Religion can be addictive; especially a religion specifically designed to tell people what they want to hear.
You saying it can be addictive does not make it so. Tobacco has YEARS of research showing demonstable physical dependence.
No, you wouldn't.
A)We have a thing we like to call the First Amendment.
B)Because there's no good reason for basing a country's code on whether something is addictive or harmful to an individual who is concious of the risks he's taking.
C)Criminalizing behaviors that only effect oneself has never been effective at reducing those behaviors.
A) If Wiccanism really did fall under those categories, it would not be protected by the First Amendment, any more than cults are.
B) There is a good reason in cases where individual's judgment cannot be trusted.
C) I'm not recommending criminalizing anything. But it should be highly regulated, which is effective at reducing those behaviors.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
What about you? Should you shoot yourself in the head tonight I hope your friends and familly move on without a care.
Uh, okay, I'll just ignore that kind comment there. On topic, you said, what about those that do it more than just in moderation. And I'm asking, what exactly do you mean by that?
Quote from carrion pigeons »
When fast food is demonstrably shown to be addictive, that's the day I support it having all the restrictions that tobacco currently has.
Anything CAN be addictive in some way. Fast food isn't physically addictive, but literally ANYTHING can be mentally addictive.
You saying it can be addictive does not make it so. Tobacco has YEARS of research showing demonstable physical dependence.
Again, there's more types of addiction besides physical dependence.
No, it isn't, but you can sure that the government would interfere, and get you institutionalized, if you did. And rightly so.
If you choose to shoot yourself, it's very likely that you have underlying mental problems. Choosing to smoke doesn't mean that you have underlying mental problems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Anything CAN be addictive in some way. Fast food isn't physically addictive, but literally ANYTHING can be mentally addictive.
The point that is being made is that tobacco's physical addictiveness is more worthy of scrutiny than Wiccanism or Burger King or Hustler Magazine or Magic: the Gathering's mental addictiveness.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Where did we bi-pass the whole personal choice thing? I do not think anyone who is anti - smoking has sufficiently answered my questions. Or tried. This debate is becoming circular as well. Arrrgghh.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
Uh, okay, I'll just ignore that kind comment there. On topic, you said, what about those that do it more than just in moderation. And I'm asking, what exactly do you mean by that?
Seeing as that is what you ment, then I apologize for my previous post. When you said what about them I thought you were going at it like "who cares about that those people?" I have friends and familly who smoke in more than moderation and I care about those people which is what caused me to over react.
When I said "what about those people who do it more then in moderation," I was responding to InfamousBearAssassin. His previous post sounded as if long-term smoking had no relevance in this debate.
When I said "what about those people who do it more then in moderation," I was responding to InfamousBearAssassin. His previous post sounded as if long-term smoking had no relevance in this debate.
That's not what he was saying (at least I don't think that's what he was saying).
He simply pointed out that the body is capable, to some extent, of dealing with the pollutants that enter the lungs due to smoking, and that as long as you're not putting those pollutants in at a rate faster than the body can deal with them smoking is not permanently damaging to the body, which is one of the motivations behind the government-needs-to-save-people-from-themselves crowd. I believe TIBA's point was simply that smoking in and of itself is not permanently damaging unless done in excess.
Unfortunately the vast majority of smokers do smoke in excess, but then again the vast majority of human beings do a great many things in excess. While it's sad that that's the case, I personally don't think the government should be spending its time and money saving people from their own stupidity.
Seeing as that is what you ment, then I apologize for my previous post. When you said what about them I thought you were going at it like "who cares about that those people?" I have friends and familly who smoke in more than moderation and I care about those people which is what caused me to over react.
When I said "what about those people who do it more then in moderation," I was responding to InfamousBearAssassin. His previous post sounded as if long-term smoking had no relevance in this debate.
Sorry if I wasn't clear with my question. I did not mean for it to be insulting. I got out of TIBA's post the same thing that The Mad Tapper did, which is why I found your comment a little perplexing.
Smoking is a bad thing, no doubt. When done in excess, as is, unfortunately, usually the case, it is very damaging to the body. I think that anybody who's addicted to smoking should, for their own good, try to seek out ways to stop their addiction. However, I just think that it is THEIR choice to, and the govenrment shouldn't be involved in that choice.
I didn't mean "Who cares about them?", but more along the lines of "Why should it be the government's place to tell them not to?" As a friend or family member of a smoker, it is certainly a very valid thing to wish that they stop and to try to talk to them and get them to stop hurting themselves. I don't think that's the government's job though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
Its called a cigarette. In which there really is no "moderation" or quitting at will.
And what about those people who do it more then in "moderation."
Bull****ing****. This has not been my own experience or the experience of my friends. I can only suggest that either those you know who "just can't quit" either don't want to or are incredibly weak-willed. I buy this argument as much as I buy that obese people really want to be thin and healthy. They clearly don't, because if they did, they would be, and it's no one's fault but their own. People need to stop trying to save people from taking responsibility for their own lives. You're not helping anyone with this tact.
Try to make sure you don't fool the censor when you make up big long swears.
This is, unfortunately, always the way with any kind of prohibition. They can't argue about
A)What gives government the right to control one's private decisions?
B)What makes you think prohibiting a certain substance will do anything by bolster organized crime?
Since both these arguments destroy any reason for any sort of substance prohibition, all that they can do is keep changing the subject and saying "Drugs/Alcohol/Cigarettes are bad", as if the problem were that we thought they were good.
The [A] And [B] points here are good, can any anti - smoking arguers combat these points?
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
A) Social externalities are a point on which not every intelligent layman can agree. Cigarette smoke is not a purely private decision. It will affect someone, at some time. Indeed, every action will. (You may not like where that line of reasoning goes...)
B) If a certain action is the morally correct one to take, then it doesn't matter what the consequences are. You probably just have to change the methods.
How about a tax credit for every non-smoker?
The above is my devil's advocate approach to some of the points that have been brought up.
Apparently, I'm more coherent than most of those arguing most passionately for the ban.
CARRIER PIGEONS:
You have that chance. You can leave and apply for citizenship in many other nations with far less restrictive laws about drug use. Try Holland.
You misunderstand the entire purpose of government.
I could move to Holland. I could. But I disagree with Holland on their tax policy. I feel that I shouldn't have to pay the government so that they can invest a portion of my earnings (ineptly) for health insurance. I think I can manage. I also feel that Holland's labor laws stifle innovation and growth, and so I won't apply for citizenship of Holland. The US remains the best choice for someone like me.
But that's not the function of government.
Government should not be an affair where 60 votes gets you a blank slate whereas 59 gets you a filibuster. Government should not be an affair where the minority always loses out. Government should not be an affair to which the "victors" of some political game go the spoils and the losers nothing at all. If you get 60% of the vote, you get 60% of the power.
How's that for fair?
What I mean is this: when I say I want to legalize smoking, I don't mean for everyone. When I say I want to legalize smoking, I'm saying that the decisions are not for any third party, no matter how eminently qualified, to make. 51% of the country can say, "no smoking in restaurants!" But if all the restauranteurs are in the other 49%, how do you reckon we live in a free society?
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
This May Have been said. but smoking will never be made Illegal for one reason. The Government. They get so much money of the sales of cigarettes. They would not stop that money flow. The can and will ban them from every but outside. But they will never make it illegal
However, you would have to establish that smoking in private has a tangible impact on non-family persons before you could make this case.
It is pretty conclusively established.
Nor would our friend, the First Amendment.
Government action can help temper libelous intent, no?
Morality is a complex scale that weighs all points on both sides; therefore consequence is HUGELY important in judging the moral course to take.
Personal morality. Categorical imperative. I'm not advocating sacrificial slaughter, just some common sense ideas.
The line of reasoning you're presenting is not only wrong, it's dangerous; it's the sort of logic that leads one to turn in their Jewish refugees to the Nazi authorities, because lying is wrong, and telling the truth is the moral thing to do, so the consequences don't matter.
Yeah, this is just an outright perversion. I know you're not kidding, but you should be kidding.
At the very least, you should ask for clarification/verification before you go invoking the Nazi ****.
Where would the money come from?
We'll raise carbon taxes to pay for it. Kill off two birds with one stone.
Now, counter argument your own points
Not as satisfying--for the time being I'll keep my own thoughts to myself.
A)What gives government the right to control one's private decisions?
B)What makes you think prohibiting a certain substance will do anything by bolster organized crime?
A) Define private decision.
B) Uh, history. Alcohol is far less addictive than tobacco, and this idea has been put into effect before. In fact, name any illegal substance, from alcohol to opium to cocaine, and I'll point to an organized crime syndicate that not only took advantage of the inability of honest people to benefit from the sale of that substance, but rose to power and became a violent, long-lived thorn in the side of civilization for decades after the drug itself was no longer even an issue.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
The full effects of smoking are not born by the individual smoking.
Que?
Damaging another's reputation. Just look up the words.
You're advocating the idea that inane policies should be adopted despite rather glaringly bad consequences for those policies. Your reasoning is that morality doesn't care about consequences. That's ********.
You're not properly considering the consequences.
Not really. I've encountered this exact line of reasoning (that morality exists purely on an abstract idealistic level and isn't effected by real life consequences) in the scenario I described, and people using said reasoning argued that it was better to turn in the refugees, rather than to lie, because lying is wrong, and the consequences don't change that.
Killing people, AFAICT, is also wrong.
So you'll shut down a major industry and tax the remainder.
Come on, now. Taxes and subsidies have been used to regulate every industry in the US, at some point. A carbon tax won't shut down manufacturing. It might reduce the size of the industry. But then again, that's the point of the tax to begin with. Industry doesn't pay the full cost of pollution. That's a fact. When that is the case, the social cost of the industry to society is more than its maximally efficient state. Government action can help to fix that.
Let me say this: your kind of unqualified talking-point-based debate is useless. You're obviously ignorant of some of the foundational stuff that is needed to argue Pigouvian measures like a carbon tax.
The inflation argument is completely out of mainstream thought.
If the smoking isn't public, who, besides the possibility of family, does it hurt?
There are certainly possibilities.
Don't be an ass. I know what the words mean. What does that have to do with anything?
Honestly? The first amendment is limited by laws that prohibit libel.
What am I not properly considering? The lack of a constitutional basis for the measure? The enormous damage it would do in terms of strengthening drug cartels? The added strain it would put on the justice and penal systems as they try to handle the sudden increase in "crime"?
And the decision to elect Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionist-faction of his party led in part to the Civil War.
Plus, like I said, there are other ways to regulate smoking.
In this scenario, you never kill anyone. You simply tell the authorities the truth, and they do their thing.
And, as such, you are responsible for their death. Unless you had no idea what the authorities were going to do.
The problem comes that you're suggesting instituting this policy at the same time you're shutting down an industry worth a couple hundred billion dollars, AND you'd have to increase the money given to the DEA each year to combat illegal drugs, the market for which you've now effectively doubled (at the very least).
I'm not supporting a ban. I'm supporting something that would be even more effective than a ban.
When you pass a law saying, "cigarettes are illegal," you haven't actually done anything. You need the money and the effort to wipe it all out. But tax credits (or just plain taxes like we have now) can work far more effectively.
I don't smoke, but i don't think it should be banned for a multitude of reasons
1)It's your life not mine. If you want to smoke, feel free as long as you smoke while not in my presence
2)Smoking is kind of cultural here. You'd be basically destroying part of the culture
3)It's not something you can just make illegal. Some people are already addicted, and it'll be hard to make them stop.
4)You have more monitoring on how many cigarettes are sold this wau
5)It's profitable.
So yeah, I think smoking (as well as marihuana in my opinion) should be legal
I agree with Faerie Lord. Also smoking killed my grandfathers, so i say ban it.
I agree with Faerie Lord. Also smoking killed my grandfathers, so i say ban it.
Faerie Lord said that it should be kept legal. How could you agree with him, yet think it should be banned?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Winner of the SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Jul 26-28, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
what an awsome logic... Since less people dies because of the mafia than they die because of the smoke, we shouldn´t be fighting mafia.
the fact that there are worst smelling things doesn´t make crap perfume.
Let´s just rise the taxes on smoke: after all passive smoke damages those around us, so it could be a good compensation: part of the money spent in cigarettes could be used to cure cancer.
This kind of argument leads to comparing unrelated action or incidences, pointlessness.
Im not a Smoker but I think it should remain legal.
Why because its a freedom of choice but instead have some places for it to be not allowed like schools, hospital, public transportation and etc.
Plus Age to be allowed to smoke it should be illegal for those that are aged 16 belowed
about penalty it should be a form of fine or community help
I agree with this, but i would say that being able to buy cigarettes should be at whatever the legal adult age is. (here it is 18, and you can buy smokes, well, when your 18)
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
There is no surprise ending for smokers. If they die because of cigarettes, it's not like they can claim they weren't sufficiently warned.
Also, the reason cigarettes affect us the way they do is due in part to our diets. I know someone brought up Japan as an example, so I'll use that. Japan, as a nation, smokes the way America did in the 60's. It was legal everywhere, and very socially acceptable. This hasn't stopped them from turning out higher than average life expectancies.
There is no surprise ending for smokers. If they die because of cigarettes, it's not like they can claim they weren't sufficiently warned.
Also, the reason cigarettes affect us the way they do is due in part to our diets. I know someone brought up Japan as an example, so I'll use that. Japan, as a nation, smokes the way America did in the 60's. It was legal everywhere, and very socially acceptable. This hasn't stopped them from turning out higher than average life expectancies.
Your last statement there i agree with, overall lifestyle contributes to life span whether you smoke or not, however the probability that you will have smoking related illness is of course increased if you smoke
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
If I am wrong, please gently correct me, because I have not read through the whole thread.
Of the posts I have seen, most people have said, "Let people smoke, it's their life."
I know that once we start talking about how it's a right they have, there is no way to make it illegal, because, yes, however bad something is, they have a right to ruin their own life. (I know this argument is slightly inconsistent, as, for instance, many drugs are illegal, but there is a different logic to the illegality of those substances.)
The thing is, in my opinion, that while it is their life to ruin, second-hand smoking is, according to evidence I have seen, actually responsible for more deaths then smoking itself.
Government can never take away the right to be stupid, because that is a right that all people are entitled to. It isn't on the Bill of Rights, but it should be. What government can do is stop people from hurting or endangering others, because no one has the right to do that.
If I am wrong, please gently correct me, because I have not read through the whole thread.
Of the posts I have seen, most people have said, "Let people smoke, it's their life."
I know that once we start talking about how it's a right they have, there is no way to make it illegal, because, yes, however bad something is, they have a right to ruin their own life. (I know this argument is slightly inconsistent, as, for instance, many drugs are illegal, but there is a different logic to the illegality of those substances.)
The thing is, in my opinion, that while it is their life to ruin, second-hand smoking is, according to evidence I have seen, actually responsible for more deaths then smoking itself.
Government can never take away the right to be stupid, because that is a right that all people are entitled to. It isn't on the Bill of Rights, but it should be. What government can do is stop people from hurting or endangering others, because no one has the right to do that.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When fast food is demonstrably shown to be addictive, that's the day I support it having all the restrictions that tobacco currently has.
You saying it can be addictive does not make it so. Tobacco has YEARS of research showing demonstable physical dependence.
A) If Wiccanism really did fall under those categories, it would not be protected by the First Amendment, any more than cults are.
B) There is a good reason in cases where individual's judgment cannot be trusted.
C) I'm not recommending criminalizing anything. But it should be highly regulated, which is effective at reducing those behaviors.
No, it isn't, but you can sure that the government would interfere, and get you institutionalized, if you did. And rightly so.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Uh, okay, I'll just ignore that kind comment there. On topic, you said, what about those that do it more than just in moderation. And I'm asking, what exactly do you mean by that?
Anything CAN be addictive in some way. Fast food isn't physically addictive, but literally ANYTHING can be mentally addictive.
Again, there's more types of addiction besides physical dependence.
If you choose to shoot yourself, it's very likely that you have underlying mental problems. Choosing to smoke doesn't mean that you have underlying mental problems.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
The point that is being made is that tobacco's physical addictiveness is more worthy of scrutiny than Wiccanism or Burger King or Hustler Magazine or Magic: the Gathering's mental addictiveness.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Seeing as that is what you ment, then I apologize for my previous post. When you said what about them I thought you were going at it like "who cares about that those people?" I have friends and familly who smoke in more than moderation and I care about those people which is what caused me to over react.
When I said "what about those people who do it more then in moderation," I was responding to InfamousBearAssassin. His previous post sounded as if long-term smoking had no relevance in this debate.
That's not what he was saying (at least I don't think that's what he was saying).
He simply pointed out that the body is capable, to some extent, of dealing with the pollutants that enter the lungs due to smoking, and that as long as you're not putting those pollutants in at a rate faster than the body can deal with them smoking is not permanently damaging to the body, which is one of the motivations behind the government-needs-to-save-people-from-themselves crowd. I believe TIBA's point was simply that smoking in and of itself is not permanently damaging unless done in excess.
Unfortunately the vast majority of smokers do smoke in excess, but then again the vast majority of human beings do a great many things in excess. While it's sad that that's the case, I personally don't think the government should be spending its time and money saving people from their own stupidity.
Record: 3-2
Simpsons Mafia (Newbie) - Vanilla Mafia - Win
The Fiasco Corporation - Town Reporter - Loss
Doomsday Mafia - Mafia Roleblocker - Win
Battle Royale Mafia - Serial Daykiller - Loss
Danger City Mafia - Vanilla Town - Win
Sorry if I wasn't clear with my question. I did not mean for it to be insulting. I got out of TIBA's post the same thing that The Mad Tapper did, which is why I found your comment a little perplexing.
Smoking is a bad thing, no doubt. When done in excess, as is, unfortunately, usually the case, it is very damaging to the body. I think that anybody who's addicted to smoking should, for their own good, try to seek out ways to stop their addiction. However, I just think that it is THEIR choice to, and the govenrment shouldn't be involved in that choice.
I didn't mean "Who cares about them?", but more along the lines of "Why should it be the government's place to tell them not to?" As a friend or family member of a smoker, it is certainly a very valid thing to wish that they stop and to try to talk to them and get them to stop hurting themselves. I don't think that's the government's job though.
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
Bull****ing****. This has not been my own experience or the experience of my friends. I can only suggest that either those you know who "just can't quit" either don't want to or are incredibly weak-willed. I buy this argument as much as I buy that obese people really want to be thin and healthy. They clearly don't, because if they did, they would be, and it's no one's fault but their own. People need to stop trying to save people from taking responsibility for their own lives. You're not helping anyone with this tact.
Try to make sure you don't fool the censor when you make up big long swears.
The [A] And [B] points here are good, can any anti - smoking arguers combat these points?
The above is my devil's advocate approach to some of the points that have been brought up.
Apparently, I'm more coherent than most of those arguing most passionately for the ban.
CARRIER PIGEONS:
You misunderstand the entire purpose of government.
I could move to Holland. I could. But I disagree with Holland on their tax policy. I feel that I shouldn't have to pay the government so that they can invest a portion of my earnings (ineptly) for health insurance. I think I can manage. I also feel that Holland's labor laws stifle innovation and growth, and so I won't apply for citizenship of Holland. The US remains the best choice for someone like me.
But that's not the function of government.
Government should not be an affair where 60 votes gets you a blank slate whereas 59 gets you a filibuster. Government should not be an affair where the minority always loses out. Government should not be an affair to which the "victors" of some political game go the spoils and the losers nothing at all. If you get 60% of the vote, you get 60% of the power.
How's that for fair?
What I mean is this: when I say I want to legalize smoking, I don't mean for everyone. When I say I want to legalize smoking, I'm saying that the decisions are not for any third party, no matter how eminently qualified, to make. 51% of the country can say, "no smoking in restaurants!" But if all the restauranteurs are in the other 49%, how do you reckon we live in a free society?
Brilliant!
Now, counter argument your own points
It is pretty conclusively established.
Government action can help temper libelous intent, no?
Personal morality. Categorical imperative. I'm not advocating sacrificial slaughter, just some common sense ideas.
Yeah, this is just an outright perversion. I know you're not kidding, but you should be kidding.
At the very least, you should ask for clarification/verification before you go invoking the Nazi ****.
We'll raise carbon taxes to pay for it. Kill off two birds with one stone.
Not as satisfying--for the time being I'll keep my own thoughts to myself.
A) Define private decision.
B) Uh, history. Alcohol is far less addictive than tobacco, and this idea has been put into effect before. In fact, name any illegal substance, from alcohol to opium to cocaine, and I'll point to an organized crime syndicate that not only took advantage of the inability of honest people to benefit from the sale of that substance, but rose to power and became a violent, long-lived thorn in the side of civilization for decades after the drug itself was no longer even an issue.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
The full effects of smoking are not born by the individual smoking.
Damaging another's reputation. Just look up the words.
You're not properly considering the consequences.
Killing people, AFAICT, is also wrong.
Come on, now. Taxes and subsidies have been used to regulate every industry in the US, at some point. A carbon tax won't shut down manufacturing. It might reduce the size of the industry. But then again, that's the point of the tax to begin with. Industry doesn't pay the full cost of pollution. That's a fact. When that is the case, the social cost of the industry to society is more than its maximally efficient state. Government action can help to fix that.
Let me say this: your kind of unqualified talking-point-based debate is useless. You're obviously ignorant of some of the foundational stuff that is needed to argue Pigouvian measures like a carbon tax.
The inflation argument is completely out of mainstream thought.
There are certainly possibilities.
Honestly? The first amendment is limited by laws that prohibit libel.
And the decision to elect Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionist-faction of his party led in part to the Civil War.
Plus, like I said, there are other ways to regulate smoking.
And, as such, you are responsible for their death. Unless you had no idea what the authorities were going to do.
I'm not supporting a ban. I'm supporting something that would be even more effective than a ban.
When you pass a law saying, "cigarettes are illegal," you haven't actually done anything. You need the money and the effort to wipe it all out. But tax credits (or just plain taxes like we have now) can work far more effectively.
Why because its a freedom of choice but instead have some places for it to be not allowed like schools, hospital, public transportation and etc.
Plus Age to be allowed to smoke it should be illegal for those that are aged 16 belowed
about penalty it should be a form of fine or community help
I agree with Faerie Lord. Also smoking killed my grandfathers, so i say ban it.
This Sig was made by the awesomeness that is High~Light Studios.
My Trade List
Help us make 10,000 Posts!
Alara Card Spoiler!
Saprolings burn better if you use fireballs.
The Cakes is no lie. How do i know? I have eatens it.
The truly sick and twisted people are the ones who won't admit it.
What the heck does this have to do with anything?
Faerie Lord said that it should be kept legal. How could you agree with him, yet think it should be banned?
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Las Vegas, NV, Dec 13-15, 2013
Top 8 of SCG Invitational, Somerset, NJ, Aug 28-30, 2015
Winner of SCG Worcester Team Sealed Open with Gerard Fabiano and Curtis Sheu, September 28, 2013
twitter
This kind of argument leads to comparing unrelated action or incidences, pointlessness.
I agree with this, but i would say that being able to buy cigarettes should be at whatever the legal adult age is. (here it is 18, and you can buy smokes, well, when your 18)
So you do not agree with faerie? nice contradiction there.
There is no surprise ending for smokers. If they die because of cigarettes, it's not like they can claim they weren't sufficiently warned.
Also, the reason cigarettes affect us the way they do is due in part to our diets. I know someone brought up Japan as an example, so I'll use that. Japan, as a nation, smokes the way America did in the 60's. It was legal everywhere, and very socially acceptable. This hasn't stopped them from turning out higher than average life expectancies.
Your last statement there i agree with, overall lifestyle contributes to life span whether you smoke or not, however the probability that you will have smoking related illness is of course increased if you smoke
Of the posts I have seen, most people have said, "Let people smoke, it's their life."
I know that once we start talking about how it's a right they have, there is no way to make it illegal, because, yes, however bad something is, they have a right to ruin their own life. (I know this argument is slightly inconsistent, as, for instance, many drugs are illegal, but there is a different logic to the illegality of those substances.)
The thing is, in my opinion, that while it is their life to ruin, second-hand smoking is, according to evidence I have seen, actually responsible for more deaths then smoking itself.
Government can never take away the right to be stupid, because that is a right that all people are entitled to. It isn't on the Bill of Rights, but it should be. What government can do is stop people from hurting or endangering others, because no one has the right to do that.
Personal Penguin
Share with us this 'evidence'.