Cynical Nation

Interesting. I wish they had similar laws in Chicago. I personally think that they should go even further and outlaw smoking altogether. There are many studies that have shown that smoking is as addicting as heroin, but only heroin is illegal. Why is that?

P.S. I used to be a heavy smoker myself years ago, and I have zero sympathy for smokers.

> ...heroin is illegal. Why is that?

Don't get me started. ;-)

I DO like the interchangable use of jihad and crusade, and you do get those "diversity points.

It figures that Blue would support such "Nanny State" policies. The same kooks who claim to fear a "Religious Right Taliban" would support a veritable Liberal social-Taliban" that would require such things as bicycle helmets, seat belts, and enforce no-smoking and dietary restrictions under penalty of law.

The same dolts who don't want the government tracking international calls originating in the U.S. to suspect foreign portals, DO WANT the government to regulate to the point of micromanaging every social facet of our lives.

Me, I want to choke the "Nanny State" out of its misery, but I DO adore that "Daddy State," at least lately...or so far.

I applaud our military's ACTIONS abroad and I vehemently SUPPORT the NSA surveilance program and the Patriot Act here at home.
The U.S. military and domestic security (laws, courts and enforcement agencies) are ALL mandated by the Constitution..."to provide for the common defense",/i>....and, "to insure domestic tranquility."

Most "social controls," like the vast majority of "social spending" is not only NOT mandated by the Constitution, but runs counter to its most basic principles.

I AM a smoker, and have zero tolerance for smokers. I'm pro-ban! Not Tali-ban, but pro-ban!
JMK, are you opposed to Nanny State regs like mandated seat belts, at least for kids? How about bike helmets for kids?

Hmmm,as usual JMK gets it backward -- it is his looney wingnut right that outlaws even the mildest recreational drug.

Nicotine is nothing if not a recreational drug. It is also highly addictive, and disasterous to human health.

But smoking is traditional, so it's OK with wingnuts like JMK.

JMK doesn't believe in social programs, so anyone who gets cancer should simply writhe in agony in front of their children until they die (because people don't have a right to end their own suffering!).

This is the world of Bush and JMK. Cigarette companies lie and rake in huge profits. People suffer and die with no government help. Tobacco remains legal, but marijuana is treated like uranium and life sentances are handed out for minor possession.

JMK is all for the strip searching of all citizens, because an honest person has nothing to hide, but he is indignant at the thought of not being allowed to kill himself and others with tobacco, and on the other hand he thinks people who smoke marijuana are criminals who need incarceration in taxpayer funded jails.

No wonder the man is insane. The inconsistencies in wingnut views could not be simultaneously held by a lucid individual.

Fred, I believe the safety of a child is the parent's responsibility not the government's.

Just as it's the individual's responsibility for his/her own health decisions.

The ONLY way I can see government claiming the moral authority to control and micromanage the individual social lives of the citizenry, is if there were some way of justifying the view that government owns its citizens.

Our government was formed to be a servant, looking up at the rabble (the common people) as its master...not the reverse.

I'm as opposed to laws that take on parenting responsibilities for children, as I am to laws that seek to shield people from the effects of bad personal choices - smoking, fast-foods, etc.

The government doesn't own the American people.

The American people own their government.

Loving liberty means respecting our neighbors right to make decisions we may not like...even potentially personally disastrous ones.

For me, freedom means never having to claim to be my brother's keeper.

"....it is his (JMK's) looney wingnut right that outlaws even the mildest recreational drug."

Yet another "typo," BH?

Actually, Conservatives are split on drug laws and Libertarians (generally lumped in with Conservatives by the Neanderthal Left) universally oppose most drug laws.

Most such laws have been enacted by individual States and few "Blue States" aside from places like New Hamshire, eschew such "Mommy State" regulations.

Michael Bloomberg and Nelson Rockefeller are and were respectively, BOTH very much social Liberals....clones of Lincoln Chaffe, you could say.

The Rockefeller Drug laws have been disastrous, but they've been most ardently opposed by Libertarians and some Conservatives, NOT by "Mommy State Liberals."

After all, Heroin, Cocaine, Crack and Crank are ALL really bad for your health.

Me, I'd ratchett up the penalties for most felony crimes, including crimes against property, and institute a mandatory nationwide "three strikes" rule (three felony convictions and you're in for life) and scuttle the drug laws.

Those who could afford their habits wouldn't be hassled (they could self-destruct no problem), while those who'd rely on robbing their neighbors, etc. to feed their habits would soon be in jail for life.

I'd also keep the DUI Laws and DUI checkpoints in tact and come down hard on anyone who operate a motor vehicle while impaired.

JMK,
I have no idea why you are arguing in favor of smoking. Smoking kills. Millions of people die yearly from smoking. Cigarette companies commit, in a way, crimes by distributing an addictive substance that kills without discrimination. I think that crimes should not be allowed in any society. Dont you agree?

> JMK, I have no idea why you are arguing in favor of smoking.

He didn't. He argued in favor of adult citizens having the freedom to make their own decisions about their health and their bodies.

I think that crimes should not be allowed in any society.

Tautology. Crimes aren't allowed. That's why they're called "crimes."

adult citizens having the freedom to make their own decisions about their health and their bodies

Thats not the case here. If you distribute a highly addictive substance at young ages (as cigarette companies do), you limit the ability of people to make decisions.

Let me put it like that: Do you think that there should be police protecting the citizens from criminals? Or it should be simply left up to the citizens to "make their own decisions on whether to protect themselves from criminals by means they choose"?

Tautology. Crimes aren't allowed. That's why they're called "crimes."

Wow, you are right. I sounded like Bush!!!

Bush speaks that way because in Wingnut World there are crimes (like having a joint in your pocket) which require stiff penalties, and crimes (like breaching our national security by breaking into the United States illegally, using forged documents to obtain work illegall, and collecting benefits illegally, and other related felonies) that ARE ALLOWED ... in fact, they are ENCOURAGED!

Matching willing workers with willing employers!

Bush is far more afraid of a lack of cheap illegal labor than terrorism, this is an obvious fact.

JMK, it is not Liberals or the Democrats who are allegedly "Law and Order" traditionalists opposed to "Hippy Drugs" -- that is YOU, the Wingnut Right.

You believe in enforcing the laws, so long as it is OK with big Corporations.

"He didn't. He argued in favor adult citizens having the freedom to make their own decisions about their health and their bodies." (Barry)
"Thats not the case here. If you distribute a highly addictive substance at young ages (as cigarette companies do), you limit the ability of people to make decisions.

"Let me put it like that: Do you think that there should be police protecting the citizens from criminals? Or it should be simply left up to the citizens to "make their own decisions on whether to protect themselves from criminals by means they choose"?
NOT illegal products.

They're completely legal to sell and to purchase.

So are alcoholic beverages. The fact that some people don't tolerate alcohol or tobacco well, is immaterial in a free society.

We may restrict the use of alcohol and prescription drug meds while driving, via DUI Laws, but individuals must have the right to smoke, drink or take physical risks with their own bodies.

"We the people" have no right to even attempt to "save people from themselves."

The analogy you give is also specious as we, as free, sovereign people indeed have the right to defend ourselves and our homes from criminal thugs.

The right to self-defense is sacred and inviolate in a free society.

And yet another "typo" from BH!

The two premier defenders of the Border...are BOTH Conservative Republicans - Tom Tancredo and Patrick J Buchanan.

There are no "closed border" Democrats.

Likewise, there are few, if ANY "pro-legalization" Liberal Democrats.

That issue, as unwise as it may be in some instances, is the sole domain of Libertarians.

That darn keyboard of yours just keeps on cranking out all those typos!!!

Barry, everyone knows that in Hoboken double-parking is ok but triple-parking is a no-no. ;-)

Defeated again, JMK has to try to Rove the issue by saying I am a Liberal and a Democrat, when he knows I am a Conservative and a registered Republican.

He avoids the hypocrisy of his "Nanny State" comments with the brilliant tautology that illegal drugs are illegal, and the deadly recreational drug nicotine isn't illegal!

Guess what JMK? It is legal for the government to ban smoking! It is legal the government to tax your Ho-Hos! It is legal, so relax -- it's OK! It's legal!

Smoking is a drug and it is addictive and deadly. However, it is not mind-altering and i think that is why it remains legal. Alcohol, consumed in moderation, is supposedly also not too "mind altering".

No sane american wants kids to have access to these or any other drugs (except caffeine!). I don't think that's too Nannyish. To keep it legal, but restrict its use to such a degree (in your own house or car), is ridiculous.

Alcohol and cigarettes cause more deaths than all diseases and all illegal drug use combined. Far, far, more deaths than the "terrorists" we are supposed to give up all of our rights for to be "safe".

Alcohol is of course completely mind altering, and particularly deadly while operating a vehicle, machinery, or in Cheney's case, a shotgun.

Alcohol is strongly correlated to violent crime, spouse abuse, sexual violence, child abuse, and almost every other form of crime. Marijauna is not.

I personally don't care for marijuana, but it is hypocritical to argue that it should be illegal while alcohol should not.

This is not a discussion about why some drugs are legal and others illegal, suffice to say, alcohol can be consumed in moderation (below 1.0 the average person is not noticibly impaired), not so for other "recreational drugs."

That said, virtually ZERO Liberal Democrats support the legalization of even marijuana, while making nicotine and tobacco illegal.

Most Libertarians (often lumped in with "Conservatives" by the uninformed Left) and some Conservatives do support the legalization of recreational drugs, while maintaining strict DUI laws.

"I am a Conservative and a registered Republican..." (BH), obviously you don't know what a "Conservative" is, BH, and simply being a "registered Republican" doesn't make you one.

Link Chafee is a registered Republican and is as far from a "Conservative" as Ted Kennedy is.

Among other things, the vast majority of Conservatives support the eradication of the Estate/Death Tax, support eradicating the income tax and replacing it with a Consumption Tax, like the NRST or "Fair Tax," and support strong anti-terror laws like the Patriot Act and the NSA Surveillance program.

You support none of those things.

"Guess what JMK? It is legal for the government to ban smoking! It is legal the government to tax your Ho-Hos! It is legal, so relax -- it's OK! It's legal!"

And yet another "typo."

It is, in point of fact, ILLEGAL for government to "ban smoking," unless Congress passes a law that puts tobacco on the illicit drug index.

Local governments, like NYC's CAN'T "ban smoking," except in specific places, in the name of protecting others from the junk science-based "effects of second-hand smoke."

To "ban" all smoking, thus unilaterally making smoking illegal is beyond the purview (that's scope, to you) of our State and Local governments.

Many people in every society are self-destructive individuals. Some governments are not shackled by a Constitution as stringent and government-phobic as ours, with its government-limiting Bill of Rights. Those governments can intercede on behalf of those self-destructive people among their citizenry.

I agree with America's Founders that self-destructive people neither need, nor deserve to be "saved from themselves."

a)You are wrong. A person after even one drink is more affected than a person after one toke of marijuana, or even a whole joint, when it comes to driving. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. It slows your reflexes. Cannboids are pain killers, not nearly so powerful as those Rush Limbaugh choked down until he became deaf, lied about it, and had to get Jeb Bush to buy off Florida law enforcement to keep him out of prison.

b)Only neocons support unconstitutional programs that do not have proper congressional oversight. Conservatives do not.

c)Stop trying to Rove the issue. I said the it was legal for the government to ban smoking. Ding! Ding! 100% true. Unless you actually think that the constitution somehow explicitly protects tobacco?

that's retarded. one drink doesn't do squat. You think it's fine to drive after smoking 1 whole joint?

you can ban smoking but it's still stupid. you can get a lot of people to agree on any number of stupid things.

As to the effects of the two drugs in question, Ortho's right, BH.

For instance, smoking, by itself does not cause lung cancer.

We all have various triggering mechanisms...one person can smoke two packs a day for forty years and have neither emphysema, nor lung cancer, someone else might get lung cancer after only a couple of months exposure to smoke.

Smoking is an irritant and is very likely a major triggering mechanism for cancers in many, many people, but it does not cause cancer, it manifests it.

When I got on the FDNY almost 21 years ago, SCBA's were largley optional in many places and many "old timers," back then, only used them in project fires (fireproof buildings) and in cellar fires.

Most of us never took an air mask (SCBA) to the roof of a fire building because, "You can't cut a roof with the regulator hose hanging down," "You're outside anyway and can catch a breath as the winds change," and other such excuses.

All of us took in a fair amount of cockloft smoke and everyone I worked with has "puked into the roof cut" much more than once.

Cockloft smoke is vicious - weird colors (greens, browns, etc) and is particularly acrid and nauseating. When the roof is cut, the other firefighters on the roof have to lean into that hole and push down the ceiling of the top floor so the rooms below the cut can vent.

I know a fair amount of guys who are now dead, mostly from cancer, a lot of cancer patients and a good number of guys, like myself, who are as of yet asymptomatic.

An oncologist I spoke to a while back said, "Carcinogens themselves don't cause cancer, our genes do," meaning our predisposition to those varying triggering agents is what manifests cancer in people, not mere exposure to those agents or triggering mechanisms.

Again, it is not government's responsibility to save people from themselves.

You mean except for marijuana, right JMK? Except for abortion, right? Except for stem cell research, right? Except for assisted suicide, right? Except for dirty words on radio or TV, right?

LOL!

"For instance, smoking, by itself does not cause lung cancer.

"We all have various triggering mechanisms...one person can smoke two packs a day for forty years and have neither emphysema, nor lung cancer, someone else might get lung cancer after only a couple of months exposure to smoke.

"Smoking is an irritant and is very likely a major triggering mechanism for cancers in many, many people, but it does not cause cancer, it manifests it." (JMK)
"You mean except for marijuana, right JMK? Except for abortion, right? Except for stem cell research, right? Except for assisted suicide, right? Except for dirty words on radio or TV, right?" (BH)
NOT trained economists).

So, I'm not putting you down, just explaining to you why you're so often wrong about so many things - you simply don't seem to understand a lot of issues and that's probably due to your enirely emotional approach to most issues and that emotional approach is most likely a part of your innate make-up.

That said, I'm sure you're very proficient at your job, whatever that may be.

Just because someone doesn't understand basic economics, speculation markets, investment technicals & fundamentals, and what Conservatism is, doesn't make them "a bad person," nor dysfunctional in other areas.

I don't deal in insults and emotional rants, so I want to make clear that my assessment is NOT a pejorative, in any way.