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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
We can thank the prefrontal cortex for the ability to manage fear.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
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?
I'm okay with that. If its social health care, have taxes on cigarettes and fast food. Anything that you willingly use or put in your body that damages your health shouldn't be at the cost of everyone else either, I could agree with that. I just don't think the government should force you into that healthy lifestyle.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?
Banning bungee jumping? Since when? Not my forte, but I would not say it needs to be banned. Who is paralyzed by fear or what is that in reference to? Only time I remember having been “paralyzed by fear” is when I almost stepped on a rattlesnake as a kid...Still have flashbacks to that moment, ha
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?
Banning bungee jumping? Since when? Not my forte, but I would not say it needs to be banned. Who is paralyzed by fear or what is that in reference to? Only time I remember having been “paralyzed by fear” is when I almost stepped on a rattlesnake as a kid...Still have flashbacks to that moment, ha
Tempo argued that the progression of bans would lead to bungee jumping. I was referencing that as a joke.
There are a lot of folks who are paralyzed with fear that limit their ability to live their lives to their fullest potential.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I disagree, fear can be exhilarating in the case of skydiving or bungee jumping or even trying something new. Overcoming fear is liberating.
Agree. A more accurate statement would be not being paralyzed by fear is liberating. Also, I thought we were banning bungee jumping?
Banning bungee jumping? Since when? Not my forte, but I would not say it needs to be banned. Who is paralyzed by fear or what is that in reference to? Only time I remember having been “paralyzed by fear” is when I almost stepped on a rattlesnake as a kid...Still have flashbacks to that moment, ha
Tempo argued that the progression of bans would lead to bungee jumping. I was referencing that as a joke.
There are a lot of folks who are paralyzed with fear that limit their ability to live their lives to their fullest potential.
Ohhhh, okay!!! Haha, I was like “bungee jumping???” I agree with your second sentence. I think most of us have let fear prevent us from stepping out there a time or two and missing opportunities along the way. If you are constantly that way, though, I would suggest cognitive behavioral therapy. I’ve seen it work wonders with people.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
We can thank the prefrontal cortex for the ability to manage fear.
Touché, although fear has to exist in order for it to be managed.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
We can thank the prefrontal cortex for the ability to manage fear.
Touché, although fear has to exist in order for it to be managed.
Agree. I amended my original statement in a response to PJPower.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
Had to look this one up, my brothers would be very disappointed in me. Outside of the original 3 films I have only seen Rogue One.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
Had to look this one up, my brothers would be very disappointed in me. Outside of the original 3 films I have only seen Rogue One.
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.
Free of fear is liberating.
I don't think it is possible for humans to be free of fear. We can thank the amygdala for that.
Had to look this one up, my brothers would be very disappointed in me. Outside of the original 3 films I have only seen Rogue One.
Comments
There are a lot of folks who are paralyzed with fear that limit their ability to live their lives to their fullest potential.
I agree with your second sentence. I think most of us have let fear prevent us from stepping out there a time or two and missing opportunities along the way. If you are constantly that way, though, I would suggest cognitive behavioral therapy. I’ve seen it work wonders with people.