Tobacco Legislation: Big Companies Benefit Most - Obama Promises to Sign

[TheStatutoryApe]

And just on general principle I think it's wrong to approve legislation that is based on false pretenses. It encourages politicians to lie to the public. I also think it is wrong to force people to behave in a certain manner that one thinks is proper, regardless of how harmful their behaviour is to themselves. I'd rather smoke myself into oblivion than live in a country with that kind of heavy-handed kindness. It'll backfire anyway, because governments that lie and a public that doesn't think freedom is about choice is just buttering the slide.

I do not believe that the legislation is based on false pretenses. Yes they seem to be using the teen smoking issue to press it and make it unpopular to vote against. They have also made concessions to ease its passing. I do think though that the over all intent of the bill is to limit and eventually phase out tobacco sales and use. Congress, and apparently the president, seem to have decided that the unsavoury aspects of the bill are outweighed by the big step toward their eventual goal.

 

[Tibarn]

What would Thomas Jefferson, or Einstein, or Bertrand Russel have said if you spoke to them the line above?

Since we're appealing to authority, let's get a king's word on the subject: "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/index.html"

Back on topic, smoking is already going into decline. The potential dangers of smoking are widely known and hammered into children's heads over a full decade before they're legally able to buy a pack of cigarettes. In some places a pack of cigarettes costs as much as three gallons of gasoline, making smoking quite the expensive habit. If actual number of smokers hasn't changed much, they form a smaller segment of the population, and nonsmokers are getting more assertive. Never mind the myriad of laws passed in the last few years banning smoking in various places open to the public.

That said, smokers have their rights and the odds of getting cancer from occasionally coming across a smoker in the street are practically nil. I agree with the original poster that this new legislation smacks of favoritism to the big tobacco companies. Good old crony capitalism in the guise of saving the children.

 

[Huckleberry]

I do not believe that the legislation is based on false pretenses. Yes they seem to be using the teen smoking issue to press it and make it unpopular to vote against. They have also made concessions to ease its passing. I do think though that the over all intent of the bill is to limit and eventually phase out tobacco sales and use. Congress, and apparently the president, seem to have decided that the unsavoury aspects of the bill are outweighed by the big step toward their eventual goal.

I think they are false pretenses because they do not clearly state that objective, and the given reasons are intended to manipulate the public to accept the bill. They can put all the facts they want after a misleading premise and it is still a deception. If it wasn't for this I would have much less problem with the bill, though I don't think I will ever appreciate being treated like a child even if I deserve it. They are expecting people to react on their prejudice rather than on their reason. It rubs me the wrong way.

I do like democracy. I think it's the best form of government man has managed to come up with so far. I probably just have more desire for individual freedom than most. I'd rather deal with individuals doing things that are unpleasant to me personally than I would to have society curb individual behaviour that isn't outright criminal. I enjoy a wide range of acceptable behaviour for people to express themselves even if those boundaries overlap just a little. (imo) Intervention of government on individual affairs should only be when necessary, and it seems to me that lawmakers make new laws just to keep themselves in a job. People will always have to deal with each other on an individual level.

I'd also like to apologize to Chi Meson. If I caused you any anxiety it wasn't my intent. For much the same reason on my views on democracy I prefer people to be blatantly honest with their thoughts, even if they are unpopular or foolish (not that yours are either). For people who don't know me well it can appear a little brusque and tactless and overzealous. Eh, I'm workin' on it... slowly, just or the sake of successful communication. I do respect you even though I'm not wild about some of your opinions. You're a good guy, and I always appreciate when people are passionate about their beliefs.

 

[Kurdt]

It requires larger more aggressive warning labels on the packaging(think England).

You missed our snazzy http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bSX7cb9Xreh1/610x.jpg" .