Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Texan...my gripe, and the government/tax payers gripe is this:
-Ultimately what you do (aka "rights") becomes the problem for government/taxpayers in the form of social costs and medical. I personally don't care whether you smoke 87 packs a day. The problem I have is when you tell the government to "mind their own business" and "I have a right to do this and you can't stop me" and then get lung cancer and expect/demand the government to provide you healthcare for life (however short that is) via medicaid if you are poor, or medicare when you are over 65. You knowingly accept the risks, express your "freedom" and demand the government to stay out of it, but then depend on government/taxpayer funded health care ultimately to care for you and your behavior.
You can't have the right to smoke 87 packs a day, know the risks and ignore them, and then expect tax payers to pay for your stupidity. So which is it? And because our society has become a place where the government/tax payers are paying ultimately for your "freedom to smoke 87 packs a day", they are also creating restrictions. You can solve that problem by smoking 87 packs a day and then waiving any rights to government assistance/healthcare/services when you get lung cancer. THAT IS TRUE FREEDOM.
Currently there are laws in place to stop kids from purchasing alcohol or cigarettes and vendors selling them to minors along with hefty fines.
So please spare me the semantics because I have yet to met a five year old chain smoking vodka drinking child selling crack with a Barbie on a gold chain in Times Square.
We are talking about adults who smoke and their liberties are being taken away. What next? No farting in Times Square because it is too congested.
As a nonsmoker, it disgusts me that another nonsmoker can't just simply walk away from someone who is smoking or vice versa. I have met many smokers who simply have a ciggie outside away from nonsmokers and turn their smoke in the opposite direction. I have yet to meet a smoker who purposely blows smoke in the faces of children or adults just because they want to. To outright ban smoking outdoors when we already have it in restaurants and other enclosed public spaces reeks of Prohibition and THAT didn't last. We all know the effects of alcohol and it is our job to be RESPONSIBLE when drinking.
Bloomberg is a tyrant through and through. He needs to be removed and hopefully someone will get all ACLU on him.
By the way do you not think your tax dollars are not paying for this peice of legislation? Bloomberg is effectively shutting out millions of dollars from taxes on cigarettes if he continues his ban and at some point decides that there will be no cigarette smoking at all in NYC. These tax dollars could be used for infrastructure and saving education, but I guess that is not plausible.
This is the man who sat smug faced during the Christmas Blizzard and couldn't give a damn about anybody but his own ego. He is a dictator who is bankrupting this city I do love and flushing it down the toilet.
I haven't met any either, where are they? Where do they hang out?
I couldn't have said this better. YOu took all the words right out of my mouth.
If I could rep ya more, I'd be reppin ya all day long.
They don't exist because government restricts such behavior! If anyone understands history past the last 10 years, they would know why alcohol, for example, was banned in the early part of the 20th century, and it wasn't because people were responsible, or kids were not heavily abusing it.
Nightcrawler, if you read a book about our history, and educate yourself, you will see why restrictions on alcohol (for example) exist. Read a book.
It is arrogant for a person to demand another adult live their life according to another's belief system and personal standards. It is dangerous for a government to so in a free society.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-03-2011 at 11:39 AM..
I haven't met any either, where are they? Where do they hang out?
I couldn't have said this better. YOu took all the words right out of my mouth.
If I could rep ya more, I'd be reppin ya all day long.
Mrs X------------rocks !!!
Thank you nightcrawler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
It is arrogant for a person to demand another adult live their life according to another's belief system and personal standards. It is dangerous for a government to so in a free society.
What if this other person was supporting you and taking care of you? Is it arrogant for your mom, for example, to tell you not to smoke in her house? You have the "right" to do so...and freedom, but since she is supporting you, you either choose to abide by it or move out and pay your own way.
And that is the choice we have here. At the end of the day you are the problem of the US govt/taxpayer should you get sick, injured, etc, and as a result, your personal freedoms are only so much as the government can afford to give you. However if you choose to pay your own medical, do not require a disability check, unemployment insurance, etc, then you are free to do whatever it is you want, regardless of the govt because they are no longer responsible for you..you are responsible for yourself.
Cuz at the end of the day that is the government we have. They are providing substantial safety nets and services to the population, but they are also requiring the population to live up to their end of the bargain..and pass laws precisely for that reason because people are not.
What if this other person was supporting you and taking care of you? Is it arrogant for your mom, for example, to tell you not to smoke in her house? You have the "right" to do so...and freedom, but since she is supporting you, you either choose to abide by it or move out and pay your own way.
And that is the choice we have here. At the end of the day you are the problem of the US govt/taxpayer should you get sick, injured, etc, and as a result, your personal freedoms are only so much as the government can afford to give you. However if you choose to pay your own medical, do not require a disability check, unemployment insurance, etc, then you are free to do whatever it is you want, regardless of the govt because they are no longer responsible for you..you are responsible for yourself.
Cuz at the end of the day that is the government we have. They are providing substantial safety nets and services to the population, but they are also requiring the population to live up to their end of the bargain..and pass laws precisely for that reason because people are not.
:c rying::cry ing:
Oh The pain, the pain.................................
Because they are simply Bloomberg haters of course. Maybe the answer for all the "freedom" nuts is just to mandate that they carry insurance, that way they bear the costs for their actions and then can be as free as they want to be. Ultimately that's what it's all about..the gov't is trying to restrict heavy losses..so just mandate insurance and call it a day.
They already mandate insurance on lots of things, like driving.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
