Big Tobacco to smokers: Bend over

Another failure of reading comprehension? As I just wrote, no industry is as uniquely deserving. The reasons for that are all through this thread. Scroll up and learn something or continue to stick stick your fingers and scream, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the top of your lungs. That's your choice.

The bottom line has not changed since the opening page of this thread. This action will lead to fewer people smoking and smokers cutting back. Those are good things.

 

So is less people eating junk food and obese people cutting back on fatty foods a good thing? How about fewer people drinking and drinker's cutting way back? How about less people drinking coffee and coffee drinker's cutting way back?

Those are noble goals, too.

Are you going to advocate the ridiculous overtaxing and regulation of those industries?

They are also personal choices we all make for our own lives.

We don't need the government to save us from ourselves.

The only thing "unique" about the tobacco industry is that there are enough non-smokers who don't see the bigger picture and thus have let the government lose its mind and shred the constitution in hopes of getting it.

No different than the laws which were designed as well as civil rights violated in order to to "get" organized crime - and it was allowed to happen because of an emotional -- not rational -- reaction by people who said "well the goal is noble"

Is that how you want our country governed? The government can make decisions without repercussions as long as the goal is noble?

 

i simply laugh at you. you said this: "it doesn't cut the mustard in terms of holding our government accountable when it does things that are un-American, unconstitutional and/or both."

and you back that silly-assed shit up with: Oh, so that makes it right.
I forgot.
OK, now that we have that cleared up......
And what is going on here is far more oppressive than a sin tax."

FAIL.

what the fuck is wrong with you? are you high?

 

Again, read the thread. Your questions have all been answered.

Is junk food chemically addictive? Nope.

Is caffeine as damaging to people's health as nicotene? Nope.

Do people damage the health of those around them by eating junk or drinking cofee? Nope.

Sure, it would be great if people cut back on that stuff, too, but tobacco products are a unique combination. That's the part you either can't see or simply refuse to admit.

 

I see, so it is every bit as bad for your health, it is marketed far more to kids than cigarettes ever could have hoped to be, but because it is not addictive, then, well, it does not deserve the same hysteria as tobacco receives....yeah, that's brilliance.

"It could kill you and people who have obesity problems can't stop eating it, but hey, it isn't addictive as smoking so it is OK...."

Wrong, we've already "shown our work" that caffeine is both addicting and can be as bad - or worse -- for you than nicotene.

And further -- so now we are going to legislate based on what someone deems to be bad for your health but not as bad as something else?

Again, brilliance.....

If I smoke on my porch, am I damaging your health?

Do people who drink and drive damage the health of those around them? How about people who drink and have unprotected sex? And before you answer, why don't you ask Donte Stallworth or Leonard Little?

So let's legislate and tax the hell out of booze?

And further -- what the hell does this have to do with anything?

They are not unique.

They have been made unique by a bunch of hysterical liberal wackos with a very clear political agenda that has nothing to do with public health because, as we have demonstrated, there are a lot of unhealthy items which don't have very large lobbyist groups and thus there is no need to try and bring them down.

I understand your disdain for smoking, I don't like it either - but I like a free society more and I value a society which let's us all make our own choices with our own bodies and our own lives - and further I have far more disdain for people who think basic freedoms should only apply to those things which they agree with or think is OK.

A free society means you must accept things that might make your stomach turn.

 

Lord, I don't even have the energy to read through the last two pages of this thread.

I'm going to just go have a beer instead.

 

Quick, do it now before someone decides it is too addicting for you and then allows the government to tax it to the point where it costs you $25..........

 

Sorry, caffeine does not cause nearly as many health problems as smoking. Do you even understand what you posted above?

Drunk driving is illegal. The actual drinking doesn't hurt anybody but perhaps the drinker. Horrible comparison and a desperate reach because you know you can't handle the second-hand smoke point.

People don't just smoke alone. They smoke in public. They smoke around their kids and loved ones. That is the reality. Anything else is just you deluding yourself so you can feel good about your flawed argument.

 

i don't know of a single person these days that smokes inside their house or around their loved ones.

just sayin'.

 

Um, OK, I'm going to try this one more time...

I've already shown caffeine causes as many, if not more, health problems than smoking - -as if that is even relevant, other than your need to show how immoral smoking is and thus the government is justified in doing whatever the hell it pleases to the tobacco industry.

And the second-hand smoke kookacracy is just that, next I am sure you will tell me that using aerosol cans put a hole in the ozone and living under telephone wires causes brain cancer...in other words a cottage industry of mass hysteria of things which are not quantifiable, not provable and accepted as fact by wackos who want to believe them.

Regardless -- none of that still justifies the way the government has immorrally and oppresively taxed and destroyed the industry -- no matter how many different ways you try to wrap it up in nonsensical arguments.


And you've been around every smoker to know where they smoke and who they smoke with? Goodness, now you are a deity?

You've made this issue personal and emotional -- which is almost always, scratch that, always the basis for bad legislation and/or ridiculous taxes being allowed to pass.

 

Well that can't be true because smokers all find children and then blow the smoke in their faces.....

 

No, I've admitted that my emotions add to my concerns. There is a difference. This is about an addictive drug that causes far too many health problems in this country.

Who said anything about every smoker? Not me. Perhaps somebody trying to twist reality to fit his argument again.

I've seen parents who are idiots about smoking in front of their children and studies about the damage done to small children when they are exposed to cigarette smoke. You don't believe second-hand smoke is an issue? Now you sound like old_tony on a global warming thread.