Posted on 02/15/2005 8:24:48 AM PST by SheLion
"Then you and I agree."
Not at all. You agree with using the government guns to prohibit a private property owner from allowing consumption of a legal commodity on his property and you agree with using government guns to invade homes when no actual harm can be proven.
Actually, you do too.
and you agree with using government guns to invade homes when no actual harm can be proven.
You do too.
"Sin taxes" aren't and never have been about "encouraging" right behavior. It's always been about filling the government coffers so that politicians can spend to their hearts content.
No I don't. If you want to be specific feel free, otherwise drop it.
You are saying that you would never object to anything a neighbor could do on his property or with his child. I simply don't believe you.
Fine. Don't believe me. Of course, you are probably failing to remember these key words, "when no actual harm can be proven."
You really don't believe that
Based on this, we can only intervene after your neighbor pollutes your yard even though you know he is in the process of doing so. We can only send police in after the parent drowns the children, not when they threaten it.
Trust me, you really don't believe that.
With your logic we better ban swimming pools and bath tubs. Children drown in them, so we better ban them.
See. I knew you believed that sometimes its necessary to intervene before absolute proof. The issue is deciding when and under what circumstances.
One day it will be illegal to eat any kind of meat, hunt, and fish...hunting and fishing will be redefined by the liberal courts as murder...liberals don't believe in the death penalty but they won't hesitate to go back on their word in the case of somebody who kills a deer for food. Yes...I believe that in the future, hunting and fishing will be punishable by the death penalty. In fact, during the reign of the antichrist, ALL politically incorrect activities (including politically incorrect speech) will be AUTOMATICALLY punishable by death.
The next target of the Health Nazis will be the soft drink industry. The lib-attorneys (specifically John Banzhaf) will pay medical "experts" to say that "caffeine is added to soft drinks solely to get consumers addicted", aspartame is an addictive drug", and "Splenda is an addictive drug". Soon the minimum age requirements that apply to alcoholic beverages will apply to all soft drinks (must be 21 or older to buy, sell, possess, and consume soft drinks; "No ID, No Pepsi"; possession of soft drinks on school property will be a federal offense and get student automatically expelled; driving under the influence of caffeine will be illegal; testing positive for caffeine in a company drug test will get employees fired and get applicant disqualified from consideration of employment"). Before you know it, it will be illegal to sell ANYTHING to anyone under 21 and require valid ID for all purchases..."No ID, No Purchase" sounds like the Mark of the Beast, doesn' it.
And when all of this happens, I will be lounging/lazing on a beach on an uncharted deserted island, with a strawberry daiquiri in my hand, a cigar in my mouth, and a bible in my lap, saying "Rush Was Right".
Thank God all charges were dropped against the Philadelphia Eleven (the ones arrested for hate speech and "possession of an instrument of crime" [bible or bullhorn...take your pick] at that Pink Parade last year). The next person charged with anti-gay hate speech in America [probably won't be so lucky.
(Some) Conservatives support the right of the government to go into people's homes to see that a man and wife are not enjoying each other in a non-approved manner; it's hard to see why smoking shouldn't get the same treatment.
Yeah...the ACLU will sure fight fore your rights if you're a child molester, kiddie porn peddler, atheist, or terrorist...but they don't want anything to do with you if you're a smoker, Christian, or republican.
Thanks for the reply. i didn't think the thread was about outside vs. inside smoking, but I would agree that there is somewhat of a difference there. There are people here who would subject their children to constant indoor smoke, and I believe that that is a real problem. i truly would take their rights away to smoke.
Mind if I join you?
There are people here who would subject their children to constant indoor smoke, and I believe that that is a real problem. i truly would take their rights away to smoke.
I agree that smoking around kids is stupid, how does one go about taking away someone's rights?
It gets reported and investigated, and the adult is punished, just like any other form of abuse.
One of the big problems with all smoking studies is that those illnesses associated with it are not dropping along with the rate of smoking as a percentage of the population; no one tries to explain this and those who are for more regulation will accept any correlation at all.
Overall air pollution has dropped even more dramatically since 1967 than the number of people who smoke yet asthma cases are increasing at an almost inverse ratio to the reductions.
Even lung cancer cases are showing a greater percentage of patients who aren't smokers than in the past decades.
Nobody is quite sure why this is so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.