoked one joint why would they need welfare? if they need welfare why are they sitting around getting high? The real cycle here is one where “liberals” work hard to keep people high and dependent on them. Drug use is another chain that people put around others to enslave them.

  4. Ajax the Great on January 28th, 2011 4:01 pm

    Yes, it’s oppression do deny someone what they would otherwise be guaranteed solely because they *might* use a portion of it to get high. What you say makes about as much sense as saying the following:

    “It’s like alcohol. The best way to end alcohol use is to have honest education about drugs, then remove the safety net alcohol users relay on to maintain their lifestyle. They give tickets (and worse) to drinkers (under 21) and for drunk driving, public drunkenness, and furinishing to a “minor” (for all ages) for example – having one of those offenses on your record should make you ineligible for welfare and other government services. That way you don’t “fill the jails” with drinkers (which isn’t really what happens anyway) but the rest of us don’t have to watch videos of someone our tax money is supporting get their babies drunk.”

    Now do you see how absurd it sounds?

    “The “downward spiral” is essential for people with any substance problem to get help. If you people don’t have stand on their own to feet, they won’t and if people don’t have to stop using they won’t.”

    Not true. Your Hobbesian view of human nature is quite telling indeed.

    “If someone smoked one joint why would they need welfare?”

    Layoffs, downsizing, outsourcing, injury, illness, etc. can affect anyone. Even freelancers like you may fall on hard times at some point.

    “if they need welfare why are they sitting around getting high?”

    Cannabis is the cheapest way to get high, buzz for buzz. As for the harder drugs, kicking them off welfare will only encourage them to turn to crime to support their habits. And the same would be true if the nanny-staters have their way with tobacco.

    “The real cycle here is one where “liberals” work hard to keep people high and dependent on them. Drug use is another chain that people put around others to enslave them.”

    And conservatives don’t care if you live or die. And most cannabis users are not addicts, thus not slaves to the plant. But most tobacco users are, and most Repugnicans love it that way.

  5. Rob Taylor on January 28th, 2011 4:30 pm

    People who spend money on getting drunk shouldn’t be on welfare either. I know you love to argue but you can’t think that it’s a good idea to pay people to get high. If we pay people to get high why should I work? Why should anyone?

    Pot isn’t the cheapest way to get high. You smokers pay three to four times as much for a dime bag as kids did when I was in school (one area in Texas has an average of $50 for a dime) and the idea that people who smoke pot who are kicked off welfare will have to turn to crime to get high kind of flies in the face of the whole pot isn’t addictive thing, no?

    Why couldn’t they just stop smoking until they can afford it, the way I don’t go out for steak dinners if money is tight.

    Nice Alan Grayson quote at the end but how is it that you claiming that people should be on welfare getting high is the more caring position? You want them to fail, to waste their life only to validate your preferences.

    By the way I quit smoking – tobacco is about as addictive as pot. People smoke both because they have a habit, usually because they don’t know how to deal with stress.

  6. Ajax the Great on January 28th, 2011 5:46 pm

    “People who spend money on getting drunk shouldn’t be on welfare either. I know you love to argue but you can’t think that it’s a good idea to pay people to get high. If we pay people to get high why should I work? Why should anyone?”

    It’s not “paying someone to get high” that I advocate, it’s the idea of the government treating its citizens equally regardless of one’s choice of intoxicant or lack thereof. Sitting around wasting one’s life is just as stupid whether drunk, high, or sober. But our society still needs a safety net to protect everyone from the vagaries of a dog-eat-dog capitalist market economy. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

    “Pot isn’t the cheapest way to get high. You smokers pay three to four times as much for a dime bag as kids did when I was in school (one area in Texas has an average of $50 for a dime)”

    Ever heard of inflation? Not to try to make you feel old, $50 now is equivalent to $17 in 1980 and $24 in 1985. Plus, the average potency has more than doubled since the mid 1990s despite being relatively flat before that time. Thus, adjusting for these facts, it is at least still as cheap (buzz for buzz) as it was when you were a teenager, if not cheaper. In some areas of the nation it is even cheaper than booze, buzz for buzz.

    “…and the idea that people who smoke pot who are kicked off welfare will have to turn to crime to get high kind of flies in the face of the whole pot isn’t addictive thing, no?”

    I said that for HARD drugs, people may have to turn to crime to support their habits. Not pot.

    “Why couldn’t they just stop smoking until they can afford it, the way I don’t go out for steak dinners if money is tight.”

    Many do, or they have friends who share a few hits of a doobie (or blunt) with them for free.

    “Nice Alan Grayson quote at the end but how is it that you claiming that people should be on welfare getting high is the more caring position? You want them to fail, to waste their life only to validate your preferences.”

    I do not want anyone to fail or waste their lives, but the fact that some people will is not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

    “By the way I quit smoking – tobacco is about as addictive as pot. People smoke both because they have a habit, usually because they don’t know how to deal with stress.”

    By the way, I quit tobacco as well many years ago, after smoking a pack a day for several years. And I know that it is FAR more addictive than cannabis, the latter of which I rarely even touch anymore, but (unlike cigarettes) can still enjoy occasionally in moderation.

  7. Rob Taylor on January 28th, 2011 6:02 pm

    Bullshit. Cigarettes and pot are exactly the same – they’re used as coping mechanisms. Quitting is as easy as not buying any and learning to deal with stress some other way.

    I see you’ve been lurking here and haven’t clicked any ads. Prior to your next comment either pay up or get lost.

  8. Ajax the Great on January 28th, 2011 6:41 pm

    There, I clicked on some ads. Happy?

    I’d also like to add that cigarettes are physically addictive while cannabis is generally not, and that the percentage of those who try cigarettes and get hooked is a whopping 32%, while for cannabis it is 9%. And about 10% of the population has an addictive personality, meaning they can get hooked on virtually anything that happens to feel good.

    But I’m tired of arguing for now. Adios.

Leave a Reply