Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

What a joke! I have the right to smoke if I want too.


May as well handout punch cards for food and only allow people to eat certain things on certain days, or drive their cars when they're "allowed" too.


Only non-smokers and/or imbeciles would back this.

Your not allowed to Smoke in probably 80% of the places you thing you have the right to. Can you light up in Wall Mart?? No. Can you light up in Dennys?? No. Can you light up in Best Buy?? No.

They already did that.

The law there trying to pass is to make it a drug. Which would mean you might get Medical Care for this addiction. Which they already give to Crack, Coke, Meth, Herion, etc. Really simple.

I could only make it through the first coupla of comment pages before I couldn't stand to keep reading.
What is wrong with you people? This is a site where we question the MSM, seek out truth and fight against (or discuss fighting against at length) injustice and loss of liberty.
The war against smoking is wrong on so many levels and that people allow or even fight for the bans is one of reasons I have given up my faith in people nearly completely.
Firstly, secondhand smoke is NOT harmful to others. These are false studies people. Anti-tobacco lobbyists of all kinds perpetuate these lies which are just mind-numbingly accepted by the masses. ALL of the studies showing secondhand smoke as being dangerous are either falsely created, manipulated into "proof" and spun neatly into disinformation that people buy hook, line and sinker because - yeah it doesn't smell good to me so it must be bad..
www.forces.org...
news.heartland.org...

I want you to think about it for a minute. I, as a smoker, directly inhale a cigarette in entirety 20-30 times every day and have for the last 25 years. Naturally, I'm exposed to the passive smoke around me thanks to myself and friends who smoke. Is it bad for me? yup - to a degree. But, it's the direct inhaling for years and years and years that's doin' the damage that I suppose is there. However, I've never even had a smoker's cough. Many a smoker has lived to see 90 years on this planet. Many a smoker never gets cancer. Many a non-smoker DOES get lung cancer. Now why is that?
Because of the pollution that nobody will stand up and cry about that is actually killing you passively. Industrial pollution by the stackload. Smog and car exhaust - more all the time. Chemicals in your water, your food, your air. Asbestos containing materials are an incredibly understated current cause of cancer even with it's fame and restrictions. www.medicalnewstoday.com...
Every time you clean with strong petrochemicals, you're doing more damage to your lungs than I have with smoking for weeks. Think about the radiation, the pesticides. Your eating, drinking, touching, breathing things that will eventually likely cause some form of disease in your lifetime.

And then, you hop in a vehicle and take the biggest chance of death into your hands on a daily basis.

The corporations and health insurance giants don't want you to blame these things. It's an active and incredibly successful campaign so far as well. People just go along with it because they don't like the way it smells and/or maybe they had a relative that died of cancer "from smoking" and it creates a sensitive touchstone for them.

What they are proposing in Oregon is a disgusting form of prohibition and control - not a measure of goodwill towards the community. Consider agenda. How often is it truly for the health benefits of the people? Hint - it's about money. Open your eyes.

While I can't call myself a former smoker, I have the occasional cig a few times a year still. I cut that far back out of the price getting crazy expensive, and accumulating other things to eat up my time, like ATS (I refuse to smoke indoors) Most of what I smoke during a year is done during winter months, because I greatly enjoy the blended scent of cold winter air and cigarette smoke. Call that scent fixation what you will, I like it.

I don't want to see this law passed. Not because oh noooes, they're taking my smokes! Because it's a slippery effing slope to legislate recreational activities, vices, and guilty pleasures. If this passes, what's to stop them from deciding:

Alcohol is bad for your liver, you don't need it.
Video games make you sedentary, fat and leave you in ill health. You don't need them.
Sodas are empty calories, and lead to diabetes & weight problems. You don't need it.
Candy does the same as soda, so you don't need that bag of Skittles, bucko.
Movies and TV instigate violent act copycats, you don't need to get any ideas. We'll regulate proper content now.

I wouldn't put it past anyone to attempt to mandate gym time or regulate your grocery purchases, either. Either hit the gym daily, or this percentage allotment for each group monthly, or you might face fines and/or time.

So, banning tobacco products? About as logical as trying to convince people of the above. We're micromanaged enough as it is, bite me, Mother Government. If you want to micromanage something, micromanage the unnecessary harmful additives in tobacco products. But that would be sensible, so of course you idiots won't.

reply to post by gottaknow
Yep, me to. I dont have a "Smokers Cough". But, would you like to eat a meal, go shopping, with your kids and have someone smoking next to them??

I really dont want anyone near my kids with smoke, whether it come from a fire place (oh wait, they banned that), Smokers (oh wait they banned that), .....lol.

I understand the whole "rights" thing but I feel you are not understanding the studies on Cigs. The Chemicals are crazy. Now, hindering the rights of Weed Smokers compared?? That is a whole different story....but is it really??

What a oxymoron. A doctors prescription? Oh yeah I am sure that will really go well. What doctor would prescribe something like this putting themselves at risk? Instead of pushing idiotic laws how about coming up with a real solution and or help the e-cig franchise where countless people have stopped smoking? Oh but they won't go there, because the FDA just loves it when you're sick and dying see. Then you gotta use their FDA approved drugs. They love watching you and your family suffer, selling your house and everything you own just to keep you alive. Bunch of wolves in sheep's clothing out to make a buck. Anyone pushing such a frivolous bs ought to serve 5 years in prison how about that for a law??

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by Obsrvr

 

Agreed, not to mention the calming effect cigarettes give us.
You wanna see some folks get crazy in the streets wanting their governments blood, make cigarettes illegal, or ban world of warcraft.

Fat kids throwing mouses and keyboards through police station windows!!

You make me snort my cigarette smoke

reply to post by Renegade2283


Thank you, I can't remember what I did a few days ago, but, I can recall stupid facts, and movie moments with no problem. As far as Ole Arnie not dying in the movie, I do believe he had activated the ?ozone/oxygen? thing and it produced oxygen just in a nick of time.

I dont know how i feel...

a smoker's right to smoke shouldnt infringe on my right to have good health does it?
even a privately owned bar, smokers are angry over the bans. but i have other rights that still apply in a place of business, why shouldnt my well being be one of them? My right ti protect my health shouldnt be to just never be near other people. That is a line to far.
Allowing 1 person to poison themselves is fine and dandy if he wants, but he can do it at home. Where he can keep it to himself.

The amount of money that comes from cigarette taxation must be pretty high.
Therefor, if the higher up government has anything to say about it, it'll be "no thanks".
And if you want to make it easier to take out the government, even by just a little bit you'll say "yes please"
And then we will all realize that having no money & lots of debt has not stopped the US Government at all.

reply to post by hoochymama


Hoochymama

Just wandering how often you bring your kids into private bars?

Also I was wandering if you would be able to comprehend a smoking allowed sign on the door of a private restaurant and choose to take your kids to another private restaurant where the owner has decided for himself that he does not wish to cater to smokers?



Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by Bisman
I dont know how i feel...

a smoker's right to smoke shouldnt infringe on my right to have good health does it?
even a privately owned bar, smokers are angry over the bans. but i have other rights that still apply in a place of business, why shouldnt my well being be one of them? My right ti protect my health shouldnt be to just never be near other people. That is a line to far.
Allowing 1 person to poison themselves is fine and dandy if he wants, but he can do it at home. Where he can keep it to himself.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Bisman because: (no reason given)

I think it should be the bar owner's decision whether or not to allow smoking in their own establishment. If non-smokers don't want to go to their bar, they can go to one that prohibits smoking.
Besides, if you're that worried about your health, you probably shouldn't be hanging out in bars anyway.

Originally posted by FlapdoodleStork
Besides, if you're that worried about your health, you probably shouldn't be hanging out in bars anyway.

Not to mention how hypocritical it is to be serving people alcohol and then talking about people's health.

I smoke and have been doing it since my teens. In the army it was the only way to get a break. I have never really understood why it was legal in the first place ever since they proved it was dangerous to your health. I am not taking a stance on this either way. If it is legal I will smoke if it is made illegal I will quit. If it isn’t sold in stores then I am not going to be looking for it on the black market. I have mixed feelings on this.

reply to post by Bisman


Bisman

You don't have the right to good health.

The right to good health is a positive right. It implies that if you are not in good health, then someone (usually the taxpayer) must do something to return you to good health. It imposes a duty on someone to do something for you.

All rights in the constitution are negative rights. They impose no duty on any other person. Consider for instance, the right to life. All that is required is that another person avoid the action of taking your life. There is no duty for someone else to take action to preserve your life.

The right to liberty. Same thing. It imposes no duty on someone else to do anything for you exept to avoid imprisoning you without due process.

The right to the pursuit of happiness. Same thing. You are not guaranteed the right to be happy. No one has the duty to make sure you are happy. You only have the right to pursue happiness, not to have it.

If you want the right to health - and you think second hand smoke is a risk to your health - you have the duty to stay away from smokers. There is no duty on smokers to avoid putting smoke in your air space. There is no duty of private property owners to maintain their property smoke-free. Note that this is very different from those things that the health regulations normally cover. It is not possible for you to inspect the kitchen of every restaurant you eat in. It is not possible for you to see if your food has been properly handled and is free from contamination. For this reason, health units were formed for the purpose of inspecting food handling for the purpose of protecting public health.

Smoke however, is clearly visible and if you wish to avoid it, you have only to leave.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


To one and all - smoker's do have the right to smoke!

The legal definition of a contract is this: there is an offer, there is acceptance of the offer and there is some remuneration (money).

The tobacco company makes a offer to sell you cigarettes. You accept the offer and you pay the money for a cigarettes. The majority of your money goes to the senior partner of the tobacco trade, the government.

The right to use the product you just purchased is established by the contract. It would be a breach of contract to deny you the right to use the product you just purchased.

Tired of Control Freaks

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

 

To one and all - smoker's do have the right to smoke!

The legal definition of a contract is this: there is an offer, there is acceptance of the offer and there is some remuneration (money).

The tobacco company makes a offer to sell you cigarettes. You accept the offer and you pay the money for a cigarettes. The majority of your money goes to the senior partner of the tobacco trade, the government.

The right to use the product you just purchased is established by the contract. It would be a breach of contract to deny you the right to use the product you just purchased.

Tired of Control Freaks

I wouldn't say it's a right, because of you take that to it's extreme you would have a right to grow different plantlife and make your own medicines from them (Poppies, nightshade, et al) and while cultivating those plants for a flower garden are not illegal, you can't process them into the medicines that we all get and use daily in the world, so it's not really a right, because you paid for the seeds or saplings and grew them, but past that you can't use them, so it's denied.

However, a lot of revenue comes from ciggies, and my town supplies the majority of the wrapping leaves for cigars and about 60% of our annual budget comes from the sale of that shade tobacco, so suddenly making it illegal would kill towns like mine that rely upon tobacco revenue to survive which is why I don't think it will ever happen, at least not in my lifetime.

reply to post by Obsrvr



Come across the border to Washington and smoke your cigs, cigars, and pot....just pay our taxes..... We love you to.

Originally posted by MmmPie
What a joke! I have the right to smoke if I want too.

NO YOU DON"T

AND we will tell you what to eat, drink, smoke. How to live, breath and DIE....it is all in your own good because you are sheeple and are too dumb to know any better so we need to be the true nanny state to ensure you live a long life...We can't promise that long life will have any individual freedoms but hey it will be long...


Kind of like a life sentance....

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