Posted on 07/27/2011 6:54:41 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
I’d say there is a good chance for black market cigs in NY.
Nope. I know the answer ;)
Abortion takes the life of an innocent child who has committed no crime nor made any action themselves to end their life.
Smoking is an action taken on willingly by people and while some will die specifically from smoking, not all will and it won’t take place the first time they light up. Unlike abortion.
I do not want to support with my tax dollars smoking or abortion either. I simply do not trust the government not to extend this law to others who do not live off the tax payer. Nor do I believe the government has the authority, to determine what legal activities one can perform in ones own home, yet we know it happens all the time. Allowing them another excuse under the overused guise of “for the public good” or “for the children” is simply surrendering our rights to the whims of politicians scoring points for reelection.
I agree with you completely about those on the dole having the funds to spend on cigarettes. Read my above response to 2ndResponsibility though why I am concerned over even more government intervention.
Frankly, I’d like to know if there is a law on the books that states any monies from social programs given to welfare collectors can not be used to purchase cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets etc.
It seem we all agree people living off of the back of tax payers should not be using that money to buy cigarettes etc. Instead of legislating activities in ones own home, why not legislate items that are off limits for welfare recipients to purchase with tax dollars. If they make monies above their monthly distribution, why aren’t we forcing them to return it to the people?
I agree, except it is still not their house. It belongs to the taxpayers. Which brought this thought to my mind (stay with me):
Yes, we resent having to dole to welfare kings and queens, so there is a satisfaction to be had to see them targeted for a change. The government is counting on us to feel that way.
Because, if we allow it to happen to them,we've given permission to the feds to do it to us
Exactly right and why I’m against this issue.
The government does this all the time. They take an extreme issue and role it into an emotional argument that raises the hackles of the tax payers. In this case smoking in tax payer owned housing. Enough of a percentage of people get behind the idea because well damn it, we own that home and we pay for it so we damned well get to decide what goes on in it. Big win for the government, another loss of rights for the public.
Once the president is set that the government can regulate a legal activity in one group of people’s homes, by the 14th Amendment (would be the argument) then that restriction must be applied equally to everyone.
Bloomberg up in NY doesn’t like salt, you can no longer own a salt shaker in your home. Another do gooder detests fat, butter, oils and red meats, illegal to possess.
When we get behind ideas like this one, although they sound great on paper and obviously raise an emotional response amongst people, we forget to look at where the idea may end. Anytime the government wants to regulate what *I* can or can not do in my own home I worry and I’m not willing to give them a single inch knowing they will take thousands of miles.
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.