So Long, Cigs: Michelle Obama Praises CVS For Pulling Tobacco

neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The nuns were never forced to purchase contraception, there was a debate on if they had to purchase health insurance to their employees which mandated birth control, which was brought to the scotus and was determined they didn't.

So the government mandated that, and business had no choice.

There was no option for 'their business their rules'.

Technically, religion is not a business. they fall in a strange hybrid organization, but since they are not a business, then some rules have to be reconsidered for them..such as taxes and the like. I don't know the details of their structure overall outside of the fact that its different and very confusing.

Not even sure what you are talking about in the banning usage of guns or whatnot.

www.washingtonpost.com...

That is what I am talking about.

And you talk nonsense.
The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms, not the right of a trust or corporation..sounds like a good rule to me that was used strictly for those whom have lost their rights to gain access. If your issue is then people losing the right to own a gun, that is a completely separate argument to be made, but as it stands, this only shores up the intent verses punishes responsible gun owners.

As far as the progressive tax rate? Obama has taken more than GWB, but less than Nixon Obama is not trying to court the most wealthy, he is trying to stabilize commerce as per his job.

But all taxation takes money out of the economy. Money business use to pay employees salaries, and other 'benefits'.

Incorrect, taxation is a method to redistribute the nations wealth so it doesn't become consolidated into just a few interests..at least that is the main intent. Tax/take from the haves, build roads, bridges, and infrastructure so more people have, which then you get more taxes for more infrastructure, etc..eventually we all end up in marble homes and space jets as we elevate all of society up both individually and as a nation.

Without taxation, you have no control on the few corporate kings from simply owning and controlling the entire nation and the fate of the masses. This is why we have government, because as a society, we are great, but left as individuals, we are ruthless.

Your local congressman is fighting tooth and nail for the poor corporate interests.

Our president is fighting for those corporate interests.

I don't disagree here. That is not a progressive philosophy
and Obama is not a progressive liberal president.
He occasionally dips a toe into the slight left, but for the most part, he is centrist or a bit right to Reagan.

Put a real progressive in there, you fringe need a lesson on what exactly is progressive verses centrist.

CVS also does not sell....

Hard Core Pornography.
Wetsuits.
Live Chickens.

It's a Communist, Muslim, Kenyan conspiracy I tells ya!!!



What a ridiculous thread.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Technically, religion is not a business.

Technically speaking 'Congress shall make no law abridging the practice of a person's religion'. That means his personal views. That also means if they violate them in a business Government needs to back the hell off.

And you talk nonsense.

Nonsense eh?

The constitution says arms, Government says how many rounds it can fire, how many rounds it can hold, and how loud it can be.

Not even close to being nonsense.

Incorrect, taxation is a method to redistribute the nations wealth so it doesn't become consolidated into just a few interests..at least that is the main intent. Tax/take from the haves, build roads, bridges, and infrastructure so more people have, which then you get more taxes for more infrastructure, etc..eventually we all end up in marble homes and space jets as we elevate all of society up both individually and as a nation.

Incorrect as the consitution says all taxation must be uniform throughout the land.

Never has it been based on how much money a person has.

Never has it been based on take from one group and give to another group so they can go out and buy more stuff.

It was based on paying government debt, not the peoples.

To get revenue so it could function properly.

Without taxation, you have no control on the few corporate kings from simply owning and controlling the entire nation and the fate of the masses

The only corporate kings I see are those 535 congressman owning and controlling an entire nation.

I don't disagree here. That is not a progressive philosophy and Obama is not a progressive liberal president.

Sure it is want a bunch of stuff that can't be paid for, keep adding more stuff that can't be paid for is the hallmark of progressives.

reply to post by BritofTexas


I agree!

Any business that intentionally throws away $2 billion dollars is utterly ridiculous.

Thank you for that 'quality' contribution.

reply to post by BritofTexas


For the, any outrage I have is reserved for our POTUS, who with his comments damages industry. Granted, tobacco companies are not very sympathetic "victims"....

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

For the, any outrage I have is reserved for our POTUS, who with his comments damages industry. Granted, tobacco companies are not very sympathetic "victims"....

There is nothing worse than an Ex Smoker gloating about how easy it was to quit. Makes me want to light one up every time.

But I don't think anyone can argue the dangers of smoking, and praising CVS for this, when it was their own decision is really a non event.

reply to post by neo96


This needs to be said. If you walk through CVS sometime, look at the items on the shelf full of corn syrup, preservatives enough to kill and elephant(/sarcasm), artificial colorings and thing like titanium dioxide (nanotech-just look at their "lemon drops" candy ingredients. If this store's policy is legitamate, then they will quit selling all the sour gummy worms, and other artificial CRAP that WILL kill you, or at least turn you into a diabetic!

Nope. I believe that this is a political statement. It's the same thing as PETA telling stores it is inhumane to sell rat poison, etc.

The only question I have now is how many stores BESIDES CVS are going to follow suit? CVS is trying to make themselves look like the first "good guy" type of buisness. It really looks like with the Obamas' praies that CVS is gettting could send shockwaves through America. I would bet that if this type of policy continues, it won't be long until those tobacco products become a controlled substance (illegal) by the FDA.

People can still go bungee jumping, hang gliding, or any crazy dangerous sport. I suppose the people should have that banned, because "IT's a risk to YOUR health." I don't like the smell of cigarrettes, but they should be a freedom for those who choose to use them, whether they are a substantial risk to your health or not.

What I would like to see banned in America is artificial colors, artificial preservatives, all artificial sweeteners, and corn syrup. At the very least, it would help reduce the occurance of type II diabetes, which just so happens to be the 3rd largest killer in America right now. If I can dream of a better land....

reply to post by InFriNiTee

Nope. I believe that this is a political statement.

I agree no one throws away 2 billion dollars just like that.

BritofTexas
CVS also does not sell....

Hard Core Pornography.
Wetsuits.
Live Chickens.

It's a Communist, Muslim, Kenyan conspiracy I tells ya!!!

What a ridiculous thread.

edit on 5-2-2014 by BritofTexas because: replied to Saturn fx instead of general reply...OOPS.

Indeed. This thread is really, really sad. Awesome how the usuals come out of the word work slinging their lib-blasters at an OP that has nothing to do with liberal agenda. ATS has turned into a Breitbart commentary section.

CJ

reply to post by neo96


CVS is getting rid of cigarettes and tobacco? Interesting. Maybe everyone will end up going to special stores for their drug, just like the people in the U.S. state of Colorado have to do for another (not to mention the Starbucks on every corner selling another favorite).

neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Technically, religion is not a business.

Technically speaking 'Congress shall make no law abridging the practice of a person's religion'. That means his personal views. That also means if they violate them in a business Government needs to back the hell off.

Religious institutions have certain liberties as decided by the scotus, because..they are a religious institution.
Religious people also have certain liberties.
companies don't have different liberties because they have religious people working in them. That is a individual thing, and a religious organization thing.
So, understanding this, you personally, Mr Neo Neocon, are not required by law to do things against your religion so long as it does not infringe on another persons rights.

And you talk nonsense.

Nonsense eh?

The constitution says arms, Government says how many rounds it can fire, how many rounds it can hold, and how loud it can be.

Not even close to being nonsense.

Right to bear arms. it doesn't say that right can be regulated. the truth of the matter is, government could, if they so chose, allow only muskets to be legal and ban everything else. This would technically be considered passable by the way the constitution is written, but we tend to also view the "spirit" of the law and let a whole ton of other guns remain legal.
Deciding to ban extended magazines that serve no viable hunting or defense purpose


Anyhow, gonna cut this convo short, your getting into the uniformity clause that applies to excise, duties, and imposts and not taxes as a greater subject. There are a bunch of highly educated people who debated and concluded the taxes are legal and constitutional. I will err with their understanding of tax law considering its their lifes work over some dude on a conspiracy forums interpretation.

Also, we are light years away from the actual thread topic and all this will most likely be erased anyhow as completely off topic.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Religious institutions have certain liberties as decided by the scotus, because..they are a religious institution. Religious people also have certain liberties. companies don't have different liberties because they have religious people working in them. That is a individual thing, and a religious organization thing. So, understanding this, you personally, Mr Neo Neocon, are not required by law to do things against your religion so long as it does not infringe on another persons rights.

Mr NeoCon eh ?

That was funny.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

www.archives.gov...

That is rather crystal clear.

Right to bear arms. it doesn't say that right can be regulated. the truth of the matter is, government could, if they so chose, allow only muskets to be legal and ban everything else. This would technically be considered passable by the way the constitution is written, but we tend to also view the "spirit" of the law and let a whole ton of other guns remain legal. Deciding to ban extended magazines that serve no viable hunting or defense purpose

The second amendment says jack snip about hunting or rounds.

Anyhow, gonna cut this convo short, your getting into the uniformity clause that applies to excise, duties, and imposts and not taxes as a greater subject.

Nope that is crystal clear as well.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United State

en.wikipedia.org...

Imposts Taxes or duties; taxes levied by the government on imported goods. Although impost is a generic term, which can be used in reference to all taxes, it is most frequently used interchangeably with Customs Duties.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

neo96

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

www.archives.gov...

That is rather crystal clear.

Exercise away as a person, exercise away as a religion. a corporation is not a person nor a religion,

The second amendment says jack snip about hunting or rounds.

Exactly, also says jack snip about owning nuclear bombs and earthquake machines.

Anyhow, gonna cut this convo short, your getting into the uniformity clause that applies to excise, duties, and imposts and not taxes as a greater subject.

Nope that is crystal clear as well.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United State

en.wikipedia.org...

Imposts Taxes or duties; taxes levied by the government on imported goods. Although impost is a generic term, which can be used in reference to all taxes, it is most frequently used interchangeably with Customs Duties.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

And what is your credentials in interpreting tax law and the commerce clause?
If law was crystal clear, there would be no need for lawyers. The wiki is filled with laws and cases demonstrating how the current tax structure complies with the constitution as it relates to several clauses that work in conjunction. quoting one aspect without acknowledging the broad connections of laws and amendments will only serve to lessen your understanding of the actual constitution.
Example:
Program:
this car will go forward.

Exception stated several pages down: Unless there is a detour, then turn towards the instructed area.

Now, a person only reading the first bit will demand the car only goes forward and therefore the car currently following detours is doing something illegal...that is not a objective fact though, that's just ignorance of the entire context of the program due to not reading all effected areas.

But back on the subject of this thread...

Obama gave a thumbs up for the choice on tobacco sales that CVS made...and conservatives are mad because...erm..why again?

it is completely beyond me why anyone outside of the shareholders group would give a damn about CVS pulling cigarettes from store shelves.

And like i said, the shareholders are likely to be placated by the way this media stunt is executed.

reply to post by SaturnFX

Exercise away as a person, exercise away as a religion. a corporation is not a person nor a religion,

Thats not what Obama says he says corporations are people they have to get background checks.

That is what 'closing the corporate loophole' is about.

Exactly, also says jack snip about owning nuclear bombs and earthquake machines.

Nice strawman there!

And what is your credentials in interpreting tax law and the commerce clause?

My credentials are being able to read the GD piece of paper the US constitution.

Doesn't need to be 'interpreted' because it is CLEAR as hell what it says.

f law was crystal clear, there would be no need for lawyers.

The law is crystal clear. Lawyers get paid thousands, and thousands of dollars obfuscating it. So does the Scotus btw.

Obama gave a thumbs up for the choice on tobacco sales that CVS made...and conservatives are mad because...erm..why again?

Because tobacco funds government programs, and without that revenue how do they get paid for ?

I hadn't heard anything about this until.....

dom dom dom

I went to CVS this morning to buy some smokes and the ladies there were telling me CVS wanted to become more health oriented by pulling them. This drew an automatic and very loud "HAHAHA!" out of me as I pointed to the Pharmacy right past the flu shot signs and said are you sure about that? I said I might believe that a little more when I can purchase some cannabis from here.

They laughed. I cried a little.

You mean CVS also doesn't sell Color Climax magazines either!?!?!

This is just not right!

Cigarettes are bad for people plain and simple.

I was a heavy smoker starting at 14 and continuing for many years until I decided to quit. Quitting smoking was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life... but I was able to see it through. I haven't smoked in over 10 years and have no desire to ever smoke again.

I have returned to my roots and moved back to Kentucky after retiring.... I remember growing up and seeing tobacco fields as far as the eye could see..... Now you very rarely even see a tobacco field around here.


2 fun facts:

Which state has the highest rate of cancer deaths per capita?.... Kentucky

Which state has the highest number of smokers per capita?..... Kentucky


I personally have no problem with CVS deciding not to sell cigarettes..... it's been proven that they cause lung cancer and other health related issues such as COPD, from which I now suffer.

Cigarettes contain polonium-210, originating from the decay products of radon, which stick to tobacco leaves. Heavy smoking results in a radiation dose of 160 mSv/year to localized spots at the bifurcations of segmental bronchi in the lungs from the decay of polonium-210. This dose is not readily comparable to the radiation protection limits, since the latter deal with whole body doses, while the dose from smoking is delivered to a very small portion of the body.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

reply to post by neo96


The funniest part about this, is that they probably pulled tobacco because it's not profitable in CVS. Every smoker I know, including myself, will go to the closest most convenient store, which is usually your typical gas station.

I.E.

It probably costs them money to stock those products.

reply to post by RickinVa

Cigarettes are bad for people plain and simple.

So is the US government don't see anyone trying to ban them.