Is the Unites States the most "protective" country?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Today I went in to my local Walgreens to pick up my drug of choice once I’ve contracted a cold. To me there isn’t much better than Aleve Cold and Sinus! Anyway, the point here is that I needed to show an ID to purchase said medicine. This is of course because the main ingredient, pseudoephedrine, can apparently be used in methamphetamine production. This started me thinking.

Compared to other developed nations in the world, does the US “baby” its citizens?

In America you now need an ID to purchase glues, paints (I once needed to show an ID to purchase poster paint), solvents, cold medicine, video games (currently pending ), movies, and countless other materials that are, when used for their intended purpose, harmless. TV, movies, music, video game, and radio are all censored as to not offend those that are not smart enough to turn it off or prevent their children from being exposed to content. Janet Jackson’s boob is flashed on air for mere seconds at a football game and parents and the government are ready to riot.

We are afraid to treat students differently in elementary school because of their learning abilities. It might offend a child if another student who is noticebly smarter is treated differently or placed in an environment where he/she may excel. We attempt to treat students as equals as to not offend the students or the parents.

I’m sure the list could go on and on but I think you get my point. An analogy that I have recently conjured up in my head compares this problem to the problem of allergies. With children being exposed to fewer microbial products early on in life there is a trend of increasing allergies. Exposure to some “bad” early on aids in creating a tolerance of it later in life.

Is this what we’re creating in the United States? A country where one slip of the tongue on TV burns the ears of millions of people. A country where those under the age of 18 are the only ones cooking up meth from Aleve Cold and Sinus. A country where students can’t learn from failure.

It seems to me that the US is babying the nation with laws to the point of weakening our “immune system”.

Is this happening around the world or is the US in the lead when it comes to “protecting” it’s citizens from every single potentially harmful thing?

2

Ugh, yes. That’s one of the reasons I moved from living in San Diego “Americas Finest City” to Tijuana. I just feel more free (freer?) in Mexico.

In Tijuana I don’t have to show my ID when buying beer or cigarrettes, I can smoke in restaurants and bars and public places, I don’t have to worry about covering my ass with political correctness when talking to people, etc.
Alot of Mexicans consider the US to be too much of a police state because you can’t do those things.

Sometimes I feel like the US needs a real-life Edgar Friendly.

3

Lawsuits are why you have to show your ID for almost everything.

4

No way is the United States the most protective country. Singapore until very recently strictly forbid its citizens from buying chewing gum period.

Several European countries are also quite protective in general. Banning GM foods, for example. And enforcing strict rules about how many hours per week you can work (much stricter than in the United States.) In some European countries Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, had to be modified so that the blood was green instead of red.

While in those same countries nudity is typically not taboo. Cultural taboos vary from society to society and the laws will reflect that to some degree.

You’re also patently false on a few of the things you presented.

Glues, solvents, paint, video games, music, and movies do not legally require I.D. to purchase in the United States at large. Maybe some jurisdictions have required that. However I think a lot of it is corporate policy. I think Wal-Mart for example requires ID for buying an R rated movie due to corporate policy, not any sort of legal statute. I say this because I’ve bought R rated movies at many stores other than Wal-Mart and only Wal-Mart asks for identification. Same with “MA” rated video games or “Parental Advisory” CDs.

I’m not knowledgeable of the law here, but I think manufacturer’s of entertainment products are required to label them with a rating, but I do not think those ratings carry the force of law.

Musics, movies, and video games also are not “censored” by the government. Can you even name one instance of that going on? Like I said, the government requires (I think) the ratings on those products, but they don’t actually go in and edit the content of movies, music, or video games. Most companies however do have internal control over certain things, and most studios prefer not to “cross” certain lines because they don’t want to receive one of the harsher ratings (NC-17 for film, AO for video games) because many theaters/stores won’t carry movies/games with ratings like that.

Broadcast television and radio is censored to a degree, but thats it. The claim that movies, video games, and music is censored by the government is, from what I can see, patently incorrect.

5

I’ve looked in to the ESRB somewhat and it appears that it’s a non-governmental agency and that the ratings don’t carry any legal power.

The ESRB maintains retail partnerships with various stores, the stores that are part of this partnership have voluntarily agreed not to sell games with the Mature (M) rating to customers under the age of 17.

So in the case of video games at least it appears it is entirely a voluntary corporate practice and not government censorship.

[url=http://www.esrb.org/about_partnership.asp]Link[/ur]

6

Should be Link

Forgot to preview post :(.

7

You’ve got to be kidding! The US doesn’t even have a national health care system. They let ordinary citizens carry handguns. They let 16-year olds drive Hummers. And you all saw how much they “baby” their citizens when natural disasters strike.

8

To that I would have to agree hands down. If the action is not directly related to lawsuits companies are more likely to take these actions in fear of lawsuits. This begs the question: is there a more litigious society than the US?

I suppose I did word that wrong. I fully understand that this media is not “censored” but at the same time there are guidelines set forth by the FCC as to what can and cannot be aired on TV/Radio. Do we really need the government there to protect us from content we can turn off with one click of a button? Instead of shrugging off the occassional slip up these days Americans become furious and demand that someone be fined insane amounts of money. It seems to me that this is a direct result of being forced into thinking that four letter words and a bit of skin are horrible evil things.

I also understand that rating systems and decisions such as Walmart’s to sell only to those over 18 for whatever product they like are completely voluntary. It seems to me that these decisions again are in fear of lawsuits. Being the litigious society we are I could see why Walgreens would be afraid to sell cold medicine to anyone. You have to believe that there is someone out there that would be willing to sue if their child were to have access to materials needed to produce meth. The problem here is that precedent for these lawsuits are created by judges. Judges working for the government. Maybe I’m one of the few that actually believes that responsibilty needs quite a redirection from where it’s landing today.

You bring up a good point. I’m fairly sure I could do much more damage to myself and others with a nice hand gun or a Hummer. It really is odd that I can go out and purchase these things relatively trouble free compared to the amount damage that can be done with them. Although I do not think that your point completely negates my argument it does make a strong statement regarding our priorities as a nation.

9

I think the “censorship” issues indicate that Americans are not sufficiently protected. The government is supposed to protect us from religious fundamentalists who want to ban “immoral” material, but is doing a poor job of it.

And as for restrictions on various purchases, that’s also a consequence of insufficient protection by the government - protection from lawsuits. Shops in Europe are free to sell spray paint, cold medicine, etc., without having to worry that they’d be held accountable for what’s done with those purchases.

10

This is a separate issue from being the most “protective” country. There are good arguments for and against the FCC regulating content on public airwaves. However all modern countries regulate the public airwaves to some degree, so in and of itself none of this really paints a picture of the U.S. being the most “protective” country.

In general the judges aren’t creating these precedents. Most of these big civil cases are decided by juries, and in the United States typically the judge has to give some deference to the decisions that juries reach. Judges have been good about reducing excessive damages given out by juries, but in general a judge is loathe to direct a verdit in a civil or criminal case.

Plus, I actually argue that most of this isn’t caused by lawsuits. I don’t really think that there’s enough successful litigation involving content of movies or video games sold to effect behemoths like Target or Wal-Mart.

In fact, Wal-Mart has consistently show its policies are actually a reflection of the corporate morals of the Wal-Mart company (in general Wal-Mart and the Walton family which runs it are fairly conservative socially speaking.)

11

We may not be the most protective country in the world, but I damn sure think we are the most fearful. I blame the national media mainly for that one. “Fair and Balanced” my ass. It should be “scared and fearful.”

Right now I’m worried equally of (or if you watch the news I should be:))

-Bird Flu (gotta kill all the birds in my yard)
-the regular flu
-germs
-terrorist attacks anywhere in my town at any moment…god I forgot what color alert we are currently at…some one help please!
-trick or treating
-retailers not saying Merry Christmas
-homosexuals getting married
-LIBERALS, the worst are those damn ones from Canada and Western Europe
-any of the diseases that all those pill commercials on TV are for. Half of them I have no idea what the pill is for, but I do know I’m more afraid of the side effects
-hurricane season '06 PREPARE NOW!!!
-diversity
-high prices for oil and gas…must drill for more…forget alternatives or conservation
-porn especially titties as stated above, but full frontal male nudity…heaven help us
-losing my gun rights to own a bazooka or cannon
and many many more things I can’t think of now.

I’m scared…absolutely scared!

12

Everyone has their different hangups. Because of some legislations which I believe was supposed to prevent excessive militarism, it’s not permitted to show blood in German videogames. On the other hand, they broadcast porn with enthusiasm. The US is the exact opposite. Different strokes, etc.

13

The pseudoephedrine/ meth thing actuallly is a law, not sure if it is national at this point or just in a number of states.

From what I understand the motive is to discourage meth labs. Not so much “You can’t have a box of Sudafed because you might turn it into meth and use it” but “our law enforcement resources don’t need to be risking their lives going into meth labs full of dangerous chemicals.” From a report I heard on NPR, the laws are effective at reducing the number of meth labs in the area where they are in place.

Now, if you’re the kind of extreme libertarian who thinks “where does the government get off telling me I can’t have a meth lab?” you and I probably wouldn’t be able to come to agreement on this. But on strictly practical terms, I think this is an OK measure to have people sign for pseudoephedrine. I’d rather have that law in place than spend tax dollars cleaning up meth labs, paying for cops to buy special equipment and go on disability, etc.

14

Ask Canada, Australia and most of Western Europe. Not only do they have content restrictions on free-to-air radio and TV, but it’s a crime to express an unpopular opinion thereon (i.e. “hate speech.”) Sure, they’re more relaxed about nudity and sex and so forth, but which is more “babying” than the other?

I think if you do any research on the issue you’ll find that fines being issued by the FCC over content is an extremely rare event.

Liability in civil cases is decided by juries. (You would know this if you paid attention in civics class, but maybe you were too busy being babied by your teachers.) Alternatively, settlements are agreed upon by attorneys negotiating for each side. If anything, American judges have the least to do with this perceived problem, as the outrageous judgments you hear about on the news are almost always reduced upon appeal.

15

State by state the rules vary. In California you certainly can’t by paint or sharpies or such without an ID. I honestly don’t know how that compares to other countries.

One thing for sure is that the fear of sex is unique to the United States. The idea that children must be completely shielded from any mention of the existence of sex is a very odd idea, one that didn’t exist 150 years ago and doesn’t exist in many other countries today. Children’s TV, comics and books in France and Japan are not banned from containing nudity or sex scenes. As far as I know, the United States, Canada and Australia are the only industrialized countries still trying to legislate porn shops and strip clubs out of existence. In France, Germany and the Netherlands every shopping mall has a porn shop. Magazines sold in every convenience store have topless women on the cover. And somehow civilization hasn’t collapsed.

16

Exactly, though I think it all really started with Local news, not Fox News.

Kent Brockman: One popular flavor of soda has been found to be lethal. We won’t tell you which one until 11.