Some time ago there was a headline announcing some politicians had declared vaping to be a major health issue for the state of Florida.
No argument there. It’s just the latest way individuals have found to inflict damage to their bodies. Especially young people who have for centuries searched for excitement in their lives, and ways that make them think they are acting older. Who can blame them? Especially these days when they are inheriting a world damaged, perhaps irreparably, by the preceding generations.
But it isn’t vaping that motivated these words.
It’s the cause of the concern.
There had been one death, I believe the first in the state.
I was pleased that a single death would be viewed as an emergency, as the catalyst to initiate governmental action to attack the problem.
I couldn’t help but think of the havoc wrought by guns.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2017 there were 2,724 people killed by firearms in Florida.
2,724!
A lot more than one.
Surely, if a single vaping death was a health crisis, 2,724 deaths must rate as a catastrophe. One would expect the state to mobilize all its resources to battle what clearly is an epidemic.
Except this is Florida.
In Florida a health problem is anything detrimental that doesn’t involve a gun.
In Florida health threats to individuals from firearms are secondary to health threats to the Second Amendment from individuals. Obeisance to dubious interpretations of the amendment trumps concern about the safety of the population. It trumps the wishes of the people who, for example, are in 75% agreement of the necessity for universal background checks.
So, if vaping kills, we can expect an attack on the problem.
If firearms kill, we can expect exacerbation of the problem.
I am tired of listening to the blowhards in our legislature defending the undefendable. Some of the arguments:
How do you reason with someone like that? The sad answer is you can’t. And things will get worse as long as like thinkers remain in power. If they do remain in power, it is on us.
As I typed this, I realized that the only difference between “on us” and “onus” is a space. Truly, the onus is on us.
It is time that those who represent us learn the true meaning of a health crisis. And then act to protect us, not the moneyed organizations and their lobbyists whose only motivations are profit and power.
No argument there. It’s just the latest way individuals have found to inflict damage to their bodies. Especially young people who have for centuries searched for excitement in their lives, and ways that make them think they are acting older. Who can blame them? Especially these days when they are inheriting a world damaged, perhaps irreparably, by the preceding generations.
But it isn’t vaping that motivated these words.
It’s the cause of the concern.
There had been one death, I believe the first in the state.
I was pleased that a single death would be viewed as an emergency, as the catalyst to initiate governmental action to attack the problem.
I couldn’t help but think of the havoc wrought by guns.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2017 there were 2,724 people killed by firearms in Florida.
2,724!
A lot more than one.
Surely, if a single vaping death was a health crisis, 2,724 deaths must rate as a catastrophe. One would expect the state to mobilize all its resources to battle what clearly is an epidemic.
Except this is Florida.
In Florida a health problem is anything detrimental that doesn’t involve a gun.
In Florida health threats to individuals from firearms are secondary to health threats to the Second Amendment from individuals. Obeisance to dubious interpretations of the amendment trumps concern about the safety of the population. It trumps the wishes of the people who, for example, are in 75% agreement of the necessity for universal background checks.
So, if vaping kills, we can expect an attack on the problem.
If firearms kill, we can expect exacerbation of the problem.
I am tired of listening to the blowhards in our legislature defending the undefendable. Some of the arguments:
- We all will be safer if there are more guns.
- When faced with a choice, I will always come down on the side of the Constitution. That’s the same constitution that makes no mention of assault rifles, high capacity magazines, bazookas, rocket launchers, missiles, atomic bombs.
- It’s not a gun problem; it’s a mental health problem.
How do you reason with someone like that? The sad answer is you can’t. And things will get worse as long as like thinkers remain in power. If they do remain in power, it is on us.
As I typed this, I realized that the only difference between “on us” and “onus” is a space. Truly, the onus is on us.
It is time that those who represent us learn the true meaning of a health crisis. And then act to protect us, not the moneyed organizations and their lobbyists whose only motivations are profit and power.
RSS Feed