Let's stick it to the smokers. (legal, highway, deaths, speech)
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.
Lets remember that Obama and Biden promised that those earning less then 250k would not see one dime of their taxes go up
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."-Obama
He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
As any pediatrician will tell you, smoking is a pediatric disease! Kids smoke, duh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by city414
puhlease, not a chance most of our food is processed many other countries do not process their foods.
look at all the chemicals put into the food we consume, to me this is a greater danger than smoking. but no one cares nor is it an issue, the second part of obesity is consumption. how your(not you actually) gonna blame a fast food chain for something you keep buying because you got fat? blame yourself, have self control.
people who sue or try to sue fast food or anything similar need a reality check go out and exercise
Ever eaten outside the US? The first statement is nonsense. The rest I agree with you on, I have posted on these "food tax" threads before.
Secondly, I smoked for over 30 years and quit many years ago. I'm not one of those "rabid quitters" who want to impose their smokelessness on others, but quite the opposite. I oppose any tax that singles out a segment of our society for taxation, with the ultimate goal of discouraging an activity. That's using the government tax whip to achieve an agenda, and government has no right in that respect. Seat belts are another example. Simply none of the federal government's business, since the government has no constitutional ground for behavior modification.
I wonder how many of your friends and family have been saved by seatbelts. I bet they would disagree.
Many people roll their eyes at seatbelts, or helmets, until it saves their life.
In the same way that people who choose to smoke and then come down with emphysema, copd, and cancer later in life turn around and think, "huh, maybe I should have done that differently" and sue the tobacco company, this wouldn't happen if the risk were regulated in the first place.
In the same way that people who choose to smoke and then come down with emphysema, copd, and cancer later in life turn around and think, "huh, maybe I should have done that differently" and sue the tobacco company, this wouldn't happen if the risk were regulated in the first place.
What, exactly, do you mean by "if the risk were regulated?"
I wonder how many of your friends and family have been saved by seatbelts. I bet they would disagree.
Many people roll their eyes at seatbelts, or helmets, until it saves their life.
In the same way that people who choose to smoke and then come down with emphysema, copd, and cancer later in life turn around and think, "huh, maybe I should have done that differently" and sue the tobacco company, this wouldn't happen if the risk were regulated in the first place.
Seatbelts are not the problem. The government is the problem. People who choose not to wear seatbelt endanger no one but themselves. Likewise re: helmets.
Smokers know the risks involved, and elect either to continue smoking or to quit. That's a conscious act, making them responsible for their own actions. When their actions damage others, then regulate the activity. Most smokers have no problem with non-smoking establishments, those mandated by ordinance or by ownership. They either abide by the rules, take their business elsewhere, or refrain from smoking while there.
Some people want others to do their thinking, thus we have those who desire a nanny state, i.e.,.... "if the risk were regulated in the first place" philosophy. Personally, more should be held responsible for their choices, and depend less on government to do their thinking.
I wonder how many of your friends and family have been saved by seatbelts. I bet they would disagree.
Many people roll their eyes at seatbelts, or helmets, until it saves their life.
In the same way that people who choose to smoke and then come down with emphysema, copd, and cancer later in life turn around and think, "huh, maybe I should have done that differently" and sue the tobacco company, this wouldn't happen if the risk were regulated in the first place.
Logical fallacy
That argument avoids the issue of self responsibility and the purpose of individual rights which is exactly the topic of this discussion. Be it good, bad, etc... the entire purpose is to support the individuals right to make that decision for themselves. The line should be drawn at that important stage and nobody should make decisions for another regardless of if it would be "better" for them or not. The entire point is the "choice" not the outcome of the choice.
The road you are arguing for is a very dangerous one. This topic mentions the need for taxes on unhealthy food, but why stop there? Your position stands on the outcome, so would it not be just as beneficial to force everyone to exercise each day, to eat a specified diet determined by those who claim to know what is the most healthy to eat and in which amounts? Should we also not legislate enforcement to remove access to various activities that also endanger ones health as well and mandate actions that are determined to be healthy?
If we are to constantly argue the point by its "possible" consequence of a choice, then I say in order to avoid those consequences, ALL choices must be removed, all freedoms must be dissolved in order to provide a more perfect balance that will improve peoples lives.
Or....
We could place responsibility where it needs to be, which is in the hands of the person who makes the choice. That way, each person is held to the choices they make and they each pay for their own choices.
In short, people should get their noses out of others businesses, stop trying to tell everyone else how to live and stop using the government as their own personal thug to oppress the will of others.
That argument avoids the issue of self responsibility and the purpose of individual rights which is exactly the topic of this discussion. Be it good, bad, etc... the entire purpose is to support the individuals right to make that decision for themselves. The line should be drawn at that important stage and nobody should make decisions for another regardless of if it would be "better" for them or not. The entire point is the "choice" not the outcome of the choice.
The road you are arguing for is a very dangerous one. This topic mentions the need for taxes on unhealthy food, but why stop there? Your position stands on the outcome, so would it not be just as beneficial to force everyone to exercise each day, to eat a specified diet determined by those who claim to know what is the most healthy to eat and in which amounts? Should we also not legislate enforcement to remove access to various activities that also endanger ones health as well and mandate actions that are determined to be healthy?
If we are to constantly argue the point by its "possible" consequence of a choice, then I say in order to avoid those consequences, ALL choices must be removed, all freedoms must be dissolved in order to provide a more perfect balance that will improve peoples lives.
Or....
We could place responsibility where it needs to be, which is in the hands of the person who makes the choice. That way, each person is held to the choices they make and they each pay for their own choices.
In short, people should get their noses out of others businesses, stop trying to tell everyone else how to live and stop using the government as their own personal thug to oppress the will of others.
First of all, "tongue-in-cheek" doesn't carry through the keyboard
Quote:
I oppose any tax that singles out a segment of our society for taxation, with the ultimate goal of discouraging an activity. That's using the government tax whip to achieve an agenda, and government has no right in that respect. Seat belts are another example. Simply none of the federal government's business, since the government has no constitutional ground for behavior modification.
I'm calling for a wholesale replacement of Congress next year. We need to let them know that they're doing a crappy job of representing us and they're losing their jobs as a result. The Federal government has gone completely haywire and we need to remind them who the boss is.
I'm calling for a wholesale replacement of Congress next year. We need to let them know that they're doing a crappy job of representing us and they're losing their jobs as a result. The Federal government has gone completely haywire and we need to remind them who the boss is.
I'm ready and will lead the charge!!
We should have had term limits decades ago, then we wouldn't have had congressmen serving for decade after decade. Byrd comes to mind.
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.
many other countries do not process their foods.
