New Drug in Town

.pills
Newwton White via bounce.secureserver.net
Apr 30
to
.
newtonGentlemen,
.
In a news story I read today about the increased use of the dangerous synthetic drug “flakka” it discussed that it is being used increasingly by youth by vaping with electronic cigarettes. It is known that the vaping systems have been being used for other than nicotine, including crushed pills, and other concoctions to get high on. Currently these systems are legal for use by all ages with no regulation. Their use has no restrictions like smoking does, these things are being used indoors with vapors being exhaled. Worse than cigarettes we do not know what chemicals and drugs are being released into the air next to us the we breath second hand. In addition knowing that this is a use way for narcotics and synthetic drugs, like the bath salts, crime activity will follow these devices and their use. Their are currently two stores I know of in our city dedicated to selling these electronic devices and the undetermined “juice” that is used in them.
I would ask that council direct the city attorney to explore banning the use of these devices “vaping” in any place smoking is banned as a matter of public safety, protection from the unknown chemicals and nicotine used. Or at least to any point that can be banned on city property, parks etc.
Second, that council explore a moratorium on the shops and the sale of these within the city until their safety can be determined.
Newton White

28 thoughts on “New Drug in Town

  • May 7, 2015 at 9:26 pm
    Permalink

    Oh well seems no one on council thought enough of this danger to bring it out last meeting.
    For those that say I would limit peoples rights unnecessarily I would argue that yes people have the right to abuse legal and harmful substances, just not to expose unwilling persons to them. The right to flail your fists ends at the other guys nose.
    Newton White

    Reply
    • May 10, 2015 at 11:49 am
      Permalink

      Newton, I hope you run again for city council. It is tough to campaign that you are on the average citizen’s side, unless you propose that special financial interests are good for all the citizens of Port Orange. Pull a Harry Truman on them. Flatter Don Burnette, mingle with the chamber of commerce, show up at Port Orange Family Days (did you miss arbor day?) eat at the Riverboat restaurant, and then when you get elected, become the opposite of what you seemed to be and join ranks with Bob Ford, Ted Noftall et al. Tell Mayor Green that you appreciate him being born in Port Orange, respect his vision for Port Orange, and let him know which baseball team is his favorite. Perhaps you are already doing that, and that is why some of us see “but”s at the end of your sentences and not periods. Many are called to serve, but few are chosen.

      Reply
  • May 7, 2015 at 10:16 pm
    Permalink

    Newton it sounds like you do not share Jefferson’s stated preference of ” dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery ”
    If you do not share his preference is it because you have solved the dilemma for people who fear that social engineering once begun is incapable of reaching a consensus on ‘ where to draw the line ‘ assuming such a line is possible or for long ?, or do you just advocate banning things for our own good ? and if so what other things do you think need to be banned ?

    Reply
    • May 8, 2015 at 4:19 pm
      Permalink

      Belle, It is good the have extremes. Certainly I am for all the freedom, and do not appreciate any “sounds like I don’t” talk about my stance on any item. It is that if you are not at the extreme of freedom you are not a freedom lover or with our cause that is ripping conservatives apart and allowing the opposition to curtail more of our freedom and rights.
      If you read very carefully you will understand that I do not want to ban or stop anyone from vaping or smoking tobacco for that matter. I do feel that it is a real threat the known harmful chemicals and drugs are being used in these devices, and non using bystanders are being exposed without their consent or even a warning that I may not want to inhale this weeks bath salt.
      The original email sent to council had an attached article on “kakka” the newest chemical drug that is causing mayhem and being distributed to use in this vaping devices.
      My feeling is that the use of these in public where another person will inhale second had vapor is creating a danger and could as was proven with tobacco smoke bring cumulative damage. Simply the right to flail your fists in ends where a nose begins. That is my opinion my belief that people should be restricted form doing harm to others, by exposing them to chemicals.
      Now you want to talk about sunshine laws, freedom of the press, speech, second amendment issues, religion, castle doctrine.

      Reply
  • May 8, 2015 at 5:06 pm
    Permalink

    Newton you are difficult to understand and believe. You lost the election because large numbers of people never did understand what your positions were on anything.
    Your latest rambling which is nearly incoherent is an excellent example of both.
    You say you ” are all for freedom ” while trying to have others impose greater restrictions on a legal activity. Newton the people who favor freedom on this activity are saying exactly nothing.
    You need to try and adopt one position per issue and stick with it.

    Reply
    • May 9, 2015 at 6:39 am
      Permalink

      Perhaps you have trouble reading entire sentences and paragraphs.
      I do not think I could be more clear on a specific issue.
      I am not nilly willy on anything, I do not wait till decision time to say I need more information to decide, I do not go off half ready, or speak to people in an adversarial manner to make a point.
      As for my election I put out more information on my website publishing entire interview question and answers, positions and future vision than any other candidate. All you had to do was read or listen to the audio of my radio appearances.
      I spent less money than and had less resources than any other candidate in the city. and finished third by only 63 votes. I was a total unknown outside close city issue observers. No organization like family days or the chamber, no advertizing and marketing, no AFL-CIO election school or advisers, no hird campaign consultants, and nobody with deep pockets to pump thousands into my effort. I never had a mailing, radio ad, newspaper or TV. I was not a sitting councilman that got interviewed on issues during the campaign for free press. In fact my votes were hard earned by my wife, one school teacher and 3 part time helpers.
      I will never be ashamed of my campaign we rocked the vote.

      Reply
      • May 11, 2015 at 1:57 pm
        Permalink

        Newton, bravo to you! You are correct, you did a pretty damn good job with your campaign. I do however see it differently as to why you lost. I believe you got tied to the “wrong circle” of people. You were cast into the circle of Noftal, Gardner, Springer, Schaefer, etc . . . This did you no favors, and in fact made people want to distance themselves from you. I believe the majority of voters in Port Orange view that circle as a bunch of radicals, serving only to waste tax payer time and money, and constantly harassing local government and its employees. Well over 95% of everyone that lives in Port Orange, loves that they live in Port Orange and is very happy and content with the services they get from the City. Like it or not, it is just the way it is. Sorry Newton, but people incorrectly wrapped you in that group, and it ultimately cost you the election. You being the only candidate that was born and raised in Port Orange, having a well know last name and an incredible platform to meet people (Publix), I really thought you would have won it.

        Reply
  • May 9, 2015 at 1:48 pm
    Permalink

    Newton I never meant to disparage your campaign For your limited resources you did well. My point was that you would have done even better if people were more easily able to understand your positions. Most of your positions end with a BUT instead of a PERIOD
    These electronic cigarettes are a perfect example. First you quote research that is funded in part by the tobacco industry and that has not been subject to credible peer review. Next you request Council impose restrictions on the sale of a legal product and ban its use on City property. And finally when challenged you tell us that you are for ” all the freedom ” and ” if we read you very carefully we will understand that you do not want to ban or stop anyone from …….”
    Stop with your un-intelligable caveats. ( I favor lower taxes but. I favor a larger Police dept but. I favor this and that but )
    Because when you omit your un-intelligable caveats as you did the night you took Police Chief Monahan to task for his lazy ass decision to extend the Fryers Towing contract you sound much more convincing.
    Newton we are on your side. We need to get you elected 3 years from now. Help us in that regard with logical unequivocal positions on the issues before us.

    Reply
  • May 9, 2015 at 8:03 pm
    Permalink

    The article on the bath salt type “kakka” drug and its use in vaping was not funded by tobacco, nor is the knowledge that people are crushing pills, making a liquid to vape. These things are dangerous, and can be used in public and affect unknowing and unwilling bystanders.
    I NEVER said ban the sale of anything! Where did you get that? I said ban the use the same as cigarets, that is an easy standard that everyone understands already it does over reach in my opinion but it works and will not take time to write new rules. I said put a moratorium on new E-cig stores that are selling the hard and what they call “juice” until this can be figured out. That is not too much of a stretch and can only be temporary, cities and counties across the state placed preemptive moratoriums on marijuana shops before the vote was ever taken and MJ is a lot less harmful than aerosol vaped narcotics or chemical cocktails that are making people go zombie.
    Oddly you likely want fluoride out of the water, one of the top reasons to remove it is everyone is being dosed with it like it or not. I want to make sure we are not at risk of being dosed with known harmful, or mind altering substances while walking down the sidewalk, enjoying a event or dining out. (and yes, I want fluoride out of the water)
    We could have some good discussions on these topics, I welcome you to approach me we will go have a beverage. Where is the fine line of infringing on someones rights, and not doing harm on another?
    End this thread and sit down with me.

    Reply
  • May 10, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    Permalink

    Newton this thread started with Jefferson’s famous preference of ” dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. ” I think we can safely assume that Jefferson knew his way around the English language and that he chose his words carefully. I would ask you when was the last time you reflected on the meaning of dangerous.
    The men and women and children who settled and built this great country we have inherited understood that word well and pressed on none the less. They didn’t stop and wait for government approvals much less request that government implement mamby pamby bans on this and that. ‘ I’m not going on that wagon train unless smoking is banned around the campfire — said no pioneer ever ‘
    I am sure you and likely everyone reading this exchange has seen those iconic photos of the Empire State Building under construction. Do you think for one minute those 9 men sitting on a girder eating lunch 800 feet in the air were lobbying for a ban on the second hand smoke of the 3 seen to be smoking in that photo. ‘ I’m not going out on that girder without my government mandated safety harness unless there is a ban on smoking …. said no steel worker ever ‘
    This is not some intellectual debate of scant importance. For the first time in 5 centuries citizens in growing numbers are abandoning their belief in the American dream of personal betterment, and of bequeathing to the next generation a better America than the one they inherited.
    It is being replaced with confidence that our needs and wants can only be achieved, or at least will be better enhanced through increased government involvement in our lives from cradle to grave.
    Governments are only to willing to meet that clamor for more government spending because government spending is very lucrative for its employees and supporters – be it Halliburton in DC or very own QLH in PO..
    Franklin warned that trading freedom for security would produce neither and that is increasingly the American nightmare we are living.
    Way back in the 1970’s well intentioned people influenced by newspaper articles no doubt, clamored for a war on drugs. Well government has waged that war for the past 40 years, and to show for it besides a more violent society and more drugs than ever, we have the highest prison incarceration rate in the world with nearly 50% of inmates serving terms for non-violent offenses, a revolving door judicial / prison industry that has become little more than an electronic plantation, and militarized police forces increasingly trained to view ordinary citizens as the enemy.
    So Newton was that government war on drugs worth it to you.
    We have done a complete 180° from those men on that girder who built the prosperous industrial America that is crumbling before our eyes, and in so doing have morphed into a nation of girl-ey men clamoring over each other to see who can come up with next request quickest for government to protect us from one bogeyman after another to now it would seem second hand water vapor of all things.
    You asked ” where is the fine of government infringing…. ? ” Newton there is no fine line. There is only a broad highway that as regards the topic of infringement says this far and no farther. By the time you are down to fine lines you are well across that highway with personal freedom strapped to your back and she is getting banged and battered by every vehicle coming down that pike to where she has become unrecognizable to many who are living and to all who have come before us.
    Now that you are retired I would encourage you to find time to read WHEN I WAS A KID, THIS WAS A FREE COUNTRY by G. Gordon Liddy
    As for ending this thread, you are the one in a hole …… stop digging.

    Reply
  • May 11, 2015 at 8:05 am
    Permalink

    So, you yourself are willing to be unknowingly drugged with known and unknown mind altering and or disease causing substances. I do not want that, I think it is an infringement of my rights of life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I should not have to worry about being made sick or intoxicated unwillingly, I consider the issue a form of assault on my person.
    You seem to not realize this is not 1776 or the wild west of the 1800’s. Or that workplace safety has come about not by a government stepping in and mandating it, but because the people, iron workers and miners alike rose up to demand it the same with child labor laws. Yes the iconic pictures and video of iron workers with no hard hats or safety harness. Have you ever visited any of the historical structures and seen a memorial to the workers killed on the job? Fell, hit in head with a dropped rivet, before the invention of harness and hard hats. They were free to leave the job, their employer was free to put them in a life threatening workplace and not allow enough time for them to come off the iron for their lunch, those guys were in fact luck they even had a time to eat.
    Let me ask, I should be free of government regulation and thus work and conduct my self in the manner I please. True freedom from all bounds. Then why do I drive my car on the right side of the road and obey traffic control devices? Shouldn’t I be free to go as fast as I want, make a left turn when I want and not wait on the arrow to turn green? Why should we have any laws in our free country?

    Reply
  • May 11, 2015 at 10:39 am
    Permalink

    Newton with every confused position and with every difficult to understand sentence you end with a but, you cause people to question your core beliefs and give them reason to believe you are social engineer willing and eager to find additional ways for the government to protect us from ourselves.
    I had always assumed your core beliefs to be ones of smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and greater personal freedom.
    Was I mistaken ?

    Reply
  • May 11, 2015 at 2:31 pm
    Permalink

    Yes! You are mistaken. I am for the least intrusive government that we can have. The least in taxes lest we pay it all, the least in restrictions least we give up all choice. You must realize that not all are like minded, some desire to be regulated and herded like sheep, and some are like wolves waiting to prey. Of the history I have learned of the revolution our population was not in solidarity with the revolution, many went back to England, some fought for the King, and some took no side. The constitution and bill of rights were also not an instantly agreed upon document it was a long struggle and fight among our founding fathers on how and where powers would be held or delegated to the states. This very argument has been non-stop since we left a monarchy I have no doubt that it will stop unless we go back to a monarchy or dictatorship. We must be vigilant of the usurpation of our rights it is a fear I have often looking at reader/viewer polls on issues and letters to the editor of people so willing to give up so much to not be “at risk” and what all people think we need laws for. You are right to be skeptical and I am thankful to be taken to task. It is your views that keeps the focus and prevents the opposite side from dragging us to a monarchy.
    Thank You
    No I do not want a nanny state.

    Reply
    • May 11, 2015 at 4:00 pm
      Permalink

      Newton, do you think some parts of the American Constitution are becoming obsolete in the passage of time, mores, cultural evolution, and global concerns? Should the constitution be read as fixed in stone for all generations, like the Bible and Quran?

      Reply
      • May 11, 2015 at 8:22 pm
        Permalink

        Hank,
        No. Our Constitution is not obsolete, the values, thought process, are timeless. The difficulty is that the way people live and work has changed, technology has evolved creating issues that could not have been conceived of at the time. Their is a process to update the document and the courts can interpret, and apply the Constitution to law.

        Reply
        • May 11, 2015 at 9:48 pm
          Permalink

          There you go again Newton with another BUT.
          ” No. our Constitution is not obsolete, the values, thought process, are timeless ”
          ( Great answer so far, but wait for it, here it comes )
          BUT ” the difficulty is that the way people live and work has changed, technology has evolved creating issues that could not have been conceived of at the time. Their is a process to update the document and the courts can interpret, and apply the Constitution to law ”
          So Newton – In what areas do you believe the Constitution needs to be changed to address issues that could not have been conceived at the time it was adopted ?

          Reply
        • May 12, 2015 at 7:55 am
          Permalink

          There you go again Newton with another BUT.
          ” No. our Constitution is not obsolete, the values, thought process, are timeless ”
          ( Great answer so far, but wait for it, here it comes )
          BUT ” the difficulty is that the way people live and work has changed, technology has evolved creating issues that could not have been conceived of at the time. Their is a process to update the document and the courts can interpret, and apply the Constitution to law ”
          So Newton – In what areas do you believe the Constitution needs to be changed to address issues that could not have been conceived at the time it was adopted ?

          Reply
        • May 12, 2015 at 4:00 pm
          Permalink

          Maybe we should be concerned with what you smoking Newton because now you have imagined this to be we are all being ” unknowingly drugged with known and unknown mind altering and or disease causing substances ”
          ARE YOU NUTS
          If you cannot accept that looking for bogey men and answering every question with a BUT as you just did with Hank Springer’s question on the Constitution is troubling to a lot of people then good luck because you are going to need it.

          Reply
  • May 11, 2015 at 9:30 pm
    Permalink

    So there it is Newton people are incapable of understanding what you have been saying and what you stand for.
    In your own words we are all ” mistaken ”
    I don’t think we are mistaken at all.
    I think it is you who are mistaken in believing that City residents are stupid enough to not notice your assertion that you are ” for for the least intrusive government that we can have ” is contained in the same blog thread where you sought out water vapor cigarettes that are of concern to no one in an attempt to fan some bogeyman flames in hope of securing more nanny state regulation.
    How is that possibly helping your credibility as a candidate ?

    Reply
    • May 12, 2015 at 7:16 am
      Permalink

      Belle,
      You never did answer my questions on your beliefs.
      Are you willing to be unknowingly drugged with known and unknown mind altering and or disease causing substances?
      Do you follow traffic control devices, traffic laws? How do you feel about speed limits?
      What laws rules or regulations would you abolish were you in a position to do so?
      I have heard that credibility question before. I am who I am. If I should run for a public office again people can read for themselves and see how I think. I have answered every challenge in this thread with my name attached, I stand by what I say and how I feel I do not change my opinion because it does not fit a particular groups mantra. I accept criticism it causes me to verify why I hold a belief or position.
      I stand my ground on my feelings on vaping. I feel it is hazardous more so than tobacco cigarettes and incidental exposure to the vapors should be regulated the same as smoke. These are more dangerous than tobacco because they are being used for mind altering drugs, narcotics. People are being exposed unknowingly and unwillingly to harmful substances. No ifs and or but.

      Reply
  • May 13, 2015 at 6:31 am
    Permalink

    I love people that throw insults and and innuendo from behind a pseudonym. God bless them. When you cannot answer a question yourself and do not accept the answers you are given to questions you have asked their is little worth in continuing.
    In answer to your question, I believe the laws need to be strengthened to protect privacy particularly in the electronic age, we should be free fro tech snooping and monitoring. Technology allows the government or anyone for that matter to access personal information, eavesdrop on communications, record video, and the current news item of drones.
    Then the red light cameras are an abuse of innocent until proven guilty among others and need to be abolished. The cameras that are capable of tag reading and storing and tracking travels of individuals is an example the even just a few years ago was beyond tech for networking storage and processing.
    The scary part is in poll after poll people I see 40 to 60% of people willing to be tracked, ticketed, photographed, listened to and searched at an airport in return for a empty promise of being made safe. How do you “protect” someones privacy and right to property when often a majority are more than willing to give it away?
    Does that give you a idea of what abuses of our freedoms I feel need to be brought into the 21st century?
    Remember I am the one that is willing to sit face to face and am not hurling nuts and remaining silent to questions from behind a false identity.
    What are your thoughts?

    Reply
  • May 13, 2015 at 2:23 pm
    Permalink

    Newton you love people that throw insults and and innuendo from behind a pseudonym just about as much as i love people who look for phoney bogeymen fears of being unknowingly drugged with known and unknown mind altering and or disease causing substances as a pretext of growing the nanny state.
    As for my thoughts on your latest advice – I am thinking you are confusing Statutory law. with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Henry Springer asked you what parts of the American Constitution are becoming obsolete, and I asked what areas do you believe the Constitution needed to be changed. You never answered either of those questions.
    Beyond that the important thing is position being advocated and the strength and logic of that argument – not whose name is attached at the bottom. If your positions ( false bogeymen ) are is unsound or likely to diminish personal freedom signing your name on the bottom is not a kudo in and of itself that I would bestow..
    Rethink and reject the positions you you have been getting pounded on and state unequivocally that you support dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery because you recognize that dangerous freedom is what has separated our nation from all others in terms of economic prosperity. PERIOD with no BUTS

    Reply
  • May 14, 2015 at 6:39 am
    Permalink

    Belle, you can do your own google search about vaping and drugs including the article that I started with about the latest drug that is being used it is no phoney bogeyman hiding under you bed.
    No I am not confusing law to the constitution the law must meet the constitution standards. The interpretation by the courts has allowed broad reaches into our rights. So long as people are not aware of their rights, and even when they are, willing to give them up for security or healthcare or lower insurance rates, our rights will slowly disappear. You are right to be skeptical I expected this when I wrote council. It is clear to me that the use of vaping devices in public present a danger as do tobacco cigarettes. Would you feel comfortable sitting next to someone toking on the vaping pipe, inhaling the fumes?
    You know, You still have not answered any question I have posed for you. I have made it clear how I feel about this specific issue. I have written that I feel our rights are being eroded in agreement with you. What more do you want of me. Your apparent assertion that any but or exception is unacceptable and creates peaceful slavery rather than dangerous freedom is not how our form of government was formed or has prospered. This has always been and I hope always will be the argument, to keep balance.

    Reply
  • May 14, 2015 at 7:31 am
    Permalink

    Newton you are doing your best to convince people you are a nanny state ninny. By your measure any activity such as smoking that is annoying, or potentially dangerous to others is worthy of regulation. Ninnys trip over themselves trying to outshine the each other by finding new activities to regulate or ban outright.
    Freedom loving people will move aside from that an offending person a few feet or a few yards not so much preserve that persons freedom – but to preserve their own from some other ninny who may object to one of their activities.
    That is the distinction. You you do not share it and I think we will all be watching your desire to grow the nanny state a little bit closer going forward.
    Stiltner must be pleased.

    Reply
  • May 14, 2015 at 4:14 pm
    Permalink

    Belle,
    What you write has no substance to liken me to a ninny nanny. I was always told that when all they can throw are insults and criticize the messenger not the message they are loosing. You have not wrote about facts but instead called known dangers perceived, you call it a bogeyman like a child afraid of the dark, all instead of taking head of the facts of a specific situation. You are suggesting in a scenario that parents and children leave the bleachers at a baseball game to make room for someone to puff away, or in effect deny them going in a building or confined space because someone wants to puff away. Maybe so everyone has freedom but their freedom to contaminate their body ends when it begins to harm someone else who has a reasonable right and expectation to be there. You have no substance to stand on.
    You still do not want to tell us how you stand on obeying traffic laws, or anything else I have asked your position about. Like how is allowing smokers and vapor users to affect non willing people any different than adding fluoride to the city water supply? I mean you could buy bottled water for everything and take it with you when you go out in case the restaurant uses tap water.
    Another issue from the current table of rights issues, why don’t you share your thought with us.
    What do you think about sign spinners/ wavers on the street corners. First Amendment free speech, off site advertizing, or traffic hazard? Should the be allowed as big bright and bold as they want, banned completely as a public nuisance or appearance standard, or regulated to some yet undetermined standards.
    Really what do you think, how do you think, where do you stand?
    I was told to let people know how I stood and published all my question and answers and interviews and my stance on major items during my campaign. How about you?

    Reply
  • May 14, 2015 at 5:59 pm
    Permalink

    Newton,
    Unfortunately society has lost it’s common decency. What would you do if while sitting in a theater with your family Joe the plumber and his buddies show up? They start farting and belching and carrying on. Would you confront them and take a punch in the nose for violating Newtons Law. We are governed in many areas. Until big brother puts some new laws on the books for us to follow we will all have to live with what we have. Local government has no business creating national or state level laws based on Newtons Law. This is everyone’s constitution not yours. Take it or leave it. And by the way you have to take all of it not just the parts that suit you.

    Reply
    • May 15, 2015 at 7:51 am
      Permalink

      Great instructive example Good Ol Boy. What rights are at play here.
      Some might say free speech and expression in the form of belches and farts – they would be wrong. . Newton would demand protection from those unknown harmful bodily gasses the redneck plumbers were venting and making sure their flailing arms and fists did not touch his sensitive nose. – he would be wrong. And some might remember something about Justice Holmes overturned decision and his often mis quoted ‘ shouting fire in a crowed theater ‘ comment – and they would be wrong.
      The only rights at play here are property rights. The property owner has the right to decide who enters his facility and and what behavior is acceptable inside that facility. The theater owner would remove Joe and the venting rednecks so as to maximize his profits by ensuring the rest of his patrons had an enjoyable experience – and he would be right.
      Accepting all of the Constitution and not just the parts you like is great advice for the Newton-nots.
      Good post.

      Reply
  • May 14, 2015 at 6:29 pm
    Permalink

    Newton, I think you make sense about some of these issues.
    There is a predilection into today’s mentality to think in absolute terms. There is a rush to a unified theory of everything including our social problems. The positive and negative sides of issues are thought to always be described in black and white and therefore no qualifying discretion or degree of greyness. The nuns taught be back in the 40’s that compromise was wrong. Since I have matured, I recognize that they were wrong. That having been said, it is sometimes advantageous to argue black and white to make a point, and leave the bickering about shades of judgment to others. This may be more of a strategic rhetorical style than an end game goal.
    Although in many areas of our social fabric I see the need to not let big brother diminish all our freedoms and rights, I don’t mind outlawing someone blowing smoke into my face.
    What is spectacular and marvelous about traffic laws is that offenders can get caught and fined. What is disappointing about traffic laws is that legislatures have as their goal not safety for the public but the underlying motives of money to be gained. Disappointingly for the sake of financial revenue some cities may have traffic quota guidelines. Passing laws to make motorcyclists wear helmets would be a forthright public safety gain, but alas, the tourist industry and allies of the chambers of commerce might suffer some financial loss.
    A few “sign spinners/ wavers on the street corners” don’t bother me but I would expect those interested in thriving on advertisements would object. News-Journal, schools with signs on their fences, ads signs on fences in Coraci Park, the Orange Peel and all that annoying junk mail I get in my mail box at a bulk rate subsidized by first class rates for a letter to Aunt Lucy in Minnesota
    Newton, I wish our city council would institute an inspection team to verify that policy and procedures are being carried out in city government. “Inspect what you Expect”. Real accountability will never come until the inspection aspect of accountability is instituted. If 80 percent of the city council were really concerned about accountability I would suggest that they nominate to such a team, Newton White, Mike Gardner, and Mark Schaefer. But four of our city council members despise accountability or have little understanding of the process and this they have shown us by firing the whole citizen and audit budget committee when true accountability would have called for just terminating the chairman whom they implied was bombastic. I think Bob Ford could have done better when that vote was cast.
    Thanks Newton, for being concerned about the issues that should concern us all – sincerely Hank Springer

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.