Thankfully, it will be awhile before this passes. Once state-funded health care costs completely take over government budgets, however, this is going to happen.
Hold the fricken cigarette companies responsible for selling a product that has been proved to be dangerous...and lethal. The CEO's were caught LYING to CONGRESS....yet EVERY-thing they've ever done...only penalizes those people who smoke (the extra taxes...the you can't smoke here and there laws).
why doesn't the gov't grow some balls...and actually go after the tobacco companies????
There you go. Go after the source. Why not go after the source opposed to creating laws that limit people's freedoms? The road to hell is paved with good intentions................
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
There you go. Go after the source. Why not go after the source opposed to creating laws that limit people's freedoms? The road to hell is paved with good intentions................
Umm...the source are people too baraka. Do their freedoms not count?
The same way they police drug use in the home, of course.
They would have too, it sure seems that tobacco meets this definition:
Schedule I drugs
Findings required:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.
I don't live in the States but would that be 'not at all'?
Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.
Touché. Although, you have to admit there's a difference.
Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
But these are just the dealers, right? Who have great quantities of drugs ready to be sold? Or also guys who just have small quantities, one plant?
Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.
Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
Touché. Although, you have to admit there's a difference.
I agree with you that there is a difference. In the underlying logic, looking at it neutrally, there may not be, but when assessing all the variables, there certainly is, imo.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Umm...the source are people too baraka. Do their freedoms not count?
Nice try, ffg, but I think you understood my statement. When I say go after the source, I'm mean the tobacco companies. And yes, I do realize smoking is a choice and I understand how hard it is to quit. I smoked for years. But, instead of making laws that infringe on people's rights in their own home, how about people stop feeding the tobacco companies by not buying their products. Hard challenge I know. You up for that,ffg?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No difference at all. These are people, humans, citizens of the United States. They own homes. They own businesses. We are outraged when the gov't does something to limit that person's rights when it comes to their home and their behavior in their home, yet many of those same people applaud government coercion when it comes to that person's business. Why?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The laws apply to all. Enforcement is certainly weighted towards dealing, but simple using or possession is also enforced every day in this nation.
yeah, but they've got to catch you. i dont think that happens very often. if you're sitting in your apt shooting heroin and nobody knows, you're not gonna get in trouble. i dont see many smokers getting caught breaking this law. it's stupid.
No difference at all. These are people, humans, citizens of the United States. They own homes. They own businesses. We are outraged when the gov't does something to limit that person's rights when it comes to their home and their behavior in their home, yet many of those same people applaud government coercion when it comes to that person's business. Why?
I understand that there are similarities, and yet to discount the differences and say "no differences" seems a little unreasonable. Are you really saying you are ignoring the differences?
You don't see a difference between owning a home and owning a business? Right there we have two very different dynamics, including different purposes and intents. Do you propose we collapse and deny those differences to focus on the similarities in an unrealistic vaccum?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It should be up to the owners of the apartment building, or to the condo owner's association, whether to allow smoking in all, part or none of their buildings. The government is overstepping their bounds.
Big picture how is this any different than NYC banning trans fat in public? We allowed government to oversteptheir bounds on trans fats, now they're overstepping bounds on smoking. At least the government's consistent.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I understand that there are similarities, and yet to discount the differences and say "no differences" seems a little unreasonable. Are you really saying you are ignoring the differences?
You don't see a difference between owning a home and owning a business? Right there we have two very different dynamics, including different purposes and intents. Do you propose we collapse and deny those differences to focus on the similarities in an unrealistic vaccum?
I'm suggesting that both are property of sovereign individuals. To many (likely non-business owners) here "business" is some big, evil entity. The reality is that "business" is people.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Nice try, ffg, but I think you understood my statement. When I say go after the source, I'm mean the tobacco companies.
My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.
And yes, I do realize smoking is a choice and I understand how hard it is to quit. I smoked for years. But, instead of making laws that infringe on people's rights in their own home, how about people stop feeding the tobacco companies by not buying their products. Hard challenge I know. You up for that,ffg?
If all you're proposing here is a boycott, then I certainly respect anyone's right to not buy the products made by tobacco companies. However, the original poster to whom I replied was looking for the government to "go after" tobacco companies.
I'm suggesting that both are property of sovereign individuals. To many (likely non-business owners) here "business" is some big, evil entity. The reality is that "business" is people.
Thank you for clarifying.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.
If all you're proposing here is a boycott, then I certainly respect anyone's right to not buy the products made by tobacco companies. However, the original poster to whom I replied was looking for the government to "go after" tobacco companies.
well, if we're going to say the government has the duty and the right to regulate substances deemed dangerous (drugs) then i have to say it makes no sense why cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not. personally, id rather see them all legal, but if we're going to support this war on drugs and government prohibition, exempting tobacco makes no sense.
My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.
If all you're proposing here is a boycott, then I certainly respect anyone's right to not buy the products made by tobacco companies. However, the original poster to whom I replied was looking for the government to "go after" tobacco companies.
The federal Govt could start to "go after" them by discontinuing any subsidizing.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
The federal Govt could start to "go after" them by discontinuing any subsidizing.
I doubt that's what the poster implied, but I'd certainly be 100% behind that. The fact remains, however, that the costs of government involvement in tobacco trade is far more costly to them than the beneft of subsidies.
well, if we're going to say the government has the duty and the right to regulate substances deemed dangerous (drugs) then i have to say it makes no sense why cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not.
Hehe..."we" are not going to say that. You might, but I certainly would not.
However, I agree with your point. The line between cigarettes and marijuana, in that context, is ridiculous. The only reason for it is history.
personally, id rather see them all legal, but if we're going to support this war on drugs and government prohibition, exempting tobacco makes no sense.
Exempting tobacco is the only thing left that makes sense. The rest should follow.
Big picture how is this any different than NYC banning trans fat in public? We allowed government to oversteptheir bounds on trans fats, now they're overstepping bounds on smoking. At least the government's consistent.
you didn't allow anything. you don't live in nyc.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Hehe..."we" are not going to say that. You might, but I certainly would not.
However, I agree with your point. The line between cigarettes and marijuana, in that context, is ridiculous. The only reason for it is history.
Exempting tobacco is the only thing left that makes sense. The rest should follow.
i wouldnt say that, just posing it as the premise. cos it seems clear the country has already sanctioned such behavior. i thought i made my stance clear in the next sentence.
Hold the fricken cigarette companies responsible for selling a product that has been proved to be dangerous...and lethal. The CEO's were caught LYING to CONGRESS....yet EVERY-thing they've ever done...only penalizes those people who smoke (the extra taxes...the you can't smoke here and there laws).
why doesn't the gov't grow some balls...and actually go after the tobacco companies????
Taxes.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
i wouldnt say that, just posing it as the premise. cos it seems clear the country has already sanctioned such behavior. i thought i made my stance clear in the next sentence.
Fair enough. And I agree with the above.
However, the country has already sanctioned governmental profit from that behavior as well. And that will, in most places, override the above.
Comments
Why?
If it happens how will they ever police this?
naděje umírá poslední
There you go. Go after the source. Why not go after the source opposed to creating laws that limit people's freedoms? The road to hell is paved with good intentions................
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Because people have the opposite opinions when the very same government pushes the very same rules on others and their properties.
The same way they police drug use in the home, of course.
Hehehehe....this is too funny.
Umm...the source are people too baraka. Do their freedoms not count?
You lost me here.
I don't live in the States but would that be 'not at all'?
naděje umírá poslední
Schedule I drugs
Findings required:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Start a thread about banning smoking in bars or businesses -- you'll see the opposite opinions when the ban wouldn't apply to someplace these people own.
Home drug use is certainly policed here in the States. Everyday in this country people are arrested and imprisoned for having possession of drugs in their homes or using drugs in their homes.
Touché. Although, you have to admit there's a difference.
But these are just the dealers, right? Who have great quantities of drugs ready to be sold? Or also guys who just have small quantities, one plant?
naděje umírá poslední
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html
No, there isn't.
The laws apply to all. Enforcement is certainly weighted towards dealing, but simple using or possession is also enforced every day in this nation.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nice try, ffg, but I think you understood my statement. When I say go after the source, I'm mean the tobacco companies. And yes, I do realize smoking is a choice and I understand how hard it is to quit. I smoked for years. But, instead of making laws that infringe on people's rights in their own home, how about people stop feeding the tobacco companies by not buying their products. Hard challenge I know. You up for that,ffg?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I guess, you are right.
Bummer.
naděje umírá poslední
No difference at all. These are people, humans, citizens of the United States. They own homes. They own businesses. We are outraged when the gov't does something to limit that person's rights when it comes to their home and their behavior in their home, yet many of those same people applaud government coercion when it comes to that person's business. Why?
yeah, but they've got to catch you. i dont think that happens very often. if you're sitting in your apt shooting heroin and nobody knows, you're not gonna get in trouble. i dont see many smokers getting caught breaking this law. it's stupid.
You don't see a difference between owning a home and owning a business? Right there we have two very different dynamics, including different purposes and intents. Do you propose we collapse and deny those differences to focus on the similarities in an unrealistic vaccum?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'm suggesting that both are property of sovereign individuals. To many (likely non-business owners) here "business" is some big, evil entity. The reality is that "business" is people.
My apologies. I didn't realize that tobacco companies are run by and employ only robots.
If all you're proposing here is a boycott, then I certainly respect anyone's right to not buy the products made by tobacco companies. However, the original poster to whom I replied was looking for the government to "go after" tobacco companies.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well, if we're going to say the government has the duty and the right to regulate substances deemed dangerous (drugs) then i have to say it makes no sense why cigarettes are legal and marijuana is not. personally, id rather see them all legal, but if we're going to support this war on drugs and government prohibition, exempting tobacco makes no sense.
The federal Govt could start to "go after" them by discontinuing any subsidizing.
I agree with that but for completely different reasons.
I doubt that's what the poster implied, but I'd certainly be 100% behind that. The fact remains, however, that the costs of government involvement in tobacco trade is far more costly to them than the beneft of subsidies.
Hehe..."we" are not going to say that. You might, but I certainly would not.
However, I agree with your point. The line between cigarettes and marijuana, in that context, is ridiculous. The only reason for it is history.
Exempting tobacco is the only thing left that makes sense. The rest should follow.
you didn't allow anything. you don't live in nyc.
cross the river to the eastside
i wouldnt say that, just posing it as the premise. cos it seems clear the country has already sanctioned such behavior. i thought i made my stance clear in the next sentence.
Taxes.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Fair enough. And I agree with the above.
However, the country has already sanctioned governmental profit from that behavior as well. And that will, in most places, override the above.