I am wrong

[Luddly Neddite]

Be interested in knowing how you got the 35 cent tax repealed. Quit cigs in large part because they got as expensive (well ok, almost) as pot.

If she can do it there, why not the rest of the country too?

Well, though not my area of expertise, I'd think you'd have to challenge the tax as being duplicative to get it repealed. Or show how it's unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.

Uh, I was being facetious.

And now, I'd better stop posting in this thread ...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I figured, but no one else wanted to discuss it

 

[SandyGirl]

That's false.

I can fire you if the legal drug interferes with your work.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, I am wrong.
On a moral basis, I am wrong for trying to fight for the rights of tobacco companies, the fact of the matter is, Tobacco the way it is processed in lab is a drug.

Tobacco by itself isn't a drug, its all the additives that makes it a drug.

Infact with all the additives, It is as addictive as Heroin, and Meth, infact more addictive than cocaine.
And yes, it causes cancer, COPD, dental health problems, heart disease, Bronchitis and the list just goes on and on.

And it affects your performance at work because you are not allowed to smoke on the job, nor are you allowed to leave your task to go smoke.

So even if I am playing devils advocate by supporting the rights of tobacco companies, my rights to make a living are directly related, as is yours.

Do you want less rights yourself to make a living ?

That's my question in the whole matter.

You’re not so much ‘wrong’ as you are ignorant.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘right’ to make a living.

The issue has to do with appropriate regulatory policy as authorized by the Constitution, where the courts have determined that such regulatory policy does not manifest a violation of the First Amendment right of tobacco companies, or those who sell their products.

 

[SandyGirl]

Yes, I am wrong.
On a moral basis, I am wrong for trying to fight for the rights of tobacco companies, the fact of the matter is, Tobacco the way it is processed in lab is a drug.

Tobacco by itself isn't a drug, its all the additives that makes it a drug.

Infact with all the additives, It is as addictive as Heroin, and Meth, infact more addictive than cocaine.
And yes, it causes cancer, COPD, dental health problems, heart disease, Bronchitis and the list just goes on and on.

And it affects your performance at work because you are not allowed to smoke on the job, nor are you allowed to leave your task to go smoke.

So even if I am playing devils advocate by supporting the rights of tobacco companies, my rights to make a living are directly related, as is yours.

Do you want less rights yourself to make a living ?

That's my question in the whole matter.

You’re not so much ‘wrong’ as you are ignorant.

The issue has nothing to do with the ‘right’ to make a living.

The issue has to do with appropriate regulatory policy as authorized by the Constitution, where the courts have determined that such regulatory policy does not manifest a violation of the First Amendment right of tobacco companies, or those who sell their products.

This isn't about what the court said, courts have ruled in my favor before as well.

The constitution gives the government no such an authority as to regulate anything at all whatsoever regarding privately owned business, in fact the constitution is there to limit government power.

Not being allowed to advertise is a violation of the freedom of speech and of the press.

Being forced to send a negative outlook on buying their products, is a violation of the freedom of speech and of the press, as well as the right to not be compelled to be a witness against themselves, AND a violation of equal protection under the law since no other businesses have to do that.

its also a violation of the right to be safe in your persons, papers and effects.

If the government wants to send a negative message about smoking, it should do that using its own materials and resources, not those of the private companies without their permission.

A REGULATORY policy, would be more to do with banning the tobacco companies from adding their drugs into their cigarettes.

 

[Iceweasel]

I can see government putting out warnings and education for health risks and limiting what you can do to others but when did it become governments duty to protect us from ourselves? And where will it stop?

 

[Antares]

Because this is my country that's why, if they don't like it, they can go back to XXXXX.
lol

You are a silly little twit furiously punching at her keyboard...there is nothing powerful about you.

Oh yeah ?

I sued the Philadelphia Board of Education, and won.
I sued the Philadelphia police for being more than 24 hours late to Answer my call, and I won.

I filed for an injunction against the requirement of adults to show their IDs in order to buy tobacco and won

I also filed an injunction against the valid ID laws, and won, now your ID can be expired, and they still have to sell it to you so long as the ID is real, and the photo looks like you.

I also got the cigarette taxes lowered by a full 35 cents, in New Jersey.

Since im an Employer, not an employee, I get to decide who gets a job and who don't, I could possibly be your last stop looking for a job before you end up homeless, I can make you homeless by not hiring you.

I can mark up the housing prices and the rents, and the banks wont let you finance a fuckin' nickel and I did that before too.
XXXX.

Whoa you got me on that one (rolling eyes)

Begone before someone drops a house on you too.

Oh wait, you ARE gone