Posted on 09/07/2005 1:37:21 AM PDT by Stoat
Agreed; "spot on" as our British Friends say. Whenever there's money to be made, corruption will exist at some level, human nature being what it is.
Given that fact, would it not be most beneficial to focus not so much on the potential for corruption but the greater good of humanity?
Assuming we can all agree that it's in society's best interest to prevent five year olds from being given heroin in exchange for their milk money, would it not then be most appropriate to strive toward that goal rather than to entirely forsake that goal only because there is a potential for abuse and corruption at some levels of Government?
(putting flame-resistant Stoat Coveralls on upon realizing that I am treading upon the foundations of Libertarianism)
Interesting.
I started wearing glasses when I was 14, before I started smoking. Now, at nearly 45 the eye doctor has informed my sight has improved so much I no longer need them to drive, as did the DMV when it removed the corrective lens restriction on my license.............and I have only needed them to drive for years.
Given that fact, would it not be most beneficial to focus not so much on the potential for corruption but the greater good of humanity?
I would ask what will they come up with next, but I feel I would not like the answer. This is disgusting. Thanks for the ping.
Unbelieveable and disgusting are 2 excellent ways to describe this...............
Don't give them any more bright ideas..........
They are thinking all the time.
The California Legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly.
The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.
"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."
Ann has a beautiful face, but God, I wish she'd eat more.
As Squeezer always says, Gabz-they just keep churning them out. How can I get grant money to do a 'study'?
Actually no they cant. It's illegal for them to do so because Society recognizes that it's highly detrimental to people to a FAR worse degree than alcohol. (which is also illegal for children to consume)
Why not prohibit alcohol again?
Because it's not nearly as dangerous as heroin and can be (and is) enjoyed by billions of people all over the world in moderation without their becoming addicted and ruining their lives. As with anything, there are those who seem unable to use it in moderation but our society has made a choice that is it willing to accept the level of mayhem that alcohol produces. Some cultures have made different decisions.
Why not prohibit tobacco (some do favor it)
Why not make private ownership of motor vehicles, firearms and blades, swimming pools, mop buckets etc. illegal?
Why not ban gangsta rap, sexually oriented advertising and fast food?
Why not ban the sale of clothing that might lead to some kid being shot for his shoes or jacket?
Of course not, same rationale as above.
It would all be for “the greater good of humanity”.
I fear that my post has been misinterpreted, possibly because I failed to state my position clearly enough. I am, of course, not advocating the wholesale and mindless illegalization of anything that could be conceivably detrimental as you seem to infer, only a reasoned and balanced approach to lawmaking. Again, given the fact that human beings are, by nature flawed and therefore there is always potential for abuse and corruption anytime a profit is to be made, would this be a valid rationale for dispensing with a system of laws altogether, merely because there is a potential for corruption? Prohibition was repealed because it was a wildly unpopular law and it created far more problems than it solved. It did not, as it's proponents had suggested at the outset, address the greater good of humanity.
Better than going blind from that other thing, i guess.
But, then again, come to massachusetts, you can't smoke one in a bar, but you CAN marry the fag you shag.
Double entendre, always funny.
Agreed. If any other population demographic were treated in the manner that smokers (and Christians) currently are, there would be a massive and unrestrained hue and cry throughout the 'mainstream' press over the horrific injustices that are being inflicted. Smokers and Christians are currently among the groups that are regarded as "okay to discriminate against in the most brutal manner possible"
I know - I just don't like to encourage them.
Don't they know how to do the Three Stooges hand in front of those/parallel to the face block over there?
I would be delighted to cook her a nice steak-and-pasta dinner, but I know that I am only one of millions of admirers who would do so.
"sigh"
It's not that we don't - it's that we can't (meet that level of political clout) ...smokers are politically incorrect, and don't have buckets of money coming in to support our efforts.
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.