Ore. Rep. Moves to Make Cigarettes Prescription-Only, Threatens One Year in Jail...

[gallantwarrior]

well actually that would include a great many diagnoses,, we can really save money on drug abusers, alcohol abusers, STD's etc etc,, we shouldn't have to pay for attempted suicide either then huh?

Nope. The taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize medical expenses for people whose choices have put them at risk. It isn't like the dangers of risky behavior are some big state secret any more.

what about minorities that are extremely over weight ??should they be allowed to eat fast food ??

They can eat anything they want. Neither you nor I should have to pay for their choices. Just as I would not expect them to pay for mine.

 

[gallantwarrior]

How bout Government just leave people alone? Now there's an idea.

But then there would be no reason for the lib/prog elites to feel good about themselves.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And the march towards Totalitarianism goes on.

First they impose a heavy “sin tax.” Then they kick you outdoors. Then they ban you from certain public areas. Now this:

Bill Proposed in Oregon to Make Cigarettes Prescription Only Drugs! - 1/24/13 - YouTube

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor’s prescription,” Fox 12 Oregon reports.

“Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids,” the report adds.

Should the bill pass, and even Rep. Greenlick doesn’t think it will, offenders would face fines of up to $6,250, one year in jail, or both...

Ore. Rep. Moves to Make Cigarettes Prescription-Only, Threatens One Year in Jail and/or $6K+ Fine | Video | TheBlaze.com

Why does the right wing oppose local government by locals?

I'll admit, you might have a point here. If local government wants to start passing elitist control freak law, people do have the choice to move to another locality.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about let people smoke as often as they like, but refuse them medical treatment. Or let them pay the whole cost themselves.

This is exactly what freedom looks like. If you want to be stupid and irresponsible with your body and health, the person who is truly free can be stupid and irresponsible with his/her body and health. But, everybody should be required to live with the consequences of the choices they make including the cost. It is for that reason that federal government supplied 'benevolence' in the form of health care or welfare or whatever is not the way for a free people to go. While there is some genuine compassion that is accomplished, the government too often punishes the successful and responsible and rewards those who make the worst choices.

When we have to be accountable and suffer consequences for making bad choices, we are far more likely to make better ones.

In short, the tobacco industry has created an enormous cost to the nation by marketing a deadly product, IMO a reasoned response is to regulate or ban such a substance. The crazy right wing - the libertarians - don't agree.

It is a product no more deadly than obesity or alcohol abuse or regular use of marijuana, etc. etc. etc. I asked you before where you are willing to draw the line and you didn't respond. Are you willing for the government to ban all foods that make people fat? Is there any social redeeming feature re lard? Shouldn't we be forcing people to use healthier fats? With one in ten people who use alcohol will abuse alcohol to the point it is detrimental to their health--a ratio comparable to the lung cancer rate for smokers--shouldn't we re-establish prohibition?

Certainly the health hazards associated with tobacco use should be prominently advertised by both our government and in the private sector as should the health hazards associated with obesity or use of other substances that can be used safely, but contain dangers, such as alcohol. There is nothing wrong at all with public facilities or private facilities banning smoking on their premises. There is nothing wrong with taxing various substances. There is nothing wrong with the people themselves making smoking socially unacceptable.

All that is far more effective than government attempt to ban the substance and thereby open the door for large illegal cottage industries who will profit mightily by addicting and then providing a product to the citizens who want it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

This is exactly what freedom looks like. If you want to be stupid and irresponsible with your body and health, the person who is truly free can be stupid and irresponsible with his/her body and health. But, everybody should be required to live with the consequences of the choices they make including the cost. It is for that reason that federal government supplied 'benevolence' in the form of health care or welfare or whatever is not the way for a free people to go. While there is some genuine compassion that is accomplished, the government too often punishes the successful and responsible and rewards those who make the worst choices.

When we have to be accountable and suffer consequences for making bad choices, we are far more likely to make better ones.

In short, the tobacco industry has created an enormous cost to the nation by marketing a deadly product, IMO a reasoned response is to regulate or ban such a substance. The crazy right wing - the libertarians - don't agree.

It is a product no more deadly than obesity or alcohol abuse or regular use of marijuana, etc. etc. etc. I asked you before where you are willing to draw the line and you didn't respond. Are you willing for the government to ban all foods that make people fat? Is there any social redeeming feature re lard? Shouldn't we be forcing people to use healthier fats? With one in ten people who use alcohol will abuse alcohol to the point it is detrimental to their health--a ratio comparable to the lung cancer rate for smokers--shouldn't we re-establish prohibition?

Certainly the health hazards associated with tobacco use should be prominently advertised by both our government and in the private sector as should the health hazards associated with obesity or use of other substances that can be used safely, but contain dangers, such as alcohol. There is nothing wrong at all with public facilities or private facilities banning smoking on their premises. There is nothing wrong with taxing various substances. There is nothing wrong with the people themselves making smoking socially unacceptable.

All that is far more effective than government attempt to ban the substance and thereby open the door for large illegal cottage industries who will profit mightily by addicting and then providing a product to the citizens who want it.

Great point! Banning the substance will not decrease the demand. The "free market" will take over to fill the demand. A black market run by criminals (who will risk the punishment to make bank) will fill the demand rather quickly. Not only will banning tobacco not decrease the health issues related to its use, the government will forgo collecting the rather exorbitant excise taxes charged for tobacco sales. The cost of health care (paid for by the government) for tobacco users will increase and one source of funding will disappear. Additionally, government will be required to pay to enforce their new bans.

 

[paulitician]

Police/Nanny States are fun hah?

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'd rather poke pencils in my eyes for fun, thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

In short, the tobacco industry has created an enormous cost to the nation by marketing a deadly product, IMO a reasoned response is to regulate or ban such a substance. The crazy right wing - the libertarians - don't agree.

It is a product no more deadly than obesity or alcohol abuse or regular use of marijuana, etc. etc. etc. I asked you before where you are willing to draw the line and you didn't respond. Are you willing for the government to ban all foods that make people fat? Is there any social redeeming feature re lard? Shouldn't we be forcing people to use healthier fats? With one in ten people who use alcohol will abuse alcohol to the point it is detrimental to their health--a ratio comparable to the lung cancer rate for smokers--shouldn't we re-establish prohibition?

Certainly the health hazards associated with tobacco use should be prominently advertised by both our government and in the private sector as should the health hazards associated with obesity or use of other substances that can be used safely, but contain dangers, such as alcohol. There is nothing wrong at all with public facilities or private facilities banning smoking on their premises. There is nothing wrong with taxing various substances. There is nothing wrong with the people themselves making smoking socially unacceptable.

All that is far more effective than government attempt to ban the substance and thereby open the door for large illegal cottage industries who will profit mightily by addicting and then providing a product to the citizens who want it.

Great point! Banning the substance will not decrease the demand. The "free market" will take over to fill the demand. A black market run by criminals (who will risk the punishment to make bank) will fill the demand rather quickly. Not only will banning tobacco not decrease the health issues related to its use, the government will forgo collecting the rather exorbitant excise taxes charged for tobacco sales. The cost of health care (paid for by the government) for tobacco users will increase and one source of funding will disappear. Additionally, government will be required to pay to enforce their new bans.

The one argument I can make for legalizing recreational drugs, is that it removes the incentive for the black market to addict people. So that would be one less pressure on the people to try a substance and then become addicted. However, it can increase the social pressures at parties etc. to try the substance in the first place, and if the substance is almost universally and rapidly addictive, that would be an increase of the danger that already exists.

There are no easy answers to this. But given that tobacco generally is not a seriously mind altering substance, I would rather folks kill themselves with that than with substances that impair judgment and motor skills.

 

[Spoonman]

ok, this is really getting out of control. how soon befor government controls every aspect of our lives?

 

[paulitician]

ok, this is really getting out of control. how soon befor government controls every aspect of our lives?

That's the plan.

 

[Spoonman]

It is a product no more deadly than obesity or alcohol abuse or regular use of marijuana, etc. etc. etc. I asked you before where you are willing to draw the line and you didn't respond. Are you willing for the government to ban all foods that make people fat? Is there any social redeeming feature re lard? Shouldn't we be forcing people to use healthier fats? With one in ten people who use alcohol will abuse alcohol to the point it is detrimental to their health--a ratio comparable to the lung cancer rate for smokers--shouldn't we re-establish prohibition?

Certainly the health hazards associated with tobacco use should be prominently advertised by both our government and in the private sector as should the health hazards associated with obesity or use of other substances that can be used safely, but contain dangers, such as alcohol. There is nothing wrong at all with public facilities or private facilities banning smoking on their premises. There is nothing wrong with taxing various substances. There is nothing wrong with the people themselves making smoking socially unacceptable.

All that is far more effective than government attempt to ban the substance and thereby open the door for large illegal cottage industries who will profit mightily by addicting and then providing a product to the citizens who want it.

Great point! Banning the substance will not decrease the demand. The "free market" will take over to fill the demand. A black market run by criminals (who will risk the punishment to make bank) will fill the demand rather quickly. Not only will banning tobacco not decrease the health issues related to its use, the government will forgo collecting the rather exorbitant excise taxes charged for tobacco sales. The cost of health care (paid for by the government) for tobacco users will increase and one source of funding will disappear. Additionally, government will be required to pay to enforce their new bans.

The one argument I can make for legalizing recreational drugs, is that it removes the incentive for the black market to addict people. So that would be one less pressure on the people to try a substance and then become addicted. However, it can increase the social pressures at parties etc. to try the substance in the first place, and if the substance is almost universally and rapidly addictive, that would be an increase of the danger that already exists.

There are no easy answers to this. But given that tobacco generally is not a seriously mind altering substance, I would rather folks kill themselves with that than with substances that impair judgment and motor skills.

people have or should have the right to live their lives as they choose. Provide the health warnings on smoking. Teach it in schools. put warning labels on packs. but enough already. how far can you go, how much money will we waste trying to force or impose on someones choice of lifestyle.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It is a product no more deadly than obesity or alcohol abuse or regular use of marijuana, etc. etc. etc. I asked you before where you are willing to draw the line and you didn't respond. Are you willing for the government to ban all foods that make people fat? Is there any social redeeming feature re lard? Shouldn't we be forcing people to use healthier fats? With one in ten people who use alcohol will abuse alcohol to the point it is detrimental to their health--a ratio comparable to the lung cancer rate for smokers--shouldn't we re-establish prohibition?

Certainly the health hazards associated with tobacco use should be prominently advertised by both our government and in the private sector as should the health hazards associated with obesity or use of other substances that can be used safely, but contain dangers, such as alcohol. There is nothing wrong at all with public facilities or private facilities banning smoking on their premises. There is nothing wrong with taxing various substances. There is nothing wrong with the people themselves making smoking socially unacceptable.

All that is far more effective than government attempt to ban the substance and thereby open the door for large illegal cottage industries who will profit mightily by addicting and then providing a product to the citizens who want it.

Great point! Banning the substance will not decrease the demand. The "free market" will take over to fill the demand. A black market run by criminals (who will risk the punishment to make bank) will fill the demand rather quickly. Not only will banning tobacco not decrease the health issues related to its use, the government will forgo collecting the rather exorbitant excise taxes charged for tobacco sales. The cost of health care (paid for by the government) for tobacco users will increase and one source of funding will disappear. Additionally, government will be required to pay to enforce their new bans.

The one argument I can make for legalizing recreational drugs, is that it removes the incentive for the black market to addict people. So that would be one less pressure on the people to try a substance and then become addicted. However, it can increase the social pressures at parties etc. to try the substance in the first place, and if the substance is almost universally and rapidly addictive, that would be an increase of the danger that already exists.

There are no easy answers to this. But given that tobacco generally is not a seriously mind altering substance, I would rather folks kill themselves with that than with substances that impair judgment and motor skills.

I understand what you are saying about substances that impair judgement. There are some drugs that should never be legal, but I lean towards legalizing marijuana. It's affects aren't much different from alcohol, although the THC stays in your system longer. I'm on the fence about legalizing pot, I do see the upside. But as far as the government telling people what to eat, drink, smoke, etc...I am dead set against that. If a pub owner wants to put up a 'no smoking' sign, OK. But I don't have to patronize that business.

 

[Spoonman]

ok, this is really getting out of control. how soon befor government controls every aspect of our lives?

That's the plan.

yea i know. step by step, right by right. and you notice how they alwasy spin it that its in our best interest?

 

[Foxfyre]

And the march towards Totalitarianism goes on.

First they impose a heavy “sin tax.” Then they kick you outdoors. Then they ban you from certain public areas. Now this:

Bill Proposed in Oregon to Make Cigarettes Prescription Only Drugs! - 1/24/13 - YouTube

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor’s prescription,” Fox 12 Oregon reports.

“Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids,” the report adds.

Should the bill pass, and even Rep. Greenlick doesn’t think it will, offenders would face fines of up to $6,250, one year in jail, or both...

Ore. Rep. Moves to Make Cigarettes Prescription-Only, Threatens One Year in Jail and/or $6K+ Fine | Video | TheBlaze.com

Why does the right wing oppose local government by locals?

I'll admit, you might have a point here. If local government wants to start passing elitist control freak law, people do have the choice to move to another locality.

And if the majority of the people object to the local government they are getting, the elected officials are usually pretty responsive to that. Even here in Albuquerque, some folks liked them, but a majority of the people saw automatic red light cameras around town as just too 'big brotherish Orwellian' to be comfortable with. And after considerable public pressure, the powers that be took down the cameras.

Freedom comes with its own set of consequences, but it is still prefeable to the alternative to a lot of us.

 

[High_Gravity]

So we are heading in the direction of outlawing Newports, Marlboros etc but legalizing Cocaine and marijuana? Jesus.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This is exactly what freedom looks like. If you want to be stupid and irresponsible with your body and health, the person who is truly free can be stupid and irresponsible with his/her body and health. But, everybody should be required to live with the consequences of the choices they make including the cost. It is for that reason that federal government supplied 'benevolence' in the form of health care or welfare or whatever is not the way for a free people to go. While there is some genuine compassion that is accomplished, the government too often punishes the successful and responsible and rewards those who make the worst choices.

When we have to be accountable and suffer consequences for making bad choices, we are far more likely to make better ones.

In short, the tobacco industry has created an enormous cost to the nation by marketing a deadly product, IMO a reasoned response is to regulate or ban such a substance. The crazy right wing - the libertarians - don't agree.

You can make the same case for fatty foods or manufacturers of ATV's or skis. Even caffine or alcohol.

In the end everything is deadly... LETS REGULATE OR BAN IT. Wait every time we breathe, we are one breath closer to death. AIR IS DEADLY LETS BAN IT!

No, you cannot. Well, you can, a reasonable, non ideologue pragmatic cannot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And the march towards Totalitarianism goes on.

First they impose a heavy “sin tax.” Then they kick you outdoors. Then they ban you from certain public areas. Now this:

Bill Proposed in Oregon to Make Cigarettes Prescription Only Drugs! - 1/24/13 - YouTube

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor’s prescription,” Fox 12 Oregon reports.

“Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids,” the report adds.

Should the bill pass, and even Rep. Greenlick doesn’t think it will, offenders would face fines of up to $6,250, one year in jail, or both...

Ore. Rep. Moves to Make Cigarettes Prescription-Only, Threatens One Year in Jail and/or $6K+ Fine | Video | TheBlaze.com

Great idea. Tobacco kills and, the cost to tax payers for medical treatment/care, a direct result of smoking, is enormous. I don't support jail for the end user, possibly a drug diversion program wherein they can learn to quit and of the health consequences if they do not. Growers of tobacco are no different than producers/traffickers of narcotics and crack.

Alcohol kills too so we better lock up everyone who takes a drink.

And if you don't want to smoke then don't but it is none of your fucking business is someone else does.

 

[Foxfyre]

In short, the tobacco industry has created an enormous cost to the nation by marketing a deadly product, IMO a reasoned response is to regulate or ban such a substance. The crazy right wing - the libertarians - don't agree.

You can make the same case for fatty foods or manufacturers of ATV's or skis. Even caffine or alcohol.

In the end everything is deadly... LETS REGULATE OR BAN IT. Wait every time we breathe, we are one breath closer to death. AIR IS DEADLY LETS BAN IT!

No, you cannot. Well, you can, a reasonable, non ideologue pragmatic cannot.

You say that but three times now you have ignored my question put specifically to you:

If you approve banning tobacco or requiring a prescription because it is a dangerous and harmful substance, where do you draw the line on how far the government should go to ban dangerous and harmful substances or require a permit or prescription to get them?

Sugary drinks?
Doughnuts?
Fast food?
Lard or other highly saturaed fats?
Trans fats?
Food with high allergy potential?
Insecticides?
Aerosol sprays?
Highly caffeinated products?
Over the counter meds?

The list could go on and on and on for those products that have a harmful downside.

So where do you draw the line?

 

[Misty]

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor’s prescription,” Fox 12 Oregon reports.
“Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids,” the report adds.
Should the bill pass, and even Rep. Greenlick doesn’t think it will, offenders would face fines of up to $6,250, one year in

Great idea. Tobacco kills and, the cost to tax payers for medical treatment/care, a direct result of smoking, is enormous. I don't support jail for the end user, possibly a drug diversion program wherein they can learn to quit and of the health consequences if they do not. Growers of tobacco are no different than producers/traffickers of narcotics and crack.

Al gore's family made their fortune in Tobacco

The actual combined stats for lifetime smokers compared to none smokers getting lung cancer is 6.9%.

 

[Misty]

Let's just put everyone in a plastic bubble filled with pure air and antibiotics.

Good grief.