some crap i heard about on the news
So this does not bode well.
another linkfor the teal deer crowd - that, my friends, is a link outlining the new bill the president has signed in ( Read more... )
another linkfor the teal deer crowd - that, my friends, is a link outlining the new bill the president has signed in ( Read more... )
Alcohol is physically addictive, and causes liver failure, as well as a host of other problems. If it weren't so hard to quit drinking, there would be no reason for groups like AA, and we wouldn't have phrases like "falling off the bandwagon". But I'm pretty sure there would be rioting in the streets if a serious attempt at Prohibition were made. The only real difference between cigarettes and alcohol right now is that alcohol is still socially acceptable. An anti-drinker is unlikely to walk past someone with a beer in their hand and make vomiting noises, or reference driving their car into a tree, unlike an anti-smoker walking past someone with a cigarette in hand, making coughing, choking noises, and loudly commenting about how secondhand-smoke is killing them.
The government does allow insects and rodent droppings in food, and horse urine in chemicals for daily use, since these things aren't shown to cause an abnormal contraindication. And I am thankful that they're not allowed to put asbestos in tampons any more. So, sure, the government is really nice to keep those harmful things away from the consumer. But the people instated a government to help keep the majority safe, because it was realized that a country of this size isn't going to be uniform in regulating itself. But that's where the line should be drawn. Cigarettes are already taxed, regulated in who gets to buy or have or use them, where they can be used at all, and have warning labels and information out that yes, they're bad for you. Banning cloves and cigarettes that taste like watermelon bubblegum isn't going to do anything to save kids who already steal their cigarettes from their parents, who have the bum down the street buy for them, who have access to fake IDs, or any other way that kids now are getting cigarettes. The more forbidden the fruit is, the sweeter it tastes. All this is, is one huge step in the regulation of "what is best for everyone". That is not what this country is about.
America was not founded by the government, it was founded by the people. There is an age of majority here, and once you reach it, you are responsible for your own decisions, your own life. There should not be government-mandated hand-slapping for screwing up your own life.
Reply
Various forms of alcohol also have beneficial effects such as reducing the risk of some heart diseases, balancing digestive flora.
Regular use of alcohol does not have any detrimental affects.
Abuse of alcohol obviously has a host of bad affects.
Regular use of cigarettes does confer a significant risk of health problems.
So your point is the government should drawn the line at keeping "harmful things away from the consumer"? Isn't that what they are trying to do? You are just disagreeing where the line is drawn.
Cigarettes have been shown shown to be harmful, in almost exactly the same way that asbestos in tampons is: Significant elevation of cancer risk.
The government is people. From the people in office, down to everyone that takes the time to vote.
Yes, everyone is responsible for there own life. But some of the decisions that an individual makes affects more than just them. Many of these individuals do not take this into account when they make their decision. So if there is a "personal" decision that actually affects me, then I am glad to weigh in on that decision in anyway that is possible. And one of the best ways to do that is through government regulation.
Reply
So physical dependence is not as valid a reason to regulate a drug as chemical dependence? It's not 'one hit and you're hooked', like heroin or crack. It takes some time and effort to develop an actual addiction to cigarettes, just like with alcohol. Caffeine can be pretty addictive as well, and it has withdrawal symptoms and everything.
I'm not saying I don't agree with some of what they're doing - I'm pretty curious about the required ingredient list cigarettes will be required to have. But they're already regulated and taxed and everything, so why go further?
Besides, if they force people to quit smoking, what's going to bring in the money that the tobacco tax supplies? Are they planning on legalizing and regulating pot to make up for that money? Or will they just raise federal taxes, and make us all pay more to make up for the lack of revenue?
Yes, everyone is responsible for there own life. But some of the decisions that an individual makes affects more than just them. Many of these individuals do not take this into account when they make their decision. So if there is a "personal" decision that actually affects me, then I am glad to weigh in on that decision in anyway that is possible. And one of the best ways to do that is through government regulation.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If an individual wants to do something, if I do not agree with what they are doing, much like if I do not agree with what they are saying, I will avoid them. That is my decision, as it is also my responsibility, not to be affected by their choices. I might not agree with their decision, but it is their right to have made that decision.
Based on the regulatory train of thought, if someone has a child in their house, and they smoke, it should be illegal for them to smoke in front of, or near, or around the child. While I agree they should take that child's health into consideration, I don't think it should be illegal for them to smoke in their own house. That's just a little too close to regulating in general what someone does in the privacy of their own home, and I do not support that at all.
I'm certain, at this point, that neither of us will waver on our stances. I appreciate your views, and I will read them, but I don't see us reaching a point where one will reach a consensus with the other.
Reply
I hope so! I hate sin taxes and even sales taxes. Just raise the income tax, that tax is much more fair! It takes into account your gross income, housing costs, child care costs. Raise the income tax a little a get the money that we need to fix things right!
I wholeheartedly disagree.
I am not talking about them making a decision that you disagree with. I'm talking about them making a decision that costs you money.
I'm all fine with people gambling on the stock market. I'm fine until the lack of regulation on the commoditized mortgage market is going to cost me my own personal fraction of the $790 billion TARP program.
Those were a lot of personal choices that ended up costing someone else a lot of money.
I'm fine with people being stupid on their own dime. But to be frank I would rather have to pay my share of the monetary burden that smoking puts on the health care system.
Reply
Oh, i don't think you wanna go there, out of shape motorcycle rider who LOVES his fatty foods. :) There's costing us money and there's costing us the country.
If you don't want the burden of smokers on health care, then go after the diabetics that don't watch their diet. Get out and start running because Chori pollo will be close behind.
Reply
Leave a comment