Wow dude, moving goalposts much? The OP didn't leave a whole lot of room for discussion (you called for a total ban on smoking in your second post, to be fair)
What? No I didn't. All I said was "I actually think an all out ban would be generally be workable". That's just musing my opinion on whether it could be actually enforced and effective...but as that was only half a thought....I continued with the secondary part that made me realize that jail punishment and such was inevitably to be a part of the deterrence so it wouldn't be fair. Ok. I guess I have a bad habit of typing posts like a real discussion. It's an honest way of expressing how my mind is thinking and not posting concluded treatises of already established creeds of mine.
Still of course it's worth discussing. It's a new legislative area of power being handed to the States and how they are going to use it and the ethics behind it are certainly going to be discussed with each action they come up with. Anything we hash out is bound to be a foreshadowing of the upcoming arguments.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
Wow dude, moving goalposts much? The OP didn't leave a whole lot of room for discussion (you called for a total ban on smoking in your second post, to be fair)
What? No I didn't. All I said was "I actually think an all out ban would be generally be workable". That's just musing my opinion on whether it could be actually enforced and effective...but as that was only half a thought....I continued with the secondary part that made me realize that jail punishment and such was inevitably to be a part of the deterrence so it wouldn't be fair. Ok. I guess I have a bad habit of typing posts like a real discussion. It's an honest way of expressing how my mind is thinking and not posting concluded treatises of already established creeds of mine.
Still of course it's worth discussing. It's a new legislative area of power being handed to the States and how they are going to use it and the ethics behind it are certainly going to be discussed with each action they come up with. Anything we hash out is bound to be a foreshadowing of the upcoming arguments.
Whatever dude... the actions taken to limit the use of (legal) tobacco (PSA's, bans on advertising, bans on public smoking, limitations on who can purchase cigarettes, education, etc.) has been FAR more effective at reducing smoking/chewing than the criminalization of other drugs. It would be far more effective and far cheaper to simply increase funding of efforts to reduce smoking than to ban or criminalize tobacco and launch into another futile war on drugs (and watch as criminal organizations become even wealthier as a result).
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
Well like you said...we generally agree..I'm totally with you on your last post. But realistically, it's going to be posited as options and it's wise to get a handle on where the talk will lead. That's all I'm saying. Unless you're holding a stronger personal view that regulation and control over possession and usage of smoking should be less under the control of government and more the right of the individual person to decide...then we'd disagree....I think the government has to be able to draw SOME major hard lines and the outlawing of all public spaces, the recent law banning a person from smoking in their car with a minor present, are all reasonable health-related actions that I think are appropriate.
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
Justforfun000 wrote:Well like you said...we generally agree..I'm totally with you on your last post. But realistically, it's going to be posited as options and it's wise to get a handle on where the talk will lead. That's all I'm saying. Unless you're holding a stronger personal view that regulation and control over possession and usage of smoking should be less under the control of government and more the right of the individual person to decide...then we'd disagree....I think the government has to be able to draw SOME major hard lines and the outlawing of all public spaces, the recent law banning a person from smoking in their car with a minor present, are all reasonable health-related actions that I think are appropriate.
There is a difference between banning or criminalizing all tobacco products, and discouraging their use by disallowing advertising, use in public locations (include privately owned businesses), and public awareness campaigns telling people not to smoke. The former, while clearly legal in the United States, also has numerous examples to demonstrate why it is a terrible, terrible idea, while the latter is perfectly acceptable, legal, and as almost no negative consequences.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
I'm actually amazed at the amount of people on this board that WOULD support an ultimate ban. It was my initial thought as an eventual great idea...but I tend to agree with STW at this junture...
You have to realize that most Christian "moral values" behaviour is not really about "protecting" anyone; it's about their desire to send a continual stream of messages of condemnation towards people whose existence offends them. - Darth Wong alias Mike Wong
"There is nothing wrong with being ignorant. However, there is something very wrong with not choosing to exchange ignorance for knowledge when the opportunity presents itself."
