Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
After decades of public objection and later government restrictions on advertisements, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to minors for reasons not limited to just health and nicotine dependency, the cultivation of “green tobacco” by children exposes them often to immediately hazardous levels of nicotine at often unconscionably young ages.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) in 2013 published an extensive study into the child labor practices of the tobacco growers industry in four states: North Carolina; Kentucky; Tennessee; and Virginia. According to this study one hundred and forty one children participating in the tobacco harvests of 2012 and 2013 were interviewed by HRW. Ages of these children ranged from seventeen to as young as seven.
According to this study, “nearly three quarters of those interviewed reported sudden onsets of serious illnesses—including nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, headaches, dizziness, skin rashes, difficulty breathing, irritations to their eyes and mouths—while working in the fields of tobacco plants and barns with dried tobacco leaves and tobacco dust. Many of these symptoms are consistent with acute nicotine poisoning.”
Duties assigned to children in tobacco cultivation and harvesting included seed planting, topping, thinning undesirable leaves, applying pesticides, harvesting leaves by hand or with machinery, cutting plants with sharpened tobacco knives, storage and removal of cured leaves from barns, and stripping and sorting dried leaves.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The study contained interviews consistent with their findings generally, where child workers reported being sprayed by pesticides applied to rows nearby causing illnesses contemporaneously. To mitigate this environment the children often would bring plastic garbage bags with them that they could fashion into ad-hoc raingear to resist spray landing on their clothes and skin—though this did not protect necessarily their hands and faces.
Due to the nature of tobacco cultivation and harvesting occurring within the summer months, the combination of high levels of heat and long hours of labor puts great amount of stresses on children that often culminate with heat stroke and dehydration. Compliance with break time standards is widely varied with some farms providing a reasonable break period for workers and others mandating that workers continue almost without pause.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Compounding the problem is that current U.S. child labor laws permit children to labor in tobacco farms with liberal policies that permit very young children to work simply with parental permission to do so. It is often the case where this parental permission is granted by parents who also work on these farms where low wages create a need and temptation for parents allowing their children to work to supplement household incomes. Small farms are given the most leeway to employ young children. Agriculture is permitted by federal law to employ children as young as twelve with parental permission but with these small farms children under twelve may labor with parental consent. In all other industries the employment of children under fourteen is prohibited, and children fourteen to fifteen may only be employed in certain jobs with a limited number of hours each day.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour for work in tobacco farms. Some employers caused children to be paid on a piece basis which can in some respects be exploited to motivate children to perform more productively than what is reasonable for their abilities. HRW reported children interviewed expressed that they are often confused as to the actual wage they are paid and some stating they were actually paid less than the minimum permitted. Contractors were said to stoop to the level of charging children for necessities such as water and for inaccurate recording of work performed.
Internationally, treaties ratified by the United States might actually be in conflict with current federal child labor laws and their applicability to the tobacco farming industry. HRW addresses this as follows:
International Standards on Child Labor
via Human Rights Watch
In recognition of the potential benefits of some forms of work, international law does not prohibit children from working. The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Worst Forms of Child Labor Convention, which the US has ratified, obligates
countries to prohibit certain types of work for children under age 18 as a matter of urgency, including work that is likely to jeopardize children’s physical or mental health, safety or morals (also known as hazardous labor). The ILO leaves it up to governments to determine which occupations are hazardous to children’s health. Several countries, including major tobacco producing countries such as Brazil and India, prohibit children under 18 from performing work in tobacco farming. Based on our field research, interviews with health professionals, and analysis of the public health literature, Human Rights Watch has concluded that no child under age 18 should be permitted to perform any tasks in which they will come into direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, due to the health risks posed by nicotine, the pesticides applied to the crop, and the particular health risks to children whose bodies and brains are still developing.
The ILO Worst Forms of Child Labor
Recommendation states that certain types of work in an unhealthy environment may be appropriate for children ages 16 and older “on the condition that the health, safety and morals of the children concerned are fully protected, and that the children have received adequate specific instruction or vocational training in the relevant branch of activity.” Because exposure to tobacco in any form is unsafe, Human Rights Watch has determined, based on our field investigations and other research, that as a practical matter there is no way for children under 18 to work safely on US tobacco farms when they have direct contact with tobacco plants of any size or dried tobacco leaves, even if wearing protective equipment. Though protective equipment may help mitigate exposure to nicotine and pesticide residues, rain suits and watertight gloves would not completely eliminate absorption of toxins through the skin and would greatly increase children’s risk of suffering health related illnesses. Such problems documented by Human Rights Watch in the US seem likely to extend to tobacco farms outside the United States
HRW called upon the tobacco product manufactures and tobacco leaf companies to provide statements of their policy to address the issue of child labor. The NGO queried “companies that source tobacco from the states we visited. Eight of those companies manufacture tobacco products (Altria Group, British American Tobacco, China National Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco Group, Japan Tobacco Group, Lorillard, Philip Morris International, and Reynolds American), and two are leaf merchant companies (Alliance One International and Universal Corporation).”
In the months prior to the release of this report, HRW sent letters to each company and requested a response along with a request to meeting with company officials to discuss the issue. The HRW report stated the following regarding these exchanges:
Nine companies responded to Human Rights Watch and stated that they took steps to prohibit child labor in their supply chains. Only China National Tobacco did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s letter or repeated attempts to secure a meeting with company executives.
All of the tobacco manufacturing companies and leaf supply merchants that replied to Human Rights Watch expressed concerns about child labor in their supply chain. Only a few of the companies have explicit child labor policies in place. The approaches to child labor in the supply chain varied from company to company, as detailed below. Human Rights Watch correspondence with these companies is included in an appendix to this report, available on the Human Rights Watch website.
Of the companies approached by Human Rights Watch, Philip Morris International (PMI) has developed the most detailed and protective set of policies and procedures, including training and policy guidance on child labor and other labor issues which it is implementing in its global supply chain. PMI has also developed specific lists of hazardous tasks that children under 18 are prohibited from doing on tobacco farms, which include most tasks in which children come into prolonged contact with mature tobacco leaves, among other hazardous work.
Several companies stated that in their US operations they required tobacco growers with whom they contract to comply with US law, including laws on child labor, which, as noted above, do not afford sufficient protections for children. These companies stated that their policies for tobacco purchasing in countries outside of the US were consistent with international law, including with regard to a minimum age of 15 for entry into work under the ILO Minimum Age Convention, with the exception of certain light work, and a prohibition on hazardous work for children under 18, unless national laws afford greater protections. However, most companies did not specify the tasks that they consider to constitute hazardous work. Under these standards, children working in tobacco farming can remain vulnerable to serious health hazards and risks associated with contact with tobacco plants and tobacco leaves. A number of companies stated that they had undertaken internal and third party monitoring of their supply chains to examine labor conditions, including the use of child labor, as defined within the scope of their existing policies.
100 years later are we still doing enough?
To commemorate World Day Against Child Labor it is time to perhaps seek a reassessment of the need to employ children in an occupation that studies have shown is hazardous to their health, especially during their development. We as a society have said no to the notion of children consuming nicotine as end users but we have been mostly blind to the poisonous effect of the substance on children participating in its cultivation. Yet with inconsistent oversight by tobacco companies of their farm suppliers, it is likely that opposition from the tobacco states will result in protective child labor laws. The indifference to the subject by Congress is often due to lack of demands from their constituents and heavy lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry. It is not likely these children will see improvement in their young lives as long as they are employed in an industry that in many ways is shown to be detrimental to their wellbeing.
Since approximately ninety percent of the tobacco produced in the United States comes from these four tobacco states, it is probable that they industry still will survive the additional cost of a tobacco leaf that is harvested by an adult or machine instead of a child but it is unlikely tobacco agribusinesses will want you to believe such a reality.
A true measure of a society is how well it treats its most vulnerable.
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
229 thoughts on “The Tobacco Industry And Child Labor”
Karen
four foot-six
Loading...
Oh, and here is an interesting aspect of “latest waves of truth.”
What is considered a health food today may be discovered to cause health problems tomorrow. The US government mandated fat free and non fat milk be served to all children at school and day cares, based on outdated data. They were unaware that the powdered milk added to reduce the blue color had oxidized cholesterol, which has been recognized as unhealthy for years. Fat free milk has been fed to hogs to fatten them for decades, but the disconnect between farmers and city folk allowed that well known fact to get lost in translation. So the government is way behind the curve of science. What they mandate we eat today will be very different from what they will mandate us to eat in 10 years.
Or, we could just all act like grownups and decide for ourselves what to put into our mouths. No self respecting adult gives the power to decide what he consumes to the government. Its role is limited to food safety, such as testing for bacteria, not food choices. That’s the kind of think emperors do – ban people from eating certain things, such as black rice reserved only for him.
Loading...
Isaac:
“You seem to get your arguments from the latest wave of ‘truth’ that is discovered by the latest expert.”
Everyone here can read how I posed you a very simple question – would you support government taxing something to prevent you from consuming it if it was something that YOU LIKED and you disagreed with their assessment.
I gave you grain as an example.
You would not answer the question.
Now you are angry.
This is a very common, natural reaction to a paradigm shift in thinking. Finding out you’ve been completely wrong, and not adhering to the Golden Rule can be upsetting, but try not to lash out.
Nick – you are right. I enjoy Isaac’s input in some areas, but not in others. I did an exercise to show him where his reasoning was flawed, and he didn’t like it.
I, on the other hand, would have no trouble answering the question. No, I would not support government making something I liked unaffordable in order to socially engineer my choices, especially if I disagreed with their reasoning.
See, Isaac, how hard was that? Perhaps, even subconsciously, you will have some small, theoretical understanding what it is like for people to be on the receiving end of policies you espouse.
Or, you could call me a Little Person as some sort of insult. I find that unkind and bigoted to Little People. It probably qualifies as Hate Speech and I might be able to sue you or get your fired, according to the Liberal Play Book. (I found one on eBay.)
Loading...
@Isaac
Let me ask you an honest question. Are you a racist??? Do you believe that certain races are inferior to others, or that maybe certain nationalities are less intelligent overall as compared to others???
My GUESS is that you will say “no”, and I believe you. The point of the question is to get you to think about what it is that distinguishes the U.S. and maybe Europe, from other countries in the world. Are the Hispanics in Argentina just stupid or something, or unable to govern themselves? Or the Nigerians. Are they inherently incapable of running a country? Both of those countries have great natural resources. How about Brazil??? Where they have tons of kids and people living under a piece of plywood or cardboard. And drinking dirty water.
I submit that the basic difference in those countries and us, is our systems of governments. We tend to not just be more free, but also to be more conservative, in our own fashions. There are not these wild swings in government from administration to administration. Venezuela for example, has a chronic problems and the the wind blows from a different direction every time there is a new leader. Because of the Founder’s fears of the French Revolution, our government is set up with procedural safeguards to distribute power, and make changes slower. Heck, in our federal system, the national government doesn’t even have what are called “police powers.” That is why so much stuff has to be passed as “affecting interstate commerce.”
Imagine where we would be right now if Obama was Prime Minister. If he would have lasted past the first two years. The trade pact would be law, and more of our jobs would be going oversea to enrich the oligarchs. Fortunately, I guess, the Democratic Party oligarchs don’t want to send our jobs overseas to foreigners, but instead prefer to bring foreigners (illegal immigrants) over here to get the jobs! That way, they can kill two birds with one stone. They can get richer while stuffing the ballot box! With the jobs overseas, they could only get richer, and risk losing their power base. The Republican oligarchs can’t stuff the ballot boxes sooo, they will settle for just getting richer by outsourcing jobs.
So, Isaac, maybe you should be glad that power is more distributed here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Loading...
Isaac, You can be pompous and sanctimonious. I can as well. I can also be aloof, a prick, and an a-hole. I understand my dark side. We ALL have a dark side. Hell, that’s how I made my living. Those who know themselves well, most introverts like myself are able to, can understand their weaknesses as well as their strengths. I have strengths as do you. However, I learned through sports that one learns more from their losses than from their victories. One improves by understanding their weaknesses, working to improve them as well as improving their strengths. Human nature steers one to focus only on ones strengths, and avoid their weaknesses. That’s a big mistake I was taught by wise people to avoid.
Loading...
Nick
‘pompous, sanctimonious, troglodytes, trolls, Yeah keep looking for those w/o vitriol.
Loading...
Aridog
The concept of having the government or the people pay for the presentation of the candidates is more democratic and less potentially dictatorial than leaving the funding up to the special interest groups which as can be seen in the present US system as being almost entirely oligarchical. I don’t think there is any argument on that. However, the system wherein the candidates are funded by the government or the people, is where one can argue that there are faults or inequities but where one can also argue that it is going in the right direction theoretically. This is where refining comes in.
Just as with the US system of government where half of the House is made up of Senators who represent the people of the US in vast inequities in order to represent the states in equity and as was experienced in 2000 the man that most voters wanted to be President loses to another because of the Electoral College, most if not all systems don’t make much sense when seen from a particular perspective.
If the objective is to surface the best of the best to lead us then those best of the best must be unfettered by behind the scenes control or money. Typically in the systems found in countries such as Canada there is private or donated money which contributes to raising the profile but the campaign is funded by the government or the people based on the candidates most recent success represented by voter following.
Unlike the American system, the person who becomes Prime Minister is not voted into power directly but is primarily the leader of the party that gets the most votes. The Prime Minister must be elected by his or her own riding in order to lead his or her party. When a party from the grass roots obtains enough local support to run in a Federal election, no matter how small or how few elected members it has, it receives funding to put forth its argument to the people.
The primary difference between the Parliamentary systems of Great Britain, Canada, and other countries and the US system is the lack of flexibility of the American system due to the polarization of only two parties as well as the sacred permanence of something that should be changing with the times. Fifty years ago in Great Britain, Canada, and most other Parliamentary systems there were just two choices, Liberal and Conservative or left and right. Now there are at least four major parties, sometimes not so major and sometimes quite dominant. The informed opinions of the people design the structure of the government regarding party representation. In some cases over time the Liberal Party has shown itself to be more conservative than the Conservative Party. What matters is the representation of the people, not so much semantics. The actual structure of the government is fixed but open to discussion as times change.
The strength of the US system can be found in the sacred permanence of what was designed centuries ago but herein is also found its weaknesses. This blog is a perfect illustration of the polarization of American political thought. A good or even great idea phrased in a liberal manner will draw the ire and exaggerated responses of conservatives and vise versa. Personally I take it as a compliment to be labeled a Progressive but that label is fired out by most of its users with unbridled vitriol close mindedness.
Two parties is one more than one or a dictatorship. We have an oligarchy, not far removed from a dictatorship. Awareness of this problem dates back to the Ancient Greeks.
One way to break the log jam that the American system of government has become might be to separate completely the political bias of the Presidency and elect a person based entirely of their arguments without any connection to either the Democrats or the Republicans. Then the two parties would run the country based on who voted into power their representatives. This would move the present system in the direction of a Parliamentary system while keeping the role of President, albeit with refined powers and significance. It might be interesting to have a third point of view. A third point of view introduced this way might lead to a third party and then hopefully a fourth. With four parties major forces are more apt to cooperate with another party to effect their changes. The bedrock of any society is cooperation. Haven’t seen much of that lately.
However, regardless of what ever structure on which the government is founded, the funding of puppets as is the paradigm today must be changed. When your choice is one puppet bought and paid for by one group of special interests or another puppet bought and paid for by another group of special interests, there is no democracy. There is an oligarchy and something at which to be alarmed. Just because it’s American doesn’t make it right and just because it is linked to 1776 doesn’t make it sacred. Take a look at how Western Religion has changed with the times.
Loading...
@NickS
I agree that the conservative types here have all agreed some regulation is needed. However, that pisses the liberals and the liberal trolls off sooo much. That isn’t fitting their narrative and their stereotype of us as troglodytes. One in particular, is inventing scenarios to try to make us fit her juvenile preconceptions. Amusing, to say the least.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Loading...
Squeek, Some liberals love to create bogey strawmen I am pretty libertarian, but I and everyone here has acknowledged some regulation is required on this specific topic. And, as libertarian as I am, I want NEEDED regulations in a whole host of areas. But, there are some here that never met a regulation they didn’t love. It creates more union govt. jobs.
Loading...
Karen, Some liberals are here to discuss issues more or less intellectually honestly. Some are here because their echo chambers are stale, boring, w/ little traffic[Be careful what you wish for]. Finally, there are the borderline personality, friendless, sad sacks. This and reality TV is all they got.
Regarding Isaac, he can be pompous and sanctimonious. He seems more so w/ women. But, on certain topics he is OK. He fancies himself Mr. Olympic vis a vis health and food. That’s one topic I avoid w/ him. My strategy is this. You find the people w/ whom you can engage w/o vitriol, no matter their politics, and always engage w/ them. Find the people w/ whom you can engage except on certain hot button issues, and just avoid those issues. Then, there are the people I ignore and never engage. works for me. But, to each their own.
Loading...
@KarenS
Oh my, but some people are so full of stupid, that it burns. What kind of idiot does it take to posit that Conservative types don’t want any regulations about anything at all, then. . .set that up as a strawman. . .and proceed knock it over. . .all while thinking nobody had the sense to see through the phony argument??? Well, simply look above and get your answer.
That is also why some people pretend not to understand why we don’t want kids doing dangerous jobs, but don’t mind letting them sell lemonade. Of course, anybody but rabid anarcho-capitalist libertarian types wants sensible regulations. Conservatives believe in regulations, just not over-regulation, and government usurpation of legitimate rights through excess regulation.
But liberals have the practice of “distinction blurring” down to a fine art. It is a tool they use to destroy free societies.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Loading...
Karen
You remind me of the ‘little person’ in ‘Time Bandits’. When John Cleese, playing Robin Hood, asked the ‘Time Bandit’ how long he had been a robber, the Bandit replied, “Four foot-six”. I say that grains are an important part to a nutritious diet, which the right grains in the proper quantity are as iterated afterwards, and you reply “You do NOT need grain to survive.” So, all I have to say to that is ‘Four foot-six’.
You seem to get your arguments from the latest wave of ‘truth’ that is discovered by the latest expert.
Loading...
Paul – hahahaha! That’ll take care of the murder rate. They’re not murder victims – it’s theft of a bullet!
Before people freak out – that’s an article out of the satirical Onion. I love The Onion.
Loading...
Oh, and one more thing about the “grain is important to a healthy diet’ meme.
The studies often cited touting the health effects of whole grains compared those who ate whole grain with those who ate processed foods. Those who eat whole grain tend to live a healthier lifestyle in terms of exercise and other food choices, so there are many confounding variables. So, yes, someone who eats a turkey sandwich for lunch on whole grain bread, bikes to work, and gets 5 servings of vegetables every day will, indeed, be healthier than someone who eats fast food for lunch and watches 5 hours of TV every day.
I was quite surprised when I looked into research that targeted the effects of grain itself.
Of course, making pasta an occasional treat just makes me enjoy it more when I have it.
It’s also curious why anyone would think that my position on protecting children from harm, but letting them sell lemonade or shovel snow, might work against me. Odd position.
Loading...
PHOENIX—In an attempt to clarify the rights and obligations of those possessing firearms, the Arizona State Legislature approved a new law Wednesday declaring that a gun owner ceases to be responsible for a bullet once it has been fired from a weapon. “It simply makes no sense to hold people accountable for a round of ammunition that is no longer inside their gun, and this legislation clears this up once and for all,” said bill co-sponsor Sen. Steve Smith (R-Maricopa), observing that no one can reasonably expect an individual to exert control over a bullet or a bullet’s ultimate whereabouts once it has exited a gun’s barrel. “How can you be liable for a projectile that may be lodged as far as 5,000 feet away from where you’re standing? That’s ridiculous. Now, if we’re talking about ammunition that’s in the chamber of a gun you’re holding, or in your holster, or in a bandolier worn around the shoulder, then yes, it is still the carrier’s responsibility. But it’s unfair to penalize citizens for bullets that are not in their possession anymore.” Smith went on to state that as soon as a round enters someone’s thoracic cavity, that person immediately takes possession of the bullet and must assume full responsibility for it
Now finally a legislature with some sense!!!
Loading...
LOL, Karen. You’re not actually doing yourself any favors referring to this thread in future, but feel free.
Loading...
IMO, one of the earliest set of regulations was called “The Bible.” The people who wrote it were concerned with the health and welfare of their people. Sooo, they regulated sexual behavior, and business conduct, and even the proper food preparation.
That is one thing that amuses me when the Atheistic-types wax wroth about how religion destroys everything, and then clamor like the dickens for new regulations on anything that moves. If we were still a Theistic Society, we would have religious rules, like “Thou shalt have car insurance!” and “Thou shalt not hunt over bait!” and “Thous shalt not sell the juice of lemons without a permit!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Loading...
The Fox news link brought something to mind. For all you who poke fun of Faux News, many of the news stories discussed by Professor Turley are also covered on Fox News. So why follow a blog that discusses many of the same stories as a media outlet you despise?
Loading...
1. “there are still as many regulations as any “liberal” state.” Based on what? Have you counted them? The regulations of NYC pretty much blows that statement out of the water. Do you know there are regulations against bagel crumbs on the cutting board counter there?
2. So Conservatives are not allowed to try to relax any regulations because they had them in the first place? That just makes no sense at all.
3. Which party supports removing barriers to entrepreneurship – conservatives or high-tax Liberals?
4. There is a name for Republicans who do not follow their own party guidelines on taxes and personal freedom – RINO
So, the next time you or anyone else get hysterical when conservatives even broach the topic of revisiting regulations, you will be referred to this link and that of the lemonade stands.
Some people have never met a regulation they didn’t like. Others want regulations to protect the public and follow common sense. They often are either over-reaching or have loopholes. Many regulations simply need to be re-written, as time passes and we can see them in action.
Loading...
Actually my point is that conservatives are hypocritical on regulations, they decry them yet when the legislators are almost entirely conservative, as tjey are in Texas, there are still as many regulations as any “liberal” state.
Loading...
Inga –
Actually my point is that conservatives are hypocritical on regulations, they decry them yet when the legislators are almost entirely conservative, as tjey are in Texas, there are still as many regulations as any “liberal” state.
Yesterday, June 12th, marked World Day Against Child Labor. For this occasion I highlight the plight of young children employed to work in the tobacco agribusiness in the United States. It is estimated, by Deutsche Welle, that 500,000 children labor in this market; most are exposed to hazardous conditions ranging from exposure to high levels of nicotine and pesticides, farm implements, and long working hours among others. Variances in the standard federal child labor standards permit tobacco growers to employ children–some of whom are under twelve years in age.
Resulting from these exposures, often from unprotected skin and lax safety policies, children suffer often from a condition known as Green Tobacco Sickness. This illness is an occupational disease caused by workers absorbing nicotine through their skin after prolonged exposure to the plants. These symptoms, references earlier, are identified by Public and Occupation health officials. The long term effects are currently unknown though other studies on the usage of tobacco products (such as smoking) in adolescents may have links to complications in brain development. Public health research indicates that non-smoking workers in tobacco agriculture have similar levels of nicotine in their bodies as do smokers in the general population.
The introduction of labor contractors, those who sell labor for a fixed price to farmers and where the workers are actually the employees of the contractor, has provided an opportunity for exploitation. Since these contractors retain earnings based on the margin between the revenue from the farm and the labor costs they endure, the temptation to extract more earnings often becomes high; especially in light of the fact that most workers are of an economic underclass that is less likely to report labor abuses and especially in the case of children having not the life experience or foreknowledge of what constitutes a proper and healthy working environment.
Karen
four foot-six
Oh, and here is an interesting aspect of “latest waves of truth.”
What is considered a health food today may be discovered to cause health problems tomorrow. The US government mandated fat free and non fat milk be served to all children at school and day cares, based on outdated data. They were unaware that the powdered milk added to reduce the blue color had oxidized cholesterol, which has been recognized as unhealthy for years. Fat free milk has been fed to hogs to fatten them for decades, but the disconnect between farmers and city folk allowed that well known fact to get lost in translation. So the government is way behind the curve of science. What they mandate we eat today will be very different from what they will mandate us to eat in 10 years.
Or, we could just all act like grownups and decide for ourselves what to put into our mouths. No self respecting adult gives the power to decide what he consumes to the government. Its role is limited to food safety, such as testing for bacteria, not food choices. That’s the kind of think emperors do – ban people from eating certain things, such as black rice reserved only for him.
Isaac:
“You seem to get your arguments from the latest wave of ‘truth’ that is discovered by the latest expert.”
Everyone here can read how I posed you a very simple question – would you support government taxing something to prevent you from consuming it if it was something that YOU LIKED and you disagreed with their assessment.
I gave you grain as an example.
You would not answer the question.
Now you are angry.
This is a very common, natural reaction to a paradigm shift in thinking. Finding out you’ve been completely wrong, and not adhering to the Golden Rule can be upsetting, but try not to lash out.
Nick – you are right. I enjoy Isaac’s input in some areas, but not in others. I did an exercise to show him where his reasoning was flawed, and he didn’t like it.
I, on the other hand, would have no trouble answering the question. No, I would not support government making something I liked unaffordable in order to socially engineer my choices, especially if I disagreed with their reasoning.
See, Isaac, how hard was that? Perhaps, even subconsciously, you will have some small, theoretical understanding what it is like for people to be on the receiving end of policies you espouse.
Or, you could call me a Little Person as some sort of insult. I find that unkind and bigoted to Little People. It probably qualifies as Hate Speech and I might be able to sue you or get your fired, according to the Liberal Play Book. (I found one on eBay.)
@Isaac
Let me ask you an honest question. Are you a racist??? Do you believe that certain races are inferior to others, or that maybe certain nationalities are less intelligent overall as compared to others???
My GUESS is that you will say “no”, and I believe you. The point of the question is to get you to think about what it is that distinguishes the U.S. and maybe Europe, from other countries in the world. Are the Hispanics in Argentina just stupid or something, or unable to govern themselves? Or the Nigerians. Are they inherently incapable of running a country? Both of those countries have great natural resources. How about Brazil??? Where they have tons of kids and people living under a piece of plywood or cardboard. And drinking dirty water.
I submit that the basic difference in those countries and us, is our systems of governments. We tend to not just be more free, but also to be more conservative, in our own fashions. There are not these wild swings in government from administration to administration. Venezuela for example, has a chronic problems and the the wind blows from a different direction every time there is a new leader. Because of the Founder’s fears of the French Revolution, our government is set up with procedural safeguards to distribute power, and make changes slower. Heck, in our federal system, the national government doesn’t even have what are called “police powers.” That is why so much stuff has to be passed as “affecting interstate commerce.”
Imagine where we would be right now if Obama was Prime Minister. If he would have lasted past the first two years. The trade pact would be law, and more of our jobs would be going oversea to enrich the oligarchs. Fortunately, I guess, the Democratic Party oligarchs don’t want to send our jobs overseas to foreigners, but instead prefer to bring foreigners (illegal immigrants) over here to get the jobs! That way, they can kill two birds with one stone. They can get richer while stuffing the ballot box! With the jobs overseas, they could only get richer, and risk losing their power base. The Republican oligarchs can’t stuff the ballot boxes sooo, they will settle for just getting richer by outsourcing jobs.
So, Isaac, maybe you should be glad that power is more distributed here.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Isaac, You can be pompous and sanctimonious. I can as well. I can also be aloof, a prick, and an a-hole. I understand my dark side. We ALL have a dark side. Hell, that’s how I made my living. Those who know themselves well, most introverts like myself are able to, can understand their weaknesses as well as their strengths. I have strengths as do you. However, I learned through sports that one learns more from their losses than from their victories. One improves by understanding their weaknesses, working to improve them as well as improving their strengths. Human nature steers one to focus only on ones strengths, and avoid their weaknesses. That’s a big mistake I was taught by wise people to avoid.
Nick
‘pompous, sanctimonious, troglodytes, trolls, Yeah keep looking for those w/o vitriol.
Aridog
The concept of having the government or the people pay for the presentation of the candidates is more democratic and less potentially dictatorial than leaving the funding up to the special interest groups which as can be seen in the present US system as being almost entirely oligarchical. I don’t think there is any argument on that. However, the system wherein the candidates are funded by the government or the people, is where one can argue that there are faults or inequities but where one can also argue that it is going in the right direction theoretically. This is where refining comes in.
Just as with the US system of government where half of the House is made up of Senators who represent the people of the US in vast inequities in order to represent the states in equity and as was experienced in 2000 the man that most voters wanted to be President loses to another because of the Electoral College, most if not all systems don’t make much sense when seen from a particular perspective.
If the objective is to surface the best of the best to lead us then those best of the best must be unfettered by behind the scenes control or money. Typically in the systems found in countries such as Canada there is private or donated money which contributes to raising the profile but the campaign is funded by the government or the people based on the candidates most recent success represented by voter following.
Unlike the American system, the person who becomes Prime Minister is not voted into power directly but is primarily the leader of the party that gets the most votes. The Prime Minister must be elected by his or her own riding in order to lead his or her party. When a party from the grass roots obtains enough local support to run in a Federal election, no matter how small or how few elected members it has, it receives funding to put forth its argument to the people.
The primary difference between the Parliamentary systems of Great Britain, Canada, and other countries and the US system is the lack of flexibility of the American system due to the polarization of only two parties as well as the sacred permanence of something that should be changing with the times. Fifty years ago in Great Britain, Canada, and most other Parliamentary systems there were just two choices, Liberal and Conservative or left and right. Now there are at least four major parties, sometimes not so major and sometimes quite dominant. The informed opinions of the people design the structure of the government regarding party representation. In some cases over time the Liberal Party has shown itself to be more conservative than the Conservative Party. What matters is the representation of the people, not so much semantics. The actual structure of the government is fixed but open to discussion as times change.
The strength of the US system can be found in the sacred permanence of what was designed centuries ago but herein is also found its weaknesses. This blog is a perfect illustration of the polarization of American political thought. A good or even great idea phrased in a liberal manner will draw the ire and exaggerated responses of conservatives and vise versa. Personally I take it as a compliment to be labeled a Progressive but that label is fired out by most of its users with unbridled vitriol close mindedness.
Two parties is one more than one or a dictatorship. We have an oligarchy, not far removed from a dictatorship. Awareness of this problem dates back to the Ancient Greeks.
One way to break the log jam that the American system of government has become might be to separate completely the political bias of the Presidency and elect a person based entirely of their arguments without any connection to either the Democrats or the Republicans. Then the two parties would run the country based on who voted into power their representatives. This would move the present system in the direction of a Parliamentary system while keeping the role of President, albeit with refined powers and significance. It might be interesting to have a third point of view. A third point of view introduced this way might lead to a third party and then hopefully a fourth. With four parties major forces are more apt to cooperate with another party to effect their changes. The bedrock of any society is cooperation. Haven’t seen much of that lately.
However, regardless of what ever structure on which the government is founded, the funding of puppets as is the paradigm today must be changed. When your choice is one puppet bought and paid for by one group of special interests or another puppet bought and paid for by another group of special interests, there is no democracy. There is an oligarchy and something at which to be alarmed. Just because it’s American doesn’t make it right and just because it is linked to 1776 doesn’t make it sacred. Take a look at how Western Religion has changed with the times.
@NickS
I agree that the conservative types here have all agreed some regulation is needed. However, that pisses the liberals and the liberal trolls off sooo much. That isn’t fitting their narrative and their stereotype of us as troglodytes. One in particular, is inventing scenarios to try to make us fit her juvenile preconceptions. Amusing, to say the least.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeek, Some liberals love to create bogey strawmen I am pretty libertarian, but I and everyone here has acknowledged some regulation is required on this specific topic. And, as libertarian as I am, I want NEEDED regulations in a whole host of areas. But, there are some here that never met a regulation they didn’t love. It creates more union govt. jobs.
Karen, Some liberals are here to discuss issues more or less intellectually honestly. Some are here because their echo chambers are stale, boring, w/ little traffic[Be careful what you wish for]. Finally, there are the borderline personality, friendless, sad sacks. This and reality TV is all they got.
Regarding Isaac, he can be pompous and sanctimonious. He seems more so w/ women. But, on certain topics he is OK. He fancies himself Mr. Olympic vis a vis health and food. That’s one topic I avoid w/ him. My strategy is this. You find the people w/ whom you can engage w/o vitriol, no matter their politics, and always engage w/ them. Find the people w/ whom you can engage except on certain hot button issues, and just avoid those issues. Then, there are the people I ignore and never engage. works for me. But, to each their own.
@KarenS
Oh my, but some people are so full of stupid, that it burns. What kind of idiot does it take to posit that Conservative types don’t want any regulations about anything at all, then. . .set that up as a strawman. . .and proceed knock it over. . .all while thinking nobody had the sense to see through the phony argument??? Well, simply look above and get your answer.
That is also why some people pretend not to understand why we don’t want kids doing dangerous jobs, but don’t mind letting them sell lemonade. Of course, anybody but rabid anarcho-capitalist libertarian types wants sensible regulations. Conservatives believe in regulations, just not over-regulation, and government usurpation of legitimate rights through excess regulation.
But liberals have the practice of “distinction blurring” down to a fine art. It is a tool they use to destroy free societies.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Karen
You remind me of the ‘little person’ in ‘Time Bandits’. When John Cleese, playing Robin Hood, asked the ‘Time Bandit’ how long he had been a robber, the Bandit replied, “Four foot-six”. I say that grains are an important part to a nutritious diet, which the right grains in the proper quantity are as iterated afterwards, and you reply “You do NOT need grain to survive.” So, all I have to say to that is ‘Four foot-six’.
You seem to get your arguments from the latest wave of ‘truth’ that is discovered by the latest expert.
Paul – hahahaha! That’ll take care of the murder rate. They’re not murder victims – it’s theft of a bullet!
Before people freak out – that’s an article out of the satirical Onion. I love The Onion.
Oh, and one more thing about the “grain is important to a healthy diet’ meme.
The studies often cited touting the health effects of whole grains compared those who ate whole grain with those who ate processed foods. Those who eat whole grain tend to live a healthier lifestyle in terms of exercise and other food choices, so there are many confounding variables. So, yes, someone who eats a turkey sandwich for lunch on whole grain bread, bikes to work, and gets 5 servings of vegetables every day will, indeed, be healthier than someone who eats fast food for lunch and watches 5 hours of TV every day.
I was quite surprised when I looked into research that targeted the effects of grain itself.
Of course, making pasta an occasional treat just makes me enjoy it more when I have it.
It’s also curious why anyone would think that my position on protecting children from harm, but letting them sell lemonade or shovel snow, might work against me. Odd position.
Now finally a legislature with some sense!!!
LOL, Karen. You’re not actually doing yourself any favors referring to this thread in future, but feel free.
IMO, one of the earliest set of regulations was called “The Bible.” The people who wrote it were concerned with the health and welfare of their people. Sooo, they regulated sexual behavior, and business conduct, and even the proper food preparation.
That is one thing that amuses me when the Atheistic-types wax wroth about how religion destroys everything, and then clamor like the dickens for new regulations on anything that moves. If we were still a Theistic Society, we would have religious rules, like “Thou shalt have car insurance!” and “Thou shalt not hunt over bait!” and “Thous shalt not sell the juice of lemons without a permit!”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The Fox news link brought something to mind. For all you who poke fun of Faux News, many of the news stories discussed by Professor Turley are also covered on Fox News. So why follow a blog that discusses many of the same stories as a media outlet you despise?
1. “there are still as many regulations as any “liberal” state.” Based on what? Have you counted them? The regulations of NYC pretty much blows that statement out of the water. Do you know there are regulations against bagel crumbs on the cutting board counter there?
2. So Conservatives are not allowed to try to relax any regulations because they had them in the first place? That just makes no sense at all.
3. Which party supports removing barriers to entrepreneurship – conservatives or high-tax Liberals?
4. There is a name for Republicans who do not follow their own party guidelines on taxes and personal freedom – RINO
So, the next time you or anyone else get hysterical when conservatives even broach the topic of revisiting regulations, you will be referred to this link and that of the lemonade stands.
Some people have never met a regulation they didn’t like. Others want regulations to protect the public and follow common sense. They often are either over-reaching or have loopholes. Many regulations simply need to be re-written, as time passes and we can see them in action.
Actually my point is that conservatives are hypocritical on regulations, they decry them yet when the legislators are almost entirely conservative, as tjey are in Texas, there are still as many regulations as any “liberal” state.
Inga –
Put up or shut up!