Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,667
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
Name a book or piece of music that is cause of death.
turner diaries
hitlers trash
The bible? "Helter Skelter?" "Suicide Solution?"
Yeah, bible has to be the #1 answer if someone is trying to connect a book with death. How many millions killed over the years in the name of the main character of that book?
Lots.
Making cigs illegal is not something I think the govt should do but if they are paying for healthcare and use that as the reason I would think they would need to look at buffets and super size meals at the same time. Obese folks cost a shitload and it is legal to try pretty much everything possible to make them fatter and more unhealthy.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?
Those are all wonderful ideas that I would endorse. You make it sound like a bad idea.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?
Those are all wonderful ideas that I would endorse. You make it sound like a bad idea.
It is a bad idea when the government forces you to. Yes, giving up fats food would be good, but it should be your choice. The government shouldn't force you to. Should government force everyone to do yoga an hour a day to? Prison camp for those who dont? Fast food and ice cream is a poor diet. Its a good idea to give it up, but it should be your choice. Let people make their own choices, many of us can do it in moderation. I enjoy ice cream. I dont eat it every day. Doesn't mean the government should come in and take it away.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?
Those are all wonderful ideas that I would endorse. You make it sound like a bad idea.
It is a bad idea when the government forces you to. Yes, giving up fats food would be good, but it should be your choice. The government shouldn't force you to. Should government force everyone to do yoga an hour a day to? Prison camp for those who dont? Fast food and ice cream is a poor diet. Its a good idea to give it up, but it should be your choice. Let people make their own choices, many of us can do it in moderation. I enjoy ice cream. I dont eat it every day. Doesn't mean the government should come in and take it away.
Too many people can't. That is why we have the health problems that we do in our country.
We should have the right to chose though, I agree with that. You can put the right to choose towards a many thing in our country also.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?
Those are all wonderful ideas that I would endorse. You make it sound like a bad idea.
It is a bad idea when the government forces you to. Yes, giving up fats food would be good, but it should be your choice. The government shouldn't force you to. Should government force everyone to do yoga an hour a day to? Prison camp for those who dont? Fast food and ice cream is a poor diet. Its a good idea to give it up, but it should be your choice. Let people make their own choices, many of us can do it in moderation. I enjoy ice cream. I dont eat it every day. Doesn't mean the government should come in and take it away.
You are viewing this through an individualistic lens. New Zealand is more of a collective and why they accept such sweeping changes.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
New Zealand has an oppressive government?
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,667
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
I don't get it. Like with my examples, if you ban cigarettes, why not ban everything that is bad? Why single out cigarettes? I'm not a fan of smoking other than a cigar about once a week, but cigarettes are not the worst things we put in our bodies. So why target them and not fast food, energy drinks, soda, fatty/fried foods, processed meats? Lets ban working over time for our mental health too. Thats what doesn't make sense to me. If you go after tobacco because its for your own health, well there's probably at least a dozen things we consume on a regular basis that are worse. So why singe out one thing and ignore the rest? Or do we want the government that involved in what we do?
Those are all wonderful ideas that I would endorse. You make it sound like a bad idea.
It is a bad idea when the government forces you to. Yes, giving up fats food would be good, but it should be your choice. The government shouldn't force you to. Should government force everyone to do yoga an hour a day to? Prison camp for those who dont? Fast food and ice cream is a poor diet. Its a good idea to give it up, but it should be your choice. Let people make their own choices, many of us can do it in moderation. I enjoy ice cream. I dont eat it every day. Doesn't mean the government should come in and take it away.
Let them pay for their heart disease sickness or is it OK for the govt to pay because someone wants to smoke and get cancer or live on McDonald's and have a heart attack?
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
New Zealand has an oppressive government?
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.
By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line? Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
there would have to be a massive cultural shift for anything like that to fly in the US, and even Canada. we should be teaching kids at a very young age that McDonald's is a legal form of edible heroin.
we are brainwashed to crave that shit.
imagine if there was a drive thru "Green Leaf" or something every block. kids eating kale smoothies on the way to soccer practice.
there would have to be a massive cultural shift for anything like that to fly in the US, and even Canada. we should be teaching kids at a very young age that McDonald's is a legal form of edible heroin.
we are brainwashed to crave that shit.
imagine if there was a drive thru "Green Leaf" or something every block. kids eating kale smoothies on the way to soccer practice.
Exactly, I am more for people making their own decisions than governments having to tell them what they can or cannot consume/do. But education is key in that being functional...which is where the ball is getting dropped in a major way.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
New Zealand has an oppressive government?
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.
By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line? Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.
there would have to be a massive cultural shift for anything like that to fly in the US, and even Canada. we should be teaching kids at a very young age that McDonald's is a legal form of edible heroin.
we are brainwashed to crave that shit.
imagine if there was a drive thru "Green Leaf" or something every block. kids eating kale smoothies on the way to soccer practice.
Exactly, I am more for people making their own decisions than governments having to tell them what they can or cannot consume/do. But education is key in that being functional...which is where the ball is getting dropped in a major way.
Black and white thinking. Either it's America, land of the free, or it's Stalin-era Russia?
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
New Zealand has an oppressive government?
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.
By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line? Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.
You getting citizenship?
I would if I could. No spiders that kill you, no deadly snakes, no crocodiles...
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
New Zealand has an oppressive government?
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.
By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line? Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.
Just curious about what everyone thinks about this. Justified or overstepping? I think it is idiotic to smoke cigarettes, and have seen many people I’m close to suffer from the choice to do so, but evidently some people still like doing it for some reason. Any smokers around here have comments on New Zealand’s approach to this?
That country willfully gave up their guns so why not smoking? I'm sure other things are on the docket too.
Anything else that causes problems? A book or certain music perhaps?
Not a fan of this...
I wouldn't think it leaps to books or music, but I had a similar thought. Why not alcohol, or fast food? Heart disease is the biggest killer and bad diet/fast food is a big contributor. Think of all the lives we'd save here if we banned fast food and sugar drinks.
We tried the whole prohibition thing and that seemed to work out so well that it gave birth to organized crime.
We did the same thing with drugs/narcotics and that seemed to go swimmingly well also.
Now mind you these 3 are not the same but would they, the smokers be allowed to do ecigs/vapes? Can I not puff on a cigar anymore?
Lots of questions.
Actually, these examples are more related than your guns-cigarettes-books/music scenario.
In that they both gave way to cartels and organized crime?
I would agree.
Multiple layers, sure. My thinking that each (alcohol, narcotics, tobacco) are substances that have lethal consequences.
A better argument than banning guns leads to banning tobacco which leads to banning books/music. Slippery slope, much?
I can see the banning guns, sure. I don't like it though.
Banning cigarettes? I get it but I don't like it.
What else would they take next? It would be interesting to see what happens. Alcohol next? Bungee jumping?
Take? You stated previously that New Zealanders willingly gave up their guns.
I asked "what next" never saying it as a fact but a question. Surely you can see the difference in the 2?
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
If you had stopped at alcohol, then I would have been more inclined to agree with you. However, you leapt right to bungee jumping. Slippery slope. Much like your original argument: guns->cigarettes->books/music. Slippery slope.
It asks a question. It also says to me, why stop there?
It is not unheard of for oppressive governments to limit expression and non-approved media, so I think it’s a valid argument.
New Zealand has an oppressive government?
That’s my question, are these laws oppressive in nature? Do they encroach on civil liberties to the extent of being considered oppressive? One could make the case that they are more oppressive than other countries that allow these things, whether or not you believe they should be allowed.
By definition, banning anything is oppressing liberty. A certain degree is tolerable in society, but when does it get actually labeled “oppressive”. Where is the line? Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
NZ is not oppressive at all. They celebrate more liberties than the good ol' US of A, land of the free. NZ is free from fear of mass shootings. NZ is free of a strained healthcare system. NZ is free from Covid restrictions.
That’s like saying a squid in a fish tank has more liberty because it is free from getting eaten by a shark...Don’t confuse safety with liberty.
Separation of church and state is a bunch of malarkey. We were founded on the pretext of freedom when it’s really based on religion and gods gift to us - free will. Keep smoking...eating ice cream....free will
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,667
Agree it is time to band the word god from money and anything govt related. Really is a horrible joke on the US that this garbage is in place.
Comments
If they banned the tobacco and went for Alcohol next It would sure be for some good convo.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Fast food and ice cream is a poor diet. Its a good idea to give it up, but it should be your choice.
Let people make their own choices, many of us can do it in moderation. I enjoy ice cream. I dont eat it every day. Doesn't mean the government should come in and take it away.
We should have the right to chose though, I agree with that. You can put the right to choose towards a many thing in our country also.
Do you think NZ is oppressive, why or why not? They are moving the needle in the direction of oppressing liberties once afforded to generations before...
we are brainwashed to crave that shit.
imagine if there was a drive thru "Green Leaf" or something every block. kids eating kale smoothies on the way to soccer practice.
www.headstonesband.com
I would if I could. No spiders that kill you, no deadly snakes, no crocodiles...
And I would, too, if it weren't for my damn meddling kids.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com