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.
You can go off and risk your life in Afghanistan but you can't have a smoke when you get back.
Can't drink either. My thought is, old enough to vote, old enough to go get your a** shot off in some foreign country due to our foreign policy... then you're old enough to drink and smoke!
I call bull..this isn't going to save one life. It's nothing more than a feel good law. [...]
City lawmakers approved the bill — which raises from 18 to 21 the purchasing age for cigarettes, certain tobacco products and even electronic-vapor smokes
Liberals (and to a lesser extent Democrats) supposedly stand for the freedom to conduct your personal life as you see fit so long as you don't harm anyone else (e.g. abortion, gay marriage), and for curbing big business for the sake of protecting people from greedy predation and making the economy stronger (e.g. bring back Glass-Steagal), as well as a strong safety net and an array of government programs to provide for basic needs (e.g. Medicare for All). While there is a lot of variation, that is the basic pattern I recognize as liberalism/progressivism, and that is the pattern I do not see here.
What I see here is a busybody, Puritanical effort to micromanage people's personal lives and a faith that people are too stupid to make their own lifestyle choices*. NYC, allegedly a liberal bastion, has proven itself to be the home of the most rabid right-wing desires to mold people into moral good citizens using the power of the state to suppress lifestyles that differ from what is preferred by the government.
*And it isn't even consistent - apparently a 16-year-old is smart enough to choose whether to give birth or have an abortion, an 18-year-old is smart enough to drive a car and make a lifetime commitment to the military, but a 20-year-old is too stupid to choose whether to smoke or not. Smoking is peanuts compared to abortions, enlistments, and driving.
Quote:
— and another that sets minimum prices for tobacco cigarettes and steps up law enforcement on illegal tobacco sales.
"This will literally save many, many lives," said an emotional City Councilman James Gennaro, the bill's sponsor, whose mother and father died from tobacco-related illnesses. "I've lived with it, I've seen it...but I feel good today."
Illegal tobacco sales? Stepping up law enforcement? Gee, didn't they try that same strategy during the War on Drugs to stamp out marijuana and heroin? If they didn't have such monstrous taxes and age restrictions on the tobacco, there wouldn't be any black market to worry about in the first place - this law they've created will just make the problem worse.
What we see here is a manifestation of what Roderick T. Long calls the "aristocratic left", as contrasted with the "antiprivilege left" that looks like my description in the first paragraph; distinguishing between the two explains some puzzles about the American left wing, especially if you place people on a spectrum between the two as opposed to a binary choice. The liberal nanny-state policies we occasionally see on Fox News are usually a creation of the aristocratic left. In mentality and method on social issues these people are right-wing, but the pattern lifestyle they wish to impose upon the whole population is the one practiced by liberals rather than the one practiced by Christian conservatives.
Can't drink either. My thought is, old enough to vote, old enough to go get your a** shot off in some foreign country due to our foreign policy... then you're old enough to drink and smoke!
Makes sense which is why I suppose many hold other points of view.
So you won't be able to buy a pack of cigarettes at 18, but you WILL be legally allowed to buy drug paraphernalia like bongs and hash pipes. That makes so much sense!?
Well, for the most part there are. Still, we obviously need an overarching legal framework that sets certain standards to ensure that we remain the UNITED states of America rather than the Collaborating States of America.
Alas, I would like government to step out of my personal life and let me do what I want as long as I don't hurt or harm anybody else or their property.
While we are at it, how about we finally pass laws that places the responsibility of dumb decisions on the person making this decision rather than on the person or entity who owns the property on which a dumb decision was carried out?
You know, if you climb a railing and fall 20 feet down onto concrete, the responsibility should be with you, not the guy who owns the fence and didn't install a sign that says "Danger - Don't climb this fence."
Alas, we can't have that. We are a nation that looks to place responsibility for our own bad behaviors and decisions firmly with somebody else. No wonder we pass laws that take decisions away from people.
Are you sure you're a liberal, and not a libertarian? Because I find myself agreeing with just about everything you are saying here.
Oh, sure it is. That's okay with me, though. As I've said, I'm not an ideologue. I'm totally down with anything that even attempts to curb the sale of addictive poisons. Now, about this gun: real or drama-queen hyperbole?
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.
Because I find myself agreeing with just about everything you are saying here.
