Posted on 11/30/2005 7:46:48 AM PST by sergey1973
Smoking can kill you. That's why I don't smoke, and it's why you shouldn't, either.
There. I've just done the only things that should be done in a free society to stop people from smoking: I've told you that it's dangerous, I've urged you not to do it, and I've even set a good example. If you'd like other people to be healthy, you should also discourage smoking, too.
But if you'd like to be free, and you'd like your neighbor to be free, that's all you should do. It isn't my business to come into your home or business and stop you or your guests from smoking. If you like smoking so much you're willing to give up years off your life — 6.6 years for the average man — that should be your choice. I have no right to force you to stop.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Uh-huh. And we have a DEA why, exactly?
PING. Very Good Article on individual liberty and smoking/anti-smoking campaign in the US. So I use my ping list to alert you -:))))
Hear hear, the only arguement he did not take on is the public health aspect. If we are all going to be part of a socialized medicine, then we should get used to the idea of the government telling us what we are going to permit. The solution is to have private health insurance give discounts for non-smokers. (Never mind that sometimes a non smoker passes a smoker and is exposed to smoke. Same for burning leaves in Oct.)
Since insurance companies already do have non-smoking discounts then back off on the smoking issue, please. (Occasional pipe smoker -- outdoors, who likes smoky bars and good CW music.)
I am concerned that the relationship of citizen to government changes. Instead of representing us, government increasingly claims expertise to tell us what to do, instead. I want to start by banning government advertising, especially Hillary saying, "Does anyone know what a veteran is?"
Stossel in '08!
This guy GETS IT
We have let the camel's head in the tent. We let the government tell us to wear seat belts, now we let them ticket us if we fail to observe this niceity.
We wear helmets because they make us, not because we think it is a potential lifesaver.
We now see the government taking our property if they find a better use than the use we are doing. Sooner or later we have to throw the tea in the harbor again. (Or keep electing people like the author above.)
This is exactly how I treat my patients ------with respect. I tell them it is bad for their health to smoke and list Cancer, CAD, Stroke etc. I then tell them it is a free county and it is their decision and I will not bagger them or treat them as children. I will care for them despite the decision to smoke. I have had patiens tell me they have been to some physicians who refuse to see them anymore because they have smelled tobacco on them. I wonder if those smae physician refuse to see people who are fat, homosexual,use hard drugs, drink alcohol, drive fast or own firearms. Oh don't forget the deadly swimming pool owner. Bad for your health.
Sorry I do not buy the second hand smoke studies.
Um, no we don't know that for a fact
If you mean government buildings, maybe. If you mean private businesses, none of your business.
But I sure as hell don't want the government forcing said restaurant or business to be smoke-free.
To make sure that as soon as possible, cigarettes will be sold only by the mafia who will make more money off of it than the tobacco companies do today, while killing anyone who gets in their way. What do you think?
People will always have the "freedom" to kill themselves with overindulgence and other bad habits, but with that freedom comes responsibility. It seems unfair that responsible people have to pay huge sums for plans that offer negligible preventive care so that the system can afford to pay for the inevitable health crises of gluttons, smokers and drug-users.
It is always nice to see a perfect human. Plus are you sure that smaoker cost YOU more money. Lets see they die earlier so You can get more from your SS taxes. I do not think the government needs to be involved at all in health care. Plus if the government did not force private insurance to cover all those every day 100.00 windshields of broken people you might actually pay less------espically if you are a man. You do realize you pay more because the insurance company is forced to cover pap smears, mammograms etc.
I'm asking for responsible behavior, not perfection.
I do not think the government needs to be involved at all in health care.
I'm arguing within the framework of our current reality.
Plus are you sure that smaoker cost YOU more money.
I've heard that point before and I'm willing to accept the statistics if you can provide them, but it's nonetheless true that we are paying much more than we otherwise would to cover the cost of extreme overindulgence. Those of us who DO live responsibly naturally resent it.
Plus if the government did not force private insurance to cover all those every day 100.00 windshields of broken people you might actually pay less------espically if you are a man.
Please edit before you post, eh? Are you comparing car accidents to addictive behavior?
You do realize you pay more because the insurance company is forced to cover pap smears, mammograms etc.
Yes, and much of the testing is excessive, motivated by liability concerns. That's yet _another_ issue. There are many other preventive modalities that are rarely covered by insurance policies.
You think that the health consequences of obesity, alcoholism, smoking and drug addiction aren't driving up insurance premiums?
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.