George W. Bush had a drinking problem when he was younger, but he didn't use his power for anti-alcohol legislation.
I thought you can't legislate morality anyway.
Oh, I forget, LIBS can, conservatives aren't allowed.
The Z Platform
1 day ago
18 comments:
You're actually angry that Congress is limiting the amount of nicotine in cigs so that young children don't get hooked on them?
Unbelievable.
Less of a bad thing is still a bad thing, but the point is that libs seem to be immune from using political power to push their personal agendas, and that is not the purpose of the federal government.
The purpose of government is NOT to protect us from ourselves Shaw. Pray tell then why Congress, in their infinite wisdom, didn't ban them altogether??
I'll tell you why in two words.
Tax Revenue
You know about smoking I come down like this. We have those Surgeon General warnings on the packs, you can't smoke in public places. Even if I were a liberal I'd go with what more can we do? basically it's a free choice (oh I forgot, that only applies to the act of feticide).
Soapboxgod,
Why does the federal government continue to outlaw marijuana?
The government outlaws substances all the time.
Cutting back the amount of nicotine in a cig is not outlawing, but it may help new smokers NOT get hooked so heavily.
I just think that anything that deters people from smoking is a good thing.
Also, I forgot to mention that Coca Cola once contained cocaine.
When launched Coca-Cola's two key ingredients were cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) and caffeine. The cocaine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-Cola (the "K" in Kola was replaced with a "C" for marketing purposes.
Well if cutting back the amount of nicotine in a cig is not outlawing why not do the same thing with alcohol, cut back on the alcoholic content? this way you could have brandy that only gives you a mild buzz but no drunk. I say the solution is not laws but knowledge, we KNOW smoking is bad for you so the rest is up to the individual, same with drinking.
Speaking of cocaine they just found trace amounts of it in Red Bull although the company says not to worry.
"Why does the federal government continue to outlaw marijuana?"
I dunno, you'll have to take that up with them. Again, it's not the proper function of government to save us from ourselves. Rather, it is government's proper role to secure individual freedom and individual liberty. With such freedoms and liberties comes the right to engage in behavior which, in and of itself posing no threat to that of another individual, might be viewed by some as unacceptable.
What is more, be it known that in as much as government regulates and outlaws things deemed detrimental to humans, so too do they mandate by force things which have an equally deletarious effects.
And so again, it is not the proper function of government to dictate which things, having deletarious effects to humans, can and will be either mandated or regulated. Instead, the decision to engage in behavior which may or may not have deletarious effects to an individual is a decision which, in a free society, is left to the discretion of the individual themself.
Here's why those anti-smoking ads are a waste of time imo. The smoker knows smoking is not ultimately good for him but he doesn't care. Life is hard, life's a bitch so the smoker being the realistic sort knows he can die young and perhaps welcomes it. It's a philosophical thing, we're all gonna die someday anyway so let me enjoy my little habit. They say conservatives are preachy but I actually find re smoking and a couple of other things libs to be more so. It's like they can't accept your informed decision, they have to STOP you.
Libs seem to prefer that people not be informed, they'll just run your life for you and decide what is good and not good for you.
Brillant discussion! I am now in the 9th day of going cold turkey from a 3 pack a day cigarette habit..
Them pesky little liberals....
If you are on your 9th day of going cold turkey, then Obama signing that law had NOTHING to do with your giving up smoking, that was a decision you, Tao, as an INDIVIDUAL decides all by yourself to do, and you proceeded to take matters into your own hands for your own health, I congratulate you for doing so and offer to you that you prove that a person doesn't need the POTUS for people to quit the bad habit, thanks for sharing!
....I just think that anything that deters people from smoking is a good thing....
Shaw, THAT statement and many others just like it is what defines a liberal. You lead your life and let ME lead mine. If I want to smoke, drink, cuss, don't wear seat belts or helmets on my bike, and get FAT, that is MY business---NOT YOURS! Government is not supposed to be in the business of legislating behavior, unless that behavior inflicts harm to others.
Now, I know you liberals can't understand why so many of us feel that way, but maybe you can at least understand why it pisses us off so much?? Then again, maybe not.
I'm in total agreement Joe, it's the control issue that bothers us like in New York City now if you don't yield your seat on the bus to someone who's disabled or elderly you can get fined or worse I guess (haven't really had time to study that law). Now OF COURSE it's the right and moral thing to do to yield your seat in these cases but we're talking about the government getting involved and that's just plain wrong. You have the right to be a pr**k and if anything is called for it's social ostracism and not more laws.
Liberalism ceases to have any fundamental or overriding premise that serves as a compass by which the ideology concludes its decisions.
Case in point:
A woman has a right to choice with respect to her body and the reproductive process therein.
Conversely however, individuals are prohibited from exercising a right to make choices with regards to whether they wish to smoke, drink, view pornography, wear a seatbelt, et al.
Government intervention and regulation into private business is deemed wholly necessary. While again conversely, government intervention into one's email, telephone calls, or bedroom is deemed a gross abuse of power.
One might suggest a contradiction exists. I'd simply say that there are two different premises at work; one of which is inherently wrong.
I've been saying the same thing since I can remember which is why I generally don't like that pro-choice label liberals give themselves with regard to abortion, they're not too pro-choice on most other matters. I actually think the word pro-choice applies more to folks of the libertarian bent. Great insight again soapie.
The OTHER big reason I don't like the label pro-choice is simple logic and semantics. If you're not against abortion you must be for it and if you're not for it you must be against it somehow at least on a personal level. They don't like to be known as pro-abortion and yet they're not gonna be known as anti-abortion either so it's so hard to get a handle on what the damn term means. I use the term many times myself to describe the other side but it doesn't even begin to tell the whole story, it's a mental pretzel and when you quiz them on it they can't tell you what it means either.
Post a Comment