New York City Council idiots just want to tell others how to live their lives (premium, Obama)
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 did say that Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford were decided correctly because they were decided by an appointed and confirmed body of justices.
You claimed that the judicial tyranny imposed by the justices who have allowed gay marriage is also valid for similar reasons.
That reminds Harrier, you still haven't stated whether you think that Bowers v. Hardwick was decided correctly just because a body of justices said so.
If you need a reminder, that one upheld a Texas anti-sodomy law.
Harrier thinks that it was wrongly decided.
I never once said I agreed with the decision of Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford now did I, you only assumed that because I said the judges at the time felt they ruled correctly in the name of the Constitution, which both rulings were later overturned with rulings that I approve of.
If Harrier wishes to know what I think about random court cases, Harrier should try not to go off topic in threads and simply email me or message me with those questions.
Now if Harrier could get back to the original topic of this thread, that would be greatly appreciated.
So is the NYC City Council wrong in their e-cigarette stance.
I think in the stance of wishing to ban them because it is hard to tell the difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes is a poor reason to want to ban the public use of something. I do think there should be a federal age restriction on the use of them and regulations towards their advertising of them, but I have interacted with people who use them and they do not have the same effect that cigarettes have with second hand smoke to the best of my knowledge.
I never once said I agreed with the decision of Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford now did I, you only assumed that because I said the judges at the time felt they ruled correctly in the name of the Constitution, which both rulings were later overturned with rulings that I approve of.
Yes, you did.
Harrier is unable to quote the post, but you can see your own words in post #317 of the linked thread.
The use of the "Nanny State" label is an overkill already and most people that use the term ad nauseam have no problem with industry and business not having to own up to the claims of their product and proceed to make fortunes while they go mostly unregulated. There is a lot more here than meets the eye with this smoking technology and if government did not step in and demand testing and regulation of this product OP...who would...you?
Quote:
...there are now an estimated 250 brands of e-cigarettes sold in stores and online, and virtually no federal regulations on them.
I think in the stance of wishing to ban them because it is hard to tell the difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes is a poor reason to want to ban the public use of something. I do think there should be a federal age restriction on the use of them and regulations towards their advertising of them, but I have interacted with people who use them and they do not have the same effect that cigarettes have with second hand smoke to the best of my knowledge.
The use of the "Nanny State" label is an overkill already and most people that use the term ad nauseam have no problem with industry and business not having to own up to the claims of their product and proceed to make fortunes while they go mostly unregulated. There is a lot more here than meets the eye with this smoking technology and if government did not step in and demand testing and regulation of this product OP...who would...you?
Why should the government be regulating e-cigarettes?
You nanny state liberals just want to regulate anything, with no rational reason.
It is all about control, power, and squelching of liberty.
I think in the stance of wishing to ban them because it is hard to tell the difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes is a poor reason to want to ban the public use of something. I do think there should be a federal age restriction on the use of them and regulations towards their advertising of them, but I have interacted with people who use them and they do not have the same effect that cigarettes have with second hand smoke to the best of my knowledge.
Hey, now you're making some sense!
And I was unaware that e-cigs have no age limit. Yes, there should be an age limit and I don't have a problem with some regulation as to how to market them. Though as of yet, I have not seen any ad that would be unreasonable. Their target demographic seems to be current adult smokers who wish to "take their freedom back" after having been flicked in the ashtray of society the last couple decades.
Why should the government be regulating e-cigarettes?
You nanny state liberals just want to regulate anything, with no rational reason.
It is all about control, power, and squelching of liberty.
Pathetic.
You're blathering the stale old rhetoric without addressing anything I said. More ad nauseam "liberty" talk. Too bad the big bad old nanny state intervened with the restrictions on the use of DDT...just think of all the pests that could have been killed and the audacity of them to regulate Asbestos use.
I'm all for an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, but the public has a right know the facts and without government oversight, they never would...period!
No, post 317 doesn't say I agree with either of those two cases, you clearly were confused by what I was saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
Why?
Because children shouldn't have access to nicotine products....I thought that was an easy thing to understand when suggesting that e-cigarettes should have an age restriction.
You're blathering the stale old rhetoric without addressing anything I said. More ad nauseam "liberty" talk. Too bad the big bad old nanny state intervened with the restrictions on the use of DDT...just think of all the pests that could have been killed and the audacity of them to regulate Asbestos use.
I'm all for an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, but the public has a right know the facts and without government oversight, they never would...period!
What does Rachel Carson's crusade and Silent Spring have to do with e-cigarettes?
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.
