[robertpaulsen]

You're not being rational -- you're being vindictive.

How would this sound? "You stated you supported the local communities right to ban an activity, smoking drinking in public, and I stated that the same community should then forego the revenues by banning cigarrettes alcohol in their entirety!"

If a community bans smoking in public and smoking in private estabishments, they run the very real risk of losing cigarette tax revenue and the tax revenue from businesses that file for bankruptcy.

The federal government has nothing to do with this issue. Maybe you can make the case that smokers are being discriminated against. But there is that bogus second-hand smoke argument that is making all this discrimination possible that has to be overcome.

[CSM]

"How would this sound? "You stated you supported the local communities right to ban an activity, smoking drinking in public, and I stated that the same community should then forego the revenues by banning cigarrettes alcohol in their entirety!"

That is exactly what I was saying. You keep using the logic that they should be able to ban smoking in public places (private property) because they have the ability to ban alcohol. Well, in reality with alcohol they ban the sale as well as the use in public places. When it comes to smoking they don't ban the sale, just the use in public places (private property) so they are hypocritical. They still want to benefits or revenue and yet they want to restrict the use.

"If a community bans smoking in public and smoking in private estabishments, they run the very real risk of losing cigarette tax revenue and the tax revenue from businesses that file for bankruptcy."

Exactly. If they have the nerve to dictate legislation banning it on private property, they should have the nerve to ban it in its entirety. The point is that while the villify smokers, they fund a good portion of that villification with the revenues from smoking. Hypocrits!

"The federal government has nothing to do with this issue. Maybe you can make the case that smokers are being discriminated against. But there is that bogus second-hand smoke argument that is making all this discrimination possible that has to be overcome."

Except the federal government is also reaping large rewards from tobacco. Of course they have nothing to do with the bans, but that is also my point. What would stop them from banning tobacco? They seem to have the precedence (sp?) set up just fine, with your support, from the WOsD.

---

To post #24
"I support their right to try. I doubt they would be successful."

Really? They have already been successful, what makes you think that they couldn't add more substances to that list of success?

"Do you vote? Have you ever talked to your congressman when he was in your area? You seem to be really out of touch with the way things work in our government."

Yes, I vote. I haven't talked to my personal reps but I have talked to other non-snake reps. The way things work today isn't entirely consistent with what is supposed to happen.

"Who is going to write a law banning Coke? Some dictator? Familiarize yourself with, "How a Bill Becomes Law" so you don't make such silly statements."

It could be anyone. Cold be health board of state or health board of fed or the supreme court or any number of a myriad of appointed, non elected officials that are currently making law. Why don't you sing the law for me and for the SC and for the 9th circuit and for the various state health boards and for any number of the non elected bodies making laws that could very well transfer into beverages or food in the name of health.