Posted on 08/02/2006 2:28:12 PM PDT by HAL9000
Excerpt -
LITTLE ROCK - Gov. Mike Huckabee, who successfully pushed for a statewide workplace smoking ban earlier this year, predicted Wednesday that cigarettes eventually won't be sold because of their health risks."I think the day will come when we probably won't" sell cigarettes, Huckabee said on his monthly call-in radio show. "If cigarettes were introduced to the marketplace today, they wouldn't be sold. They'd never make it because what we didn't know when they were first created, sold and marketed is just how deadly harmful they were."
Huckabee was responding to a caller's question of why cigarettes are allowed to be sold if they are so harmful. The governor fielded complaints from at least two callers about the state smoking ban, which went into effect July 21.
~ snip ~
(Excerpt) Read more at pbcommercial.com ...
LOL! Sure it does.
Can you say u-n-i-n-c-o-r-p-o-r-a-t-e-d?
(grin)
Oh, I understand what your saying, and I certainly agree.
But dang...it makes me feel old!
:-)
OK...THAT I understand all too well!!! ;*)
" ... in pluralistic societies any claim to know objectively the constituents of a worthwhile life must at the very least be treated with caution."
Seedhouse argues that the whole notion of 'well-being' should be dropped from the WHO mandate. Not only is the concept too vague to be used as a measure of the effectiveness of health promotion, it smacks very strongly of the 'we know what is best for you' philosophy. Robert Downie and his colleagues, in one of the 'bibles' of health promotion used by WHO activists, show that they are clearly exponents of this paternalistic role. They note that 'well-being' can be viewed in one sense as a subjective judgement made by individuals about their own physical and mental states. Ordinary mortals, however, as opposed to health promoters, may have 'illusions' about their own well-being - they are not 'feeling great' at all. They say:
"Subjective well-being ... may be spurious and may arise from influences which are detrimental to an individual's functioning or flourishing and/or to society."
Oh well.
If Mike runs for President, the MSM should ask him what his thoughts are about raiding those sinful gambling Bingo games in Arkansas?!
sw
In Europe, a shocking number of people are seen rolling their own in public, undoubtably to avoid those high taxes.
Tax away or ban them; Americans will just adapt.
Were cigarettes ever illegal anywhere other than Nazi Germany?
I am, of course, familiar with prohibition, but wonder if these other substances have ever been prohibited, other than where stated.
That being the case, I humbly apologize.
-----
it's about as pointless as outlawing marijuana.
Agreed!
-----
Now, outlawing driving under the influence of marijuana is a different story. That should be stopped as it is as dangerous as someone driving under the influence of alcohol.
That one, I must respectfully disagree with. We are either free do do as we wish until we actually (physically or financially) injure another person, or we must continue to allow government to define 'crime'. There is no middle ground.
Government has no authority to protect us from ourselves or each other. If that were the case, the police could be held legally responsible for failing to protect us. Courts have found (repeatedly) that they cannot. It is our duty as well as our legal obligation to protect ourselves.
IMHO, I would trust an 'impaired' person of average intelligence to operate a motor vehicle before I would an ignoramus driver that was cold sober and straight.
But.... If Mama ruled the world, stupidity would be painful and lawyers wouldn't be allowed to run for political office. :-)
Yes. Pot was 'legal' until 1937.
Four years after we regained our right to consume alcohol, government found the authority to tell us what plants we may or may not ingest.
I think you'll find growing it indoors hydroponically will provide you with better and more consistent results.
Its that cross pollination thing.
>>Another "conservative" that would like to solve problems caused by socialistic policies with fascist policies. There seems to be a lot of these "conservatives."
In the excerpt posted - the link to the full article is now dead - he did not propose any policies, fascist or otherwise. He predicted that one day cigarettes will no longer be sold. This is not a policy, and it does not follow that he was necessarily advocating a ban.
I agree that I would want some clarification from him, but let us not put words into his mouth.
"Huckabee responded to one question by saying that he would support a ban on all cigarette sales in the state...."
Another glimpse into the mind of the genius:
Huckabee responded that the law is designed to protect the rights of other citizens. He cited a study that showed inhalation of second-hand smoke poses more of a health risk than if someone lights up a cigarette themselves.
Sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with a literalist typical of 10 year-olds.
You see, child, I meant that I don't consume poisons. If you still have questions, get a grown up to explain it to you
Just keep doing what you're doing. We'll both be happy with the long term consequences
You too can just keep on smoking. I am sure I will be content with the long-term consequences
I believe you said exactly what I said in my post....
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.