Posted on 12/14/2006 12:54:16 PM PST by SheLion
"Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out."
Yes there would be--drama queens and anorexics.
OK thanks, I'll add those 2 the the list:
When they came for the anorexics and bulemics and strapped them down and force fed them KFC and trans fats, I did not speak out, as I was not anorexic.
When they came for the drama queens like Al Gore, I did not speak out, because the apocalypse was already upon us.
Now who would be left that the Gubmint hasn't straightened up already? Perfect people with no vices who resemble Charles Ingals from "Little House on the Prairie"? You and who else would be left?
I didn't make my point apparently. Nobody's come for anybody, Johnny Drama.
The rest of us on FR are here
All of these things have already been restricted or banned on our planet. Come visit us some time. We're the 3rd planet from the Sun in the Milky Way galaxy. Just take a right at Venus. We all look forward to meeting you.
PSS: While you're in Mexico, don't drink the water.
"already been restricted or banned"
Once, when sanity ruled, tobacco, a poison, was banned for sale in 12 states. Happened decades ago. According to a recent surgeon general, tobacco, a poison, should be banned. Nothing frightening except the thought of living without nicotine. For the addicted, I would hope they could get a diminishing amount of that poison for a transitional period.
Government's limited role includes protecting the general population from poison.
Go ahead, blow some more smoke, it's a free country.
"When they came for the gun owners"
Got my pistols with me legally 24/7. When they coming?
When they came for the morons, I did not speak out, for I wasn't a moron.
When they came for the idiots, I did not speak out, for I was not an idiot.
When they came for the mildly retarded, I did not speak out, for I was not mildly retarded.
When they came for the fools, I pointed my finger at Eric Blair and he was carted away.
They never did come for the gifted, and it is a lot quieter now anyway.
I guess you are implying that you are "gifted" and the world would be a much better place when they get rid of all the people who you find objectionable. Boy, you are a real character. It's always a pleasure to meet someone who is as arrogant and obnoxious as me. I have no reason to doubt your high intellect and talents. I'll take your word for it.
Although I have to wonder how a Mensa member like you with a 200 IQ can deny that there are in fact crusaders out there who are going after guns, cigarettes, fast food and alcohol. Maybe you're just being facetious.
As you know from your graduate work in Toxicology, the first rule is that the "dose makes the poison". EVERYTHING that you and I eat, drink or breathe has carcinogens, pathogens, bacteria, microbes, and germs. Unless of course you subject your food to radiation before eating it.
I'm not sure exactly what you want to see happen but it seems like you would like to start with banning tobacco altogether. I'm with you. I'm actually all for that. I'm sick of the lies and coercion from "Tobacco Control" advocates. Just ban it already and let the Gubmint give up their billions in MSA payments and tobacco excise and sales taxes that fund the anti lobby.
Here's what happened last time this was tried. A Republican State Assemblyman named Michael Grosz' introduced a bill in 2003 to ban tobacco sales in ND:
+ 
here's the AP story: __________________________________________________________
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Groups question tobacco ban
Measure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use product
Associated Press
BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking lined up Tuesday to fight legislation what would make North Dakota the first state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed.
The measure, introduced by Rep. Michael Grosz, R-Grand Forks, would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use tobacco. Sellers would face up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, while casual smokers or smokeless tobacco users could go to jail for 30 days and be fined $1,000.
"The education approach is obviously not working in North Dakota," he said. "Should we not prohibit the sale and use of tobacco just because it may be difficult to enforce, and let nearly 1,000 North Dakotans die every year?"
Bruce Levi, director of the North Dakota Medical Association, called the measure "novel," but said it "introduces an approach to tobacco control that has not been proven effective or even implemented in any other state."
"Our goal is to prevent and reduce tobacco use. There is scientific evidence to support the programs that are beginning to move forward in North Dakota," Levi said. "Prohibition has not been shown to prevent tobacco use." ___________________________________________________________
The interesting thing are the circumstances of the bill's failure: [Rep. Wes] Belter [R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee] told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association. What?! That's like the WCTU endorsing Johnnie Walker. These groups are always in favor of raising taxes on tobacco and of banning smoking in public places. But here we have the American Lung Association lobbying against a bill to ban the use of tobacco? Why? There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. Ahhhh. Now we see. These groups are skeptical that banning tobacco would reduce its use. Some of these same groups are vocally opposed to lifting the ban on things like marijuana, on the basis that such action would increase use of those drugs. Apparently there's no reason to believe that the same thing would work in reverse, though, and nobody, especially anti-tobacco groups, would want the government to take action based on incomplete or faulty information. But there's more: The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs. Ah. Well. So the position of the American Lung Association et al. is roughly this: we should not ban tobacco because that would reduce funding for tobacco control programs. It seems to me, though, that banning the sale and use of tobacco is a tobacco-control program. It's just not a tobacco-control program that involves various public health groups receiving funding from the government. It would be worth remembering this the next time you see any of these groups arguing for higher taxes on tobacco in order to discourage tobacco use and produce positive health results.
I'll give you the links in a second.
here's the AP story:
http://www.data-yard.net/10y/nd-ban.htm
From Reason:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/100657.html
News from our group:
http://www.forces.org/fparch/011703.htm
Do me a favor, can you send me the links to the info on the tobacco ban in 12 states from decades ago that you referenced. Thanks.
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.
