Skip to comments.
Ban all tobacco - US health chief
Guardian ^
| Thursday June 5, 2003
| Duncan Campbell
Posted on 06/05/2003 1:44:28 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: berserker
Yep, Marlboros kick Gauloises' and Gitanes' asses!
21
posted on
06/05/2003 3:18:51 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(You can have no better friend and no worse enemy than a US Marine.)
To: berserker
Yep, Marlboros kick Gauloises' and Gitanes' asses!
22
posted on
06/05/2003 3:19:45 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(You can have no better friend and no worse enemy than a US Marine.)
To: clintonh8r
three times, apparently!
23
posted on
06/05/2003 3:20:22 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(You can have no better friend and no worse enemy than a US Marine.)
To: Reelect President Dubya
They'd simply tax something else. Who would stop them? Certainly not the voters....
24
posted on
06/05/2003 3:22:17 PM PDT
by
clintonh8r
(You can have no better friend and no worse enemy than a US Marine.)
To: Centurion2000
every time it is tried... prohibition fails.
abstinence works because it is the individual who CHOOSES to abstain. The freedom of the person remains in tact. But, prohibition fails because it attempts to restrict and punish the person to the point of eliminating their freedom to choose.
They use lies to kill our freedom "for our own good." Remember the outright LIES about second hand smoke "kills" and the heart-rending commercials about it killing people's dead spouses? LIES.
Smoking CAN cause cancer. It does not always do so. I HATE smoking. BUT I LOVE the idea that folks can do with their own lives and bodies what they CHOOSE to do... Government of all aspects of life that MAY or may NOT present a risk... is unacceptable. And folks who make these kind of suggestions are dangerous.. no matter HOW good their intentions seem to be.
I am really SICK to the max... of the nanny state addicted do gooders who ever lust to enforce their twisted morality or immorality, view of life and physiological philosophy using the point of a federal-statist gun.
Fools who want to screw with our freedoms are dangerous, be they talibunnies, radical right wing religionists, homosexual agenda pushers, or runaway tobacco hating surgeon general types... same goes for folks who insiste on passing and enforcing of seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the rights to keep and bear arms issues.... it's ALL for the freaking children right?
The freedomphobics... we need to send them all... to Iran...
EVERY time I read one of these nanny state articles on smoking... it makes me want to START smoking... just to p!ss them off.
To: Brad Cloven
There is no large political group so opposed to smoking as to ban it. Except for the illegal drug smugglers. They are already making lots of money smuggling cigarettes into high tax states. If tobacco were banned altogether they would make more money than they are making off of marijuana and cocaine smuggling combined.
To: JohnGalt
His views as a neo-puritanical Nazi perhaps... Closer than you might think:
"Smoking is a genetic poison to the Aryan Race" - Adolf Hitler.
To: FrankR
It was a good rant FrankR, and I agree with almost all of it. I would recommend that you re-examine your implied support for the WOSD.
IMHO, prohibition of alcohol was one of the first major power grabs, it started gun regulations and established a criminal/court/government partnership that we have never cleaned up. The WOD, especially on cannabis, has extended the power and corruption of government to an unbelieveable level and has clear links to government involvement in traffiking.
One of the prices of freedom is to retain ours, we must be willing to allow freedom to others. If an action has no direct impact on anothers rights, and unConstitutional privileges granted to us like health care are not a right, they must be at least tolerated.
I don't trust people who think anothers rights end the same place their personal vices do.
I'm ranted out now myself, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
28
posted on
06/06/2003 5:18:59 AM PDT
by
steve50
To: steve50
"I agree with almost all of it. I would recommend that you re-examine your implied support for the WOSD. "
The main counter argument I can make to being guilty of that is, I have no idea what WOSD stands for.
BTW, I am in no way - with my rant - supporting the legalization of drugs. We already are headed towards a stoned society with illegal drugs and LEGAL alcohol.
Running a society high on (anything) is like running and insane asylum, except in the asylum, at least you can keep them under lock and key.
The countless lives that have been wasted on drugs and booze a pity and has cost this country plenty.
To paraphrase your statement, I don't trust people who think we all should support and tolerate their personal vices.
29
posted on
06/06/2003 9:46:57 AM PDT
by
FrankR
To: nobdysfool
My sister, a lurker, said to tell you that your post makes sense to her.
30
posted on
06/06/2003 6:30:48 PM PDT
by
zip
To: zip
My sister, a lurker, said to tell you that your post makes sense to her.Please tell your sister "thank you"! It's nice to know that someone understands how similar this idea to ban smoking is to Prohibition, which was a proven failure.
Isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result each time? By that measure, our government is truly insane!
31
posted on
06/07/2003 1:21:19 AM PDT
by
nobdysfool
(Let God be true, and every man a liar....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson