Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


I like to look at history to predict what will happen today.

Prior to the invention of anti-biotics, thousands upon thousands of people died from infectious diseases (Typhoid, smallpox, measles, influenza, pneumonia, bronchitus). This was also a time when society lived in a very dirty state with no control of the disposal of sewage, no proper disinfection of drinking water, no pasturization of milk, no control of food handling.

In these conditions, public health was created to protect public health. Please note that there is a strong distinction between public health and personal health here. Public health was created to prevent the spread of infectious diseases - not to enforce regulations concerning personal behavior to promote personal health.

I was looking at the story of Thyphoid Mary. Mary was a cook who also happened to be healthy carrier of the Thyphoid Bacillus. Please note that there thousands and thousands of healthy carriers who may also have worked in the food handling and cooking professions during the same time period.

Please see the first two minutes of this video

www.youtube.com...

Note the announcement that public health triumphs any civil rights.

At the request of the public health - Mary was incarcerated for 28 years, until the end of her life. Even though there were thousands of other healthy carriers in the population. Mary is said to have caused 25 cases of thyphoid of which only 3 died. There is no proof that there were no other healthy carriers around or that the Thyphoid was from another source altogether.

Now that we have essentially conquored infectious diseases, the role of public health units have greatly diminished. but with the advent of the anti-smoking campaign, public health once again reins supreme, wielding their power to override the civil and property rights of the private citizens.

Once public health decides that it is in the best interests of the government to have a "healthy" populations, there is no end of interferences with civil and private property rights that public health may pursue.

Our diets, our personal habits, our hobbies and activities - its all up in for grabs now. And with each grab, public health grows more and more powerful.

Will there come a day when public health decides that one religion is more "healthy" than another, that potential marriage partners and parents must be "screened" by public health.

We are not as far from that day as people think.

Tired of Control Freaks




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
That's a shame that, what will the coughers do? #marijuana is better



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

I like your post.

Everything is more controlled with each generation. I think it's a combination of technology, knowledge and cultural evolution. Eventually we'll be as tight as a machine, but I don't think we'll ever be robots because we can just as well create them if that's what we want. We'll always give ourselves more freedoms. However, when compared to previous generations, we're more robotic.

This also makes predicting the future very difficult. Because the way in which we live and think about the world around us is going to change and this is as varied as grains of sand.

But some things can be seen. Patterns, specifically. For example, Arthur C. Clarke accurately predicted the emergence of an internet society. Basically, online social interaction. He saw how this would somewhat supplant real social interaction in cities. So instead of going to the local pub to converse with others, you might just instead order a beer delivered to your apartment and converse with others online. The key to all this is he saw distance shrinking to a point and changing society.

Using this same kind of thinking he also predicted that one day we will be able to reproduce everyday physical objects with the flip of a switch. Imagine being able to copy something you're holding in your hand with the ease that you now copy a file in your computer. He called it a Matter Replicator. He asked himself How would this change society? He wasn't sure, but he brought it up numerous times.

Of course, with all of these things there're dangers. Arthur C. Clarke was the type of guy that just like to observe and predict things, but he left his readers mostly to figure out the rightness.

You can see it here:
edit on 28-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by vkey08
 


How do you figure that I don't have the right to consume a product I paid for and paid taxes on? Are you saying contract law doesn't apply here?

Tired of Control Freaks

Contract law does not apply.. Like I said if it did, you would be able to cultivate certain plants and process them into medicines even though you legally purchased the seeds and grew the plants and saplings, you still cannot. It's a very grey area, but public heath laws always trump the Uniform Commercial Codes..

So no.. you can't always do what you want with what you buy, there can be restrictions placed upon it...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 


Please explain to me why contract law does not apply

There is only one use for a cigarette. It is intended to be smoked. The government knew what it was for BEFORE they took my money!

We now have whole towns, where smoking inside is banned, smoking outside is banned, smoking in your home is banned.

Where are smokers supposed to smoke?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Oregon seen as next battleground for marijuana legalization: www.oregonlive.com...

Oh the irony...so on one hand, we have a representative that is trying to make cigarettes a prescription-only drug and on the other, one working to legalize marijuana. At least Oregonians can take comfort in their representatives' having a truly diverse opinion, collectively.

I also find it very interesting that, with the furloughs and lay offs that have been occurring in Oregon over the last years due to the recession and shortfalls in state revenues, there would actually be a representative who would suggest limiting access to tobacco when $100-200 million of Oregon's tax revenues are from tobacco taxes.

www.oregon.gov...



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 

People with your mentality drive me crazy. I get it, you're against smokers and wish they couldn't smoke. But to give the government the right to imprison and fine people because they're in possession of an addictive substance that was legal their whole lives up until then?

I guess the war on drugs isn't comprehensive enough, we need to add a few more substances to the list, the list that gets countless people killed and imprisoned every year because adults like to ingest things that people like you don't like.

I'm not specifically calling you a mindless idiot here, but people that scream for more legislation and laws, to add to the millions of laws that are already on the books.. more reasons for cops to intrude into our lives, fine and arrest us.. are mindless idiots, indentured servants to Government Nanny.

I never understood fines for drugs anyhow. What's the message there? "You did something bad, so we're going to teach you a lesson, give me your money"? ..well we all know they aren't doing it for that reason. It's more like, "We need a deceptive reason to take your money, to convince you that morally we have the right, so give me your money".

Let people kill themselves. It's their choice. They are adults.
edit on 28-1-2013 by jessejamesxx because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join