Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I have to say that it's funny to me how these laws can be passed and people back them, yet who do you think will be crying when their taxes go up because of HOW MUCH revenue gets made on taxed cigarettes? This is the ONLY reason they haven't been all-out made illegal. The money will need to be made up somewhere and the first things they'll start taxing should cigarettes become illegal is all of the other "sin" items, such as alcohol, etc. When they can't tax that anymore, they'll find a way. There is NO WAY they won't make it up somewhere else.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by Dondylion
 


True, but driving drunk has a very real chance of murdering everyone on the road with you, instantly.

Smoking cig's around me wont kill me quickly, a prolonged period of it will give me health effects.

Where driving drunk has the potential to wipe out a family in a second. Thats why its illegal!

I'm not saying cigs should be banned for their effects on other people, but because cigs are designed specifically to be addictive for greed. It clogs up hospitals and once your hooked its very very very hard to get off!

but i appreciate your point of view! Thanks!


Yes, I completely understand that, but second hand smoke still harms others, just as driving drunk does. The process just might not be quite as quickly.
My point is that people are saying that if they want to smoke to their hearts content while they're harming not only themselves but everyone around them, why shouldn't people be driving drunk? I mean, it's their choice to destroy their lives by possibly running into a tree or having the other ill effects of drinking alcohol, right? So, why doesn't the same rule apply here?

See what I mean? Both are extremely harmful to not just the substance abuser, but to those around them as well, and they both need to be regulated.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Obsrvr
 


is that really nessecary? try and keep it civil eh!
but thanks for giving me a reason to exit the thread.
enjoy your smoke!





posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Renegade2283

Originally posted by Dondylion

Originally posted by Obsrvr
reply to post by Dondylion
 

I live alone. I have no pets.

Your argument doesn't work on me.


Your smoke also escapes your household and goes into the air for everyone around you to breathe. My argument does work.

Also, nice way of avoiding my other points.


Okay, while I agree wholeheartedly that second hand smoke is harmful and unfair to expose people too. I almost think it shoud be a crime to expose someone to second hand smoke without their approval. However, I dont think it is fair, or consisent to apply your argument for the air outside your house. If that was the case, then you should not be able to drive a carbon fuel powered car, and companies should not be able to porduce ANY product that produces harmful fumes. All these proccessing plants, and refineries would have to be shut down too. No more airplane flights, or rocket launches, etc.... Do you see what I am saying? You cant really apply that argument to the air outside, since it doesnt even match up with the harmful effects of automobiles and such.


My point is, he's not just harming himself but others. Maybe not as much as cars, rockets, planes, etc. but he's still harming others with his cigarette use.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Obsrvr
 


I saw the news in 1999, while working as a delivery guy for a floral shop. I remember telling the boss...cigarettes are for 'troubled minds' now....and sort of left it hanging there. Some shrink study. Just something I read in the papers. You could see it coming, basically, if you pay attention to the machinations of power.

Also, I did manage to relocate the Chicago Sun Times newspaper I'd misplaced, with the striking headline "WHY IS HE DRIVING?" from the day before 911. In light of the following FF, which was 3 months-to-the-minute of the McVeigh patsy execution, it seemed like a good item to hang onto. The morons decided to follow Joe Blows to traffic court and then capture them on camera driving off with NO LICENSE TO DRIVE! This was front page news. True stories, unlike all the 911 crap they wasted ink on in the following days. Who would save any of that, I wonder? Just try finding the "WHY IS HE DRIVING?" headline on the newspaper's search engine.

The new thing is to rahmisize rights and such in a time delay form of legislation. For instance, you make it illegal for anyone to buy cigarettes in 18 years. I recall a certain agitator who sweated hard for this sort of thing (a POME btw), who simply wanted to place his tongue in multiple girl's mouths which didn't taste of tobacco. Or, tell the slaves they can keep whatever guns they cling to today, but that no more purchases will be allowed after such and such a date etc.... Grandfather it. In time, everyone dies, and everyone on the rink wears a helmet, get it? Those years will pass in less than the blink of an eye, so to do it tomorrow is basically to do it yesterday. In certain circles, zionists work this way. Most of them are impatient, however, for instant gratification, and cannot wait that long to hold the reins of power in their actual grasp.
edit on 24-1-2013 by davidmann because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anundeniabletruth

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


Cages are for criminals and animals, not free men.


Over half of the American jail population are in there for silly things, such as simply possessing one little gram of a substance that has less negative effects on the human body than beer, and many have even claimed that it has positive effects. Many of those people only use the substance in the privacy of their own home. Are those people "criminals animals?" Well... are they criminals? We're all animals... technically.

I agree with what you are saying but, maybe you didn't understand what I said.
I will not go in a cage, I would prefer street court to being shackled truly.
My health is not the greatest and my best years are behind me.
I'll be damned if I waste the last years in a human kennel surrounded by those who would not hold court for themselves.
I believe the prohibition you speak of has not been lifted because the people who practice said substance are more mellow than the alcoholics who overturned the alcohol prohibition.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Obsrvr
 


A bill like this would never pass, and will probably disappear. Many Oregonians are very laid back and do not tend to like too many rules. They mentioned banning trans fats here and no one even wanted to discuss it, so it was a non issue. Businesses would be against it, and they have a lot of influence.

Also, in the unlikely event that it did pass, people would just go over the border to Washington to buy cigarettes. Right now people from Washington come here to Oregon to shop, because we have no sales tax. But there is a cigarette tax and I am sure that the regulators in Oregon would not part with that willingly, so that is just one more reason that this will never happen, at least not here.


edit on 24-1-2013 by PacificBlue because: change wording-not a ballot measure



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Does anybody knows if any political anti freedoms moron is trying to ban coffee
After all NY has tried to ban sodas.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   




I understand that, and that is true, and I agree. He is also harming the plants and animals of the earth as well. However, my point was that if your reasoning for a ban on cigarettes is that it has a harmful, second-hand effect when it drifts outside into the air, then you must also apply that reasoning to all of those aforementioned things for your argument to be consistent. Are you willing to give up all of the luxuries, and even some necessities of the modern world all for the sake of "not harming others"? I am not trying to sound snobbish btw, just trying to get my poin across. You have made good arguments so far, but that one I had conflict with.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

I mentioned that earlier based on the intended legal definition of tobacco in Oregon.

Just wait. It'll happen.

We'll be left with bread and water by the time they're done and they'll take the bread because of the carbs.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 

I'm not as polite as you.

Dondy:

If you drive a car you're polluting as much or more than I am with my monster Fuente Fuente.

Stick a potato in that tailpipe. Save a tree.
edit on 1/24/13 by Obsrvr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Obsrvr
 


Yes, it's all about control.

Tobacco is quite difficult to grow. It takes years to properly cure as well. I love it. It should be a simple thing to zionize it, but it will backfire, leaving another stain on the bride's lovely dress. People have awoken to their shenanigans, thank God.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dondylion

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Dondylion
 


I see... If you are truly a smoker and you are so unhappy and downtrodden by family yada yada yada, why don't you simply quit?
I smoke because I enjoy it.


I see you decided to ignore the part of my post that said I am in the process of quitting. I have maybe one cigarette a week to help keep my withdraws at a minimum for my job.

I did not avoid, you just stated in this post that you are in the process and that you have one a week.
Why did you just simply not quit??
If I were driving down the road at 100 mph and my vehicle started shaking violently, I'd pull over and asess the problem.
In short, I'd stop.
Why if this plant is soooooo eeeevol have you simply not quit?



Originally posted by Dondylion

Originally posted by Obsrvr
reply to post by Dondylion
 

I live alone. I have no pets.

Your argument doesn't work on me.


Your smoke also escapes your household and goes into the air for everyone around you to breathe. My argument does work.

Also, nice way of avoiding my other points.

You do realize that there are many more harmful things in the city air than cigarette smoke?
There are factory smokes, vehicle smokes, all at exponentially higher rates than my lil old cigarette.
Bad argument that my cigarette smoke will carry 2 city blocks and kill a baby.
There is a reason why even big cities have used the 25 foot rule on buildings, anything beyond that would be ridiculously unreasonable.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


They will not be banning coffee in the Pacific Northwest, we started the whole coffee trend.

I live just outside of Portland Oregon and there are three Starbucks within a mile and a half of my home. Two of them are one block apart. We just love our coffee here, but I get mine at local places, not corporate places.


On topic-I do not like this new trend of banning things, we should be able to make our own decisions.
edit on 24-1-2013 by PacificBlue because: add text



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dondylion

Originally posted by slowisfast
This desire to legislate morality disgusts me! Whether it's the Right and their cries about the sanctity of modern day marriage in America or Left and their desire to restrict what humans put into their own bodies, both are equally guilty! Stop it! Who are you(anyone), who are you to tell me what I do and what I think and what I consume? Is my life not my own? As long as one doesn't infringe upon, or harm, another, they should be FREE do as they please. We don't all have to agree on the one way to live life, and that's where government is headed.


That's the thing. Second hand smoke DOES harm others, including animals. It isn't just YOU who's being harmed, it's everyone around you with the second hand smoke.

I guess by your logic all people should be allowed to drive drunk then. It's their life, right? Why shouldn't they be allowed to drive drunk?


I have no problem with some of the smoking laws that have been put into place. As a former smoker, although finding it inconvenient, I understood. A de facto prohibition of cigarettes is a different story. Look at the War on Drugs or better yet '19-'33 in America. I would hope no one is smoking around their children. I, personally, find it a bit on the irresponsible side but I value one's freedom to do so. And I'd choose that over the oppression of having the government legislate morality to the populous.

Your drunk driving argument is invalid. I said one should be able to do as they please as long as they don't infringe upon or hurt another. Drunk driving is stupid but drunk driving being illegal doesn't stop people from driving drunk. They do so anyways. A great many are never caught because they get to where they're going. A percentage of drunk drivers do get caught and they deal with the consequences at that time.

By your logic we should make cars illegal because of the possibility of someone driving drunk and hurting someone.

edit on 24-1-2013 by slowisfast because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Does anybody knows if any political anti freedoms moron is trying to ban coffee
After all NY has tried to ban sodas.

I have a coffee cup holder on the rail of my AR-15. True story!
Truly about my coffee, "Shall not be infringed"!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   




Personally, yes, I would. At all costs, I try to not harm anyone else at all, by any means. I walk places or ride my bike where I go. ALL life to me is valuable and shouldn't be taken advantaged of or harmed in any way. That will never happen, though, because people feel these are necessities when in reality we can survive without them. People did them for many many years before us.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Renegade2283
 


With the above statements it makes one to wonder, are they doing this to slow the growth of the market or would it be that now the manufacture of the cigarettes will need to be FDA approved for the reasons that it has carpet glue and other nastys to cull the population or to make the population safer or to make it a drug then ObarryCare will pay for because the big bad companies put so many chemicals in it that is only the right thing to do.

If treated like other schedule drugs maybe then they could also use it as a typical schedule ll drugs. You have to meet the criteria to be subscribed and then the insurance companie will payout x and then the manufacturing facilities will have to make cleaner ciggarettes or will the person desiring a script of smokes will have to pay a hefty price if they chose not to go to the channels of copable need. Dr. will be more like a DFACS worker and from their judge if you shouls be buying cigs when you can't pay for rent, you are getting food stamps, as well as dissability and did the disability come from smoking .......I am sure I could type another paragraph in regard to this mindset.





top topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join