13
   

Anti-tobacco Legislation and the First Amendment

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Sep, 2009 08:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
No actually, it isn't your business.


so haw far are you willing to take that theory? Are there any valid laws? Are any victimless crimes legitimate controlling force from the collective? Do employeers have the right to screen your piss and do a credit check on you?

You are going to draw the line someplace, and then I will have you in a TKO. What you do effects others, thus others have rights to control and or punish your behaviour.

The employer doesn't have to hire me. I apply to them for employment and we must agree to accept each 0thers' terms. I am free to work for someone else. It's totally different. You're trying to control people in their own homes. Sad if you can't see it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 10:23 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

My primary concern here is with "the agency will be able to...prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children." To me, this sounds like a violation of the first amendment of the constution. I don't expect many people to care very much. People always have rationalizations for why their pet projects aren't actually free speech violations, even though they prohibit speech.
As a lover of freedom, and of reading the Constitution truthfully,
I must AGREE with u, Brandon.
It violates freedom of speech n freedom of the press,
as well as the 9th and the 10th Amendments.

There is nothing in the Constitution that I remember,
giving government authority over children,
nor over what information any private citizen (tobacco firms) can freely provide to them.

If THIS unconstitutional usurpation of power is tolerated,
then for how many OTHER usurpations of more power
will this one stand as precedent ??

Personal liberty and the domestic power of government are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to each other.

Let the record indicate that I have detested the stench
of cigarette smoke since the age of 4. The stink of violating the Constitution is WORSE.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 12:04 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
As a lover of freedom, and of reading the Constitution truthfully,
I must AGREE with u, Brandon. ...


This doesn't sound at all like a former lawyer. Okay, David, what were you really, an ad salesman? ... , no that's not possible either, the writing is just too immature, too vacuous.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Sep, 2009 02:13 pm
@JTT,
he seems to have missed it when they kicked the marlboro man off of t.v. a gazillion years ago.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:13 pm
The crusade to make the use of a legal product illegal continues...
Quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California lawmakers on Monday moved a step closer to banning smoking at state beaches and parks, following the lead of hundreds of communities nationwide.

The state Assembly voted 42-27 in favor of the ban. Anti-smoking groups say the bill would make California the first state to ban smoking throughout its entire park system if it is signed into law.

The Senate passed it previously but must agree to amendments made in the Assembly before it is sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has not taken a position on it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032203511.html?hpid=sec-nation

So the excuse that smoking in the great outdoors was infringing on the rights of non smokers seems to have lost traction, so onto the next excuse....littering. Anything that works to get the fanatics what they want, except for the truth of course.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:15 pm
@DontTreadOnMe,
R u willing to tell us the reason
that your avatar is upside down ?





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The crusade to make the use of a legal product illegal continues...
Quote:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California lawmakers on Monday moved a step closer to banning smoking at state beaches and parks, following the lead of hundreds of communities nationwide.

The state Assembly voted 42-27 in favor of the ban. Anti-smoking groups say the bill would make California the first state to ban smoking throughout its entire park system if it is signed into law.

The Senate passed it previously but must agree to amendments made in the Assembly before it is sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has not taken a position on it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/22/AR2010032203511.html?hpid=sec-nation

So the excuse that smoking in the great outdoors was infringing on the rights of non smokers seems to have lost traction, so onto the next excuse....littering. Anything that works to get the fanatics what they want, except for the truth of course.
I see it as a matter of self defense, Hawkeye.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I see it as a matter of self defense, Hawkeye.


You take the line of reasoning pretty far. How far are you willing to go? Would it in theory be self defense to kill others or prevent the birth of babies so that you could have enough to eat, drink, and breathe? If not, where do you finally draw the line on what you have the right to take away from others in the promotion of your best interests?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:47 pm
@hawkeye10,
David wrote:
I see it as a matter of self defense, Hawkeye.

hawkeye10 wrote:
You take the line of reasoning pretty far.
How far are you willing to go?
There might be a limit.
I have not decided on any yet.



hawkeye10 wrote:
Would it in theory be self defense to kill others or prevent
the birth of babies so that you could have enough to eat, drink, and breathe?
In the face of acute scarcity of food, water n oxygen, yes.
A negative answer is passively suicidal.

I saw a fictional TV show about that c.40 years ago,
showing an underground collapse, with entrapment.
Logically, u gotta do what u gotta do defensively.



hawkeye10 wrote:
If not, where do you finally draw the line on what you have the right
to take away from others in the promotion of your best interests?
Mayhap someday I will draw a line.


Woud u approve of an alleged right of someone
to release mustard gas onto a recreational beech ?

Does the mustard gasser have a right to burn rubber tires on a recreational beech ?

I have a defensive right to NOT get stunk out.

What say u, Hawkeye ?





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Quote:
Would it in theory be self defense to kill others or prevent
the birth of babies so that you could have enough to eat, drink, and breathe?
In the face of acute scarcity of food, water n oxygen, yes

Oh. My. God!
kuvasz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
I have said for many years that conservatives has the social ethics of cannibals. They live on human prey.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Would it in theory be self defense to kill others or prevent
the birth of babies so that you could have enough to eat, drink, and breathe?
In the face of acute scarcity of food, water n oxygen, yes

Oh. My. God!
Having a religious experience ?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 02:32 pm
I totally agree with Brandon. The constitution should be adheared to. No restraints on my individual rights. There are a bunch of people I would off if it wasent against the law.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Fabulous new stop-smoking plan - Discussion by gungasnake
Could I get in trouble for this? - Question by aspvenom
Dissolvable Tobacco Products Draw FDA Scrutiny - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Has anyone tried an e-cigarette? - Discussion by chai2
Tobacco Forum - Question by pm76
Underage smoking, what happens? - Discussion by Jaii
massachusetts buying tabacco online - Question by viasindios87
Tobacco vs. Driving - Question by bulldog-2010
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/17/2019 at 02:41:56