Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Childproof aspirin bottles

Does anyone have any idea how many children have been saved since we have had childproof bottles? It seems the purpose of the bottle has been defeated since I can request easy open bottles from my pharmacy for my prescription medicine. I guess I am crotchity about this. It`s just that I don`t like touchy,feel good legislation that is passed without looking back at it to see if it is working as intended. When I get to an age where I can`t open the bottle,will I have to have a headache until I find someone to open the bottle?

I don't know the answer to your question and I doubt that anyone else does, but the reason the pharmacist will give you your prescription in the standard, easy-open container is because he probably thinks you are an adult who has no children in the house. There are those adults who have arthritis so bad that they even have trouble opening one of these containers, like my Mom. If and when you get to the age where you can't open a child-proof container, I am sure that the pharmacist will let you have the easy-open type or he will put the pills in a sack for you. Until then,you need to calm down.

Heck calming down ain`t no fun. The point is, any one can ask for easy open bottles. Whether or not they have children in the house. This negates purpose of legislation. I will always get upset about legislation that affects 280 million people that is dubious in nature and questionable in results,because some save the word lobby thinks it`s a good idea. But your idea of cooling it has merit.

4pwr,Here is something to think about: The great big brains in charge of this nation have deemed it imparitive that there be child resistant caps on most all forms of medications and supplements. You may however opt out of this protective action and ask for your pills and elixors in easy open containers. How ever try and purchase a new toilet that will do its job the first time every time and you will find it impossible to do so. The great big brains in government have determined that...one of us might just use too much precious water while flushing the results of last nights beer and pizza down the drain. We are being forced into compact dumps just like we were forced into smaller cars... it's the new world order.<P>Bullwnkl. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img]

When the govmt can dictate bottle top design and toilet size while we still have arms,can you imagine how dictorial it will become once we dont have arms?<P>The idea of setting in a govmt designed saddle makes my butt red.Ever see a Mc clellan?

Re: Child proof medicine bottles, etc.<P>It is an extremely difficult number to quantify since not only did they put child resistant(nothing is truly child prood, including an anvil)caps on medicines but also on bleach, etc. There is one school of thought that says that poisonings have actually risen as a result of that law, since the child resistant caps gave people a false sense of security or that some (grandparents, for example) would leave them off because of the diffiuculty of opening them with arthritic hands, etc. At any rate, it is likely that the number of poisonings has been relatively stable as a percentage, since the law has passed. I think it was well intentioned, and as a parent of young children, I think it would be criminally stupid for us to get bottles without child proof caps, but I don't think it did much one way or the other, besides giving some old fussbudgets something to rave about.<P>As far as the toilets are concerned, that should have been a regional or state decision, not a national one, since many places have no shortage of fresh water and in others, it is critical. Truth be known, I'll bet that American Standard, Kohler, etc pushed for the national law to allow them to standardize production and design. It stinks, literally. LOL<P>Let's rebel and we'll use a flag with a flushing toilet as our symbol.

As long as society continues to adopt the attitude that "if it saves the live of one child (or person)" we will continue to see legislation and regulation that restricts the activities of a vast majority to address something that is of infinitesimally small risk. However, it is unfortunate that such high profile items such as guns are seen as a greater threat than five gallon buckets of water to children younger than 5 years of age. Of course, the converse is true.

These type of "feel good" laws get under my skin. Chldproof caps, seat belt laws, trigger locks, and toilets. Why does "Uncle Sam" insist on protecting us from ourselves? They push this stuff on the people, all the while ignoreing the Bill of Rights, Which as far as I'm concerned, IS the peoples protection.<BR>7mm

Stupid people will still be STUPID!!

STUPIDITY SHOULD BE PAINFUL<P>BULLWNKL.

Gee, funny thing is that as parents back almost forty years ago we made sure the dangerous stuff was out of reach of the kids, and made sure that they knew what they were not allowed to fool with. Just like our parents had us. Funny how all of a sudden the gov. thinks we need to be protected from ourselves from womb to tomb. From seat belts to safety caps to toilet flush spec.<P>Almost all of this kind of thing p!$$es me off beyond reason, I was brought up to be a responsable adult as my wife and I raised our kids.<P>I guess the bottom line is I resent the fact that "some entity" thinks it can run my life better than I can, that some how I am not a responsable adult. I DO NOT NEED someone to protect me or tell my how to raise my kids, I have the freedom to decide my own fate and resent any intrusion no matter how small.

About the only right you have left is when you step into the voting booth. If they can mandate helments, seat belts, toilets, medicine, health care, drugs, alcohol, speed limits, marriage license, estate taxes, sex, where , how, and when you can be buried, what say do you have about anything. A mans home is supposed to be his own little world, not any more, they can break the door down and if you resist, you are the guilty one. Think about it. -- no

Sonnie, I only disagree with one thing you said. "About the only right you have left is when you step into the voting booth." With only 2 candidates, that too is a very limmited right. It really doesn't matter, Republican or Demoncrat, either way they pass more restrictive laws.<P>Look at the issues of the past election. National health care, Social Security, Public schools. The only difference between the 2 was HOW MUCH socialism is needed. The decision for me came down to my guns and abortion. Based on those issues, Gee Dubya was the only way to go. With the election so close, I felt I couldn't afford to vote 3rd party.<P> I still think that the people are capable of taking care of themselves. Who knows better what my kids education should be? The Federal Government or me? Same concerning my health or retirement.<P>What I'm getting at is this. The people get the type of government they deserve. Too many folks in this country are too damn lazy to look out for themselves. They'd rather let the government worry about it. Hence, the government gains more and more control. Government of the People is almost a thing of the past. Government over the sheeple is soon to be here.<P>Here's something to think about. It's a matter of time before Social Security goes belly up. Why keep supporting those who have nothing left to contribute? Maybe I'm even more paranoid than most, but how long until they begin euthinasia on those with Alzhiemers, or who need constant care? Remember, that's how Hitler started his "Final Solution". It's only a short step from there to "undesirables". (that's read "those who can think for themselves)<P>OK, I'm done ranting. Time to get ahold of myself. Maybe Decaf would be better. [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] <BR>7mm

Bullwnkl:<P>Fine, I don't mind someone's stupidity being painful to them, but why should a child be poisoned because of it.<P>And, if stupidity is painful there are some posters who need a truckload of aspirin.<P>Need One:<P>Part of your post: "If they can mandate helments, seat belts, toilets, medicine, health care, drugs, alcohol, speed limits, marriage license, estate taxes, sex, where , how, and when you can be buried, what say do you have about anything. A mans home is supposed to be his own little world, not any more, they can break the door down and if you resist, you are the guilty one. Think about it. -- no"<P>Man, you are worse than a dog with a bone, starting with the last part of the above, yes, if you have a warrant on you and some LEOs come to arrest you and you shoot at them, you are absolutely guilty. Otherwise, using your logic any felon could stay at home inside and be untouchable. <P>Starting with the rest, helmets are not mandated in Texas, seat belts are but there is no question that they save lives and, to me, more importantly prevent an all to common cases of paralysis. Now, I firmly believe that you should have the option of not wearing them, but if you are not insured I think you should be denied medical care if you are in an accident, or left to your devices when your insurance runs out. If one chooses to flaunt common sense and the law, then he should not expect the free support of society if his actions result in injury to himself. Luckily for a lot of idiots out there, my opinions do not translate into societal actions.<P>I was going to go on, point by point, but why bother, I have thought about it and we have the best system around, imperfect though it may be. And, the old days were not better in many ways, you memory is just selective.

One poster complains that our rights are being "restricted" and he voted for GWB because of "guns and abortion". Would you agree that he meant "restrictions" on abortions?

Today this nation has become urbanized we are no longer a part of nature but rather apart from nature. Natures laws no longer are the law of the land. Once stupidity was a death sentence, you goofed up and you were some other creatures meal before your time. This sort of eat or be eaten law of nature was the law of the land for thousands of years. Along comes technology, slowly at first but it grows and grows and grows from fire to wheels to steam to electricity etc... so grows civilization. More people living depending on fewer to produce their daily bread. In a like manner laws come into being , laws made by man not nature along with laws come lawyers and law makers and soon they are but one. law makers making laws to make sure the lawyers have work, then more lawyers to become lawmakers to make more laws and on and on and on.Or so it seems. What to do? Hows this for a new impossible approach: Kick all the lawyers out of public office, mandate that government officials be appointed by lottery to serve one term only. No one can refuse to serve with out good cause, just like jury duty. Second make the lawyers pay when they loose a case that should never have come to trial,spilling hot coffee in your own lap and suing the people who sold you hot coffee, stupidity needs to be painful, let common sence rule not greed. There are still a few in the law profession that are honorable and would not screw a client, but there are just to many who would. My point is that there is too much power in the hands of too few. <P>WOW gotta get back to decaf..<BR>Bullwnkl.

John White, you're right. I never looked at it that way, but as you pointed out, I do believe in restricting abortion. <P>To me, life begins at the time you are concieved. Therefore, abortion is murder, plain and simple. I don't want to get into a theological discusion, but that's Gods view on it, and I share His opinoin. <P>Cat, I'm not going to speak for no, but with me it's the tactics the feds have started using. It seems like the feds SOP is to come crashing in with guns drawn. Remember the "home invasion" involving a friend a while back? What do you think the thugs did? Only differnce is one yells "Federal Officers" and the other yells "Stick em Up"! Come in my house like that, and I promise I will do my best to eliminate the danger. Do you feel any different?<P>I'm not about to argue that seat belts and helmets save lives. That is a proven fact. But I will argue over weather or not the gov can force me to do it. It is common sense, not laws that should enforce them. You are right that if you're not wearing them and you get hurt, you're on your own.<P>To me, this is an arguement over self control. The gov cannot prevent a crime, only punish those who commit them. It is the fear of the punishment that is supposed to make you control yourself. If everyone had self control, we wouldn't need gov. But in trying to control some, the gov controls all.<BR>7mm