Dems fight dirty in California

They should, I am tired of this nanny state mentality that is taking place. It's bad for me so sets ban it! Why don't you just leave people alone and let them smoke.

Tobacco should be on the banned substance list.

I'm surprised it's not.

Suicide apparently is okay if you commit it over 20 or 30 years.

I also believe if people want to indulge in a substance proven beyond a doubt to be lethal over time they should be allowed to. Thins the herd.

In fact, I believe all republicans should be furnished with 4 packs of unfiltered Luckys a day, gratis.

Such enmity ....

I don't wish you dead.

I smoke. And I support every legislative move to remove it from public places where my smoke might affect others. I also support high taxation for cigarettes. I also support every possible move to bring tobacco companies and their executives to justice for knowingly (where that was the case) marketing an addictive and dangerous product.

I smoke cigars on an infrequent basis; I don't inhale. I also don't smoke whenever my doing so would bother anyone else. If I'm at a place where tobacco smoke is bothering me, I move, or I don't go back to that place.

I also think people should not be forced to wear seat belts.

take a joke sweetie...and have a cigar :wink:

I was once in agreement with your last sentence (as was my brother who races formula circuit track). What turned us around was (during the period where our legislation was in debate) an interview with an Australian doctor who ran a clinic for serious back injuries. In his country, seatbelt legislation had led to a decrease in his clinic's business of some 70 to 80 percent. Those this had a huge economic effect on him personally, he'd come to our province to campaign for such legislation. He said that he simply could not deny how much real and severe suffering - and often, ruined lives and families - had been eliminated through legislation which had such a minor effect on personal liberty.

So ... are you pro-choice or not?

There was a lot of noise about helmet laws when i worked in hospitals in the 1970's. With both helmet laws and seat belt laws, for whatever one's personal beliefs may be, there is no denying the incredible costs to be associated with the trauma inflicted during and accident in which a helmet is not worn, or seat belts are not worn. That cost gets borne by us all, and it is enormous.

blatham
That begs the question. Why do you smoke?

Some people know the deliterious effects of smoke on their lungs, yet continue to make the conscious decision to smoke. Don't you agree Set?

Yes, and i defend to the death your right to trash your pulmonary system anywhere you please, other than my apartment.

The question goes begging, it is true.

I guess I won't be lighting up in your apartment then ..... next time you have me over.

What I'm not is absolutist. Seat belt legislation is a pretty perfect example. Minimization of suffering seems the properly moral/ethical position even if that might sometimes be difficult to evaluate (as in the 'costs' to liberty in such a law weighed against the 'cost' to so many who do/will suffer in the absence of the law - plus the tax burden born by all as Set points to). In the seatbelt case, I don't have much trouble weighing consequences. Other cases can be far tougher, as with abortion.

Taxes and insurance rates, Mr. Mountie . . . remember, we have to pay for that here . . .