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

[Desperado]

Now now lets not be too hasty here.
Cigarettes as a prescription drug....
I do believe that prescription drugs are not taxable.
If you have prescription med coverage would you not get your Marlboro's for free or at least with a minimum co pay....
Hell they might even be covered under Obama Care.
They may not have though this through fully

 

[Sarah G]

Why would anyone need a prescription for cigarettes?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Tobacco is highly addictive, only caffine and some OTC Meds may have some minor addictive properties.

Tobacco contians Nicotine, a poison. See: Nicotine poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

And the pragmatic understands that tobacco, primarily smoked, creates health problems which require costly treatment impacting all of us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why would anyone need a prescription for cigarettes?

It's a drug, and one abused.

 

[Misty]

Conflict with the hippocratic oath.

"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."

First guns then cigarettes. What's next hot water?

 

[Misty]

Why would anyone need a prescription for cigarettes?

It's a drug, and one abused.

You sound so stupid defending this when deep down you know it's lame.

What about Indian reservations that get to sell cigarettes tax free cuz ****** took their land. You would be depriving them of their ancient religious rituals. Smoking tobacco. You liberals are climbing up your own asses.

You can't protect people from themselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Tobacco is highly addictive, only caffine and some OTC Meds may have some minor addictive properties.

Tobacco contians Nicotine, a poison. See: Nicotine poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

And the pragmatic understands that tobacco, primarily smoked, creates health problems which require costly treatment impacting all of us.

So you draw the line if the substance is 'highly addictive?" Is that what you are saying?

Nevermind that people consume even greater quantities of the other substances mentioned and suffer even more medical problems because of it?

And if it is true that tobacco use takes 10 to 30 years off your life, those would typically be the most expensive years medically. Maybe we should encourage more tobacco use so folks would die younger? That could save us billions in taking care of all those old folks who lived very healthy lives but need a lot of healthcare in their old age.

How much power do you want to give the government to force us all to be healthier to save government money?

Trans fat is also a poison but a whole bunch of legal substances have it. Not only are some foods poisonous to some people, but are immediately life threatening.

Where do you draw the line for what the government should be able to do to force you to do the right thing to live longer and be healthy?

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

Tobacco is highly addictive, only caffine and some OTC Meds may have some minor addictive properties.

Tobacco contians Nicotine, a poison. See: Nicotine poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

And the pragmatic understands that tobacco, primarily smoked, creates health problems which require costly treatment impacting all of us.

So you draw the line if the substance is 'highly addictive?" Is that what you are saying?

Nevermind that people consume even greater quantities of the other substances mentioned and suffer even more medical problems because of it?

And if it is true that tobacco use takes 10 to 30 years off your life, those would typically be the most expensive years medically. Maybe we should encourage more tobacco use so folks would die younger? That could save us billions in taking care of all those old folks who lived very healthy lives but need a lot of healthcare in their old age.

How much power do you want to give the government to force us all to be healthier to save government money?

Trans fat is also a poison but a whole bunch of legal substances have it. Not only are some foods poisonous to some people, but are immediately life threatening.

Where do you draw the line for what the government should be able to do to force you to do the right thing to live longer and be healthy?

I have a really great suggestion that would save the government loads of money...quit spending government money on things that should be individual responsibility.

 

[The Infidel]

why would anyone need a prescription for cigarettes?

it's a drug, and one abused.

**** you libtards....!!!!

Leave me the **** alone!!!! Im a grown ass'd man, not a ******* kid!!!!

God damn it, im sick of this shit!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Why would anyone need a prescription for cigarettes?

It's a drug, and one abused.

Alcohol is also addictive, a drug, and a poison and is much abused. I would venture to say a far sight more folks die of alcohol poisoning than die of nicotine poisoning.

Would you advocate the government mandating that alcohol be prescribed by a doctor rather than bought off the shelf?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Tobacco is highly addictive, only caffine and some OTC Meds may have some minor addictive properties.

Tobacco contians Nicotine, a poison. See: Nicotine poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

And the pragmatic understands that tobacco, primarily smoked, creates health problems which require costly treatment impacting all of us.

So you draw the line if the substance is 'highly addictive?" Is that what you are saying?

Nevermind that people consume even greater quantities of the other substances mentioned and suffer even more medical problems because of it?

And if it is true that tobacco use takes 10 to 30 years off your life, those would typically be the most expensive years medically. Maybe we should encourage more tobacco use so folks would die younger? That could save us billions in taking care of all those old folks who lived very healthy lives but need a lot of healthcare in their old age.

How much power do you want to give the government to force us all to be healthier to save government money?

Trans fat is also a poison but a whole bunch of legal substances have it. Not only are some foods poisonous to some people, but are immediately life threatening.

Where do you draw the line for what the government should be able to do to force you to do the right thing to live longer and be healthy?

I draw the line somewhere within the fifth dimension, as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge, in the region known as Common Sense.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The cost of health care for smokers may just be a moot point. There appears to have been an obscure provision written into Obamacare that will penalize smokers severely. Don't smokers deserve equal protection? Or is it all OK since the boiking has sanctioned this punishment?

Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul - Yahoo! News

 

[Foxfyre]

Tobacco is highly addictive, only caffine and some OTC Meds may have some minor addictive properties.

Tobacco contians Nicotine, a poison. See: Nicotine poisoning: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

And the pragmatic understands that tobacco, primarily smoked, creates health problems which require costly treatment impacting all of us.

So you draw the line if the substance is 'highly addictive?" Is that what you are saying?

Nevermind that people consume even greater quantities of the other substances mentioned and suffer even more medical problems because of it?

And if it is true that tobacco use takes 10 to 30 years off your life, those would typically be the most expensive years medically. Maybe we should encourage more tobacco use so folks would die younger? That could save us billions in taking care of all those old folks who lived very healthy lives but need a lot of healthcare in their old age.

How much power do you want to give the government to force us all to be healthier to save government money?

Trans fat is also a poison but a whole bunch of legal substances have it. Not only are some foods poisonous to some people, but are immediately life threatening.

Where do you draw the line for what the government should be able to do to force you to do the right thing to live longer and be healthy?

I draw the line somewhere within the fifth dimension, as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge, in the region known as Common Sense.

Very poetic, but apparently common sense in this case can't include a rational perspective but will focus on one hated product while everything else gets a pass. And so far you give me reason to believe you don't have a clue what is 'common sense' re what the government should have power to do.

And I say that as a non smoker--now anyway--who very much dislikes being around cigarette smoke and very much appreciates a smoke free environment. But as much as I know about the dangers and consequences of smoking, they aren't any worse than others on that list for certain classes of people and the guy who takes a few puffs a week isn't putting himself at substantially higher risk than a non smoker.

So does personal responsibility, individual liberty, and the right of people to do whatever the hell they want to do, no matter how stupid, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others fit anywhere into your concept of common sense?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why would anyone need a prescription for cigarettes?

It's a drug, and one abused.

So is alcohol.

 

[paulitician]

I love how it's suddenly all about the Money with Socialist/Progressive Nanny Staters. How convenient. I call Bullshite.