Worked out well with prohibition.
Never happen, P. Morris pockets are too big & many politicians are reaching in it. Plus, all it means is everyone will start growing their own tobacco, just like folks do with other smoke-able's today.
C-SPAN2 starting tobacco coverage now
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- altsmoke
- Status
Worked out well with prohibition.
Never happen, P. Morris pockets are too big & many politicians are reaching in it. Plus, all it means is everyone will start growing their own tobacco, just like folks do with other smoke-able's today.
There are all sorts of activities that I don't have the right to do. What's your point? In the case of smoking, it not only kills most people who do it, but it also places a financial burden on everyone else in the form of higher health care costs, higher insurance premiums and increased strain on an already over taxed system. That's my objection to it, and I say that as a person who's been a pack a day smoker for nearly 30 years.
My objection to this particular legislation isn't centered on its attempt to discourage smoking. My objection to it is its attempt to limit or prohibit the use of products that may help smokers kick the habit. Isn't that what we're all trying to do here? Stop smoking traditional cigarettes? The government should be encouraging anything that helps people quit smoking. They should be promoting anything that works for people to get off cigarettes. It's that contradiction that makes this bad legislation, not the basic concept that smoking is too costly to support as a society.
it was when i clicked the link to the web cast cspan2 that the tv went out...sorry
My point is: You're OK with that. I'm not. We're from two different sides of the ideologic spectrum. We'll agree to disagree...
Worked out well with prohibition.
Never happen, P. Morris pockets are too big & many politicians are reaching in it. Plus, all it means is everyone will start growing their own tobacco, just like folks do with other smoke-able's today.
As I said in a later post, I misspoke when I said nicotine should be outlawed. I meant that smoking should be banned since (and this is the critical point I'm making) the government is headed that way anyway. Messing around with increasingly restrictive legislation, increasingly contradictory policy and so forth is counter productive. If the feds want to ban smoking they should just do it rather than pretending that they want to protect individual rights.
And when it comes to prohibition, let's not forget that there are myriad prohibited activities and substances already. Prohibition works in some cases and fails in others. It's not a black and white issue.
That does it. I'm placing my order now for "The Senate's Greatest Hits," with a picture of Richard Burr and Chris Dodd on the CD cover.
Aptly called chamber music. I'll use it to get to sleep at night after a heavy day of nicotine use ...
Aptly called chamber music. I'll use it to get to sleep at night after a heavy day of nicotine use ...
i agree anything should be done to help people quit...HELP people quit no force them. everyone has their own rights...i had the right to come here and decide on my own that i wanted to vape..glad i did. but everyone should have options and no one will ever tell me what i can or can't do with my body...so they can put the affordable options out there...make them available for people to quit...i would love to go to target/walmart/cvs/ any place really and get nic juice..aint gonna happen so im maiking my own..very diluted but it works and tastes great...my choice my body my decisions...
ahhh yess teh sleepy time music...i kinda like it at the moment......definitly beats the millionth time of listening to poker face...lol (i really like that song)
I think it is because they are switching over to all digital in a few minutes for all broadcasts in a few minutes. All that talk we have been hearing about they are testing now------Sun
i really dont know what to make of the cost of smokers to health care. i never went to the doc`s or hospital because of smoking....it was the poeple that made me go outside 50ft away to smoke that were allways off work to see a DOCTOR, and as old as i am and as three major jobs i have had, 5 minor jobs, it was easy to spot the nonsmokers, they missed more work than the smokers.
Then you're jousting with windmills because my position is more subtle than that.
We have to do a certain amount of risk assessment as a society. It's a well established fact that smoking is one of the most risky and costly activities that people do both for the individual and for society as a whole. It sucks, but it's not a subjective assessment. Smoking makes people sick and eventually kills them. We all pay for that, smokers and non smokers alike. If the goal is to eliminate the risk and the cost, the only consistent alternative is an outright smoking ban. Otherwise we end up with bad legislation like this current bill. Inconsistent and disingenuous. You may not want your "right" to smoke removed, but every non-smoker who pays vastly increased health insurance premiums and hospital bills is going to be just as ...... off about your risky behavior as you are about a potential ban.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm just being an ideologue or a blind anti-smoking warrior. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I want is level headed risk assessment and good public policy.
The government tells you want you can and can't do with your body every day of the week. You can't walk into a store and buy ...... or ....... or Percodan or Codine. There are always going to be strictures on drugs because drug usage has an impact on the whole society, not just on the user. In the case of many drugs, the risk is so low that they're allowed over the counter. Others are so risky that you can't get them without a prescription from a doctor. What's needed isn't ideological crusades. What's needed is consistency in terms of risk assessment and the legislation of high risk behaviors. Smoking is more dangerous than many drug based activities that are expressly forbidden by the law. It's more dangerous than practically any widespread recreational behavior including drinking alcohol. But the main issue is that this bill treats e-smoking as if it represented THE SAME LEVEL OF RISK as smoking traditional cigarettes, which it obviously doesn't. That's the problem with it.
Again, the government either needs to deregulate tobacco or ban it outright. Any middle ground leads to the kind of unfair contradictions we're seeing happen around e-smoking.
Last edited:
You know, they really should allow cursing in this subforum. Or at least this thread.
Ivisi
Ivisi
Senator Enzi (R, Wyoming) just made similar points to what I've been saying today. He was arguing against cloture based on the fact that the bill stifles emerging, lower risk delivery methods and is therefore inconsistent.
Senator Enzi mentioned only tobacco cessation delivery but at least it's something than nothing...
Yury
Yury
I call BS
, your habits don't effect my insurance premiums. Here's what does, someone with no insurance treated at the hospital and can't afford the bill so the hospital ends up eating it and charging my insurance company $15 for an aspirin. A surgery I had a few years ago, I saw the itemized list of charges to the insurance company, $15,000 for one hour of operating room use, $200 for latex gloves, etc.... Keep in mind, Joe Public with no insurance, he could of been there for anything.... So, who's making the financial burden... The government really has no business in this sort of thing anyway, but, what the hell, they've been .......izing the meaning of republic, democracy etc. for so long now..... "each of the citizens ought to have an equal share; so that it results that in democracies the poor are more powerful than the rich, because there are more of them and whatever is decided by the majority is sovereign. This then is one mark of liberty which all democrats set down as a principle of the constitution. And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave" - Aristotle addressing "Freedom".
So by your proposition we should just kill off everyone who's sick so our insurance premiums stay low. Don't say it, I already know what your thinking, 'People who live healthy lives didn't necessarily do anything to make themselves sick'... That doesn't work, just think about it for another minute before you go down that path.
If you live by an ethic of pure selfishness then certainly the burden is clear; if you are to practice altruism to any extent then you'd be in contrast. Unless, you pass judgment on who deserves and who does not in which case I'd have wonder by what criteria does one gain authority to make that judgment and what sort of ethic it derives from.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
