Revel to allow Smoking starting Valentines Day-Staff
Quote: SOOPOOI HATE cigarettes. It is a disgusting, filthy habit, one that took my mother's life. That being said, I believe in individual choices, and government getting in the way as little as possible. If the market is not willing to support a smoke free casino, then there shouldn't be one. Going into a casino is not one of those inalienable rights we have. If the owner of a casino wants to allow smoking, as long as there is no deception, let the casino do so. Certain public places that will REQUIRE my presence, such as a DMV, a courthouse, etc... those I would be in favor of a smoking ban.
So are you for individual choices without limits? Would you like to see your city's streets dotted with crackhouses and opium dens? Whorehouses next to schools? How would you like it if every restaurant had zero health inspections or safe practice requirements? What if supermarkets could shut off the fridges at night to save some money? You're not required to go into any of these places, but we are living in a civilization. If you let the "free market" decide everything, you allow a small minority to exploit the public good.
And if you do disagree with any of the above scenarios, then you do support limits on individual choice. Then you're just arguing that smoking is not as bad as spoiled food or drug use. I would say it's just as bad.
Quote: NareedI would be curious to know if you've asked at any casino, tried to pressure some casino, gotten together with other people to presuade several casinos, etc, etc.
Goodness, no! Why do that when the state governments are sitting right there ready to be manipulated? ;-)
Quote: SOOPOOIf the market is not willing to support a smoke free casino, then there shouldn't be one. Going into a casino is not one of those inalienable rights we have. If the owner of a casino wants to allow smoking, as long as there is no deception, let the casino do so. Certain public places that will REQUIRE my presence, such as a DMV, a courthouse, etc... those I would be in favor of a smoking ban.
BINGO!!!!
Quote: sodawaterSo are you for individual choices without limits? Would you like to see your city's streets dotted with crackhouses and opium dens? Whorehouses next to schools? How would you like it if every restaurant had zero health inspections or safe practice requirements? What if supermarkets could shut off the fridges at night to save some money? You're not required to go into any of these places, but we are living in a civilization. If you let the "free market" decide everything, you allow a small minority to exploit the public good.
And if you do disagree with any of the above scenarios, then you do support limits on individual choice. Then you're just arguing that smoking is not as bad as spoiled food or drug use. I would say it's just as bad.
These are all bad arguments. Everybody knows kids don't have any money, why would you build your brothel next door to a school?
Seriously though, why would those greedy supermarket owners turn off the fridges at night and let the food they invested all that money in spoil? That doesn't even begin to make sense. And what about freedom allows a 'small minority to exploit the public good'? You are thinking of government. The government model says that a few sociopaths get to make all the rules and if you don't like it the cops will come after you, oh and you get to pay for it through taxes. The free market model holds that individuals decide whom to support. And just who are these capitalist elites screwing us all? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sheldon Adelson, Warren Buffet? How have any of these men imposed anything on you against your will? Obama, Pelosi, Boehner, et all take as much of your money as they want directly out of your paycheck and demand you pledge your allegiance to them as they continue to kill innocent people in the middle east with drone strikes. Which one of these groups of people should we be afraid of?
Quote: rainmanTo do business with the public your required to meet standards to keep the public safe. Stairs can't be to steep,handrails must be at the right height ,sprinklers in case of fire, the water must be safe for drinking. etc...etc..etc. I'm thinking maybe it wouldn't be a stretch to throw air quality in there.
This argument begs the question. The government requires A, B, and C, therefore the government can require D. No one has addressed my point that you are literally using threats of violence to get your way here. This is a mafia tactic, it is completeley immoral.
Quote: bigfoot66This argument begs the question. The government requires A, B, and C, therefore the government can require D. No one has addressed my point that you are literally using threats of violence to get your way here. This is a mafia tactic, it is completeley immoral.
Literal violence?
Quote: bigfoot66No one has addressed my point that you are literally using threats of violence to get your way here.
When smoking was banned in restaurants was there a surge in violence?
Quote: SOOPOOI HATE cigarettes. It is a disgusting, filthy habit, one that took my mother's life. .
My dad was born in 1914 and was in WWII in the Navy.
He smoked 4 packs a day (FOUR packs!) for 40 years
and quit cold turkey at 60 and lived to his 80's.
But he's the exception. I know at least half a dozen
men who died in their 40's and 50's from smoking,
and I don't know all that many people. And none
of them smoked anywhere near 4 packs a day. Cig's
were cheap when I was a kid, $1.99 a carton and
in the early 70's they were maybe $3.50. My dad
would take 2 packs with him to work and be out
when he got home. He always had one going.
Both my parents smoked, all my friends parents
smoked. Did it hurt us? Who knows.
Quote: bigfoot66This argument begs the question. The government requires A, B, and C, therefore the government can require D. No one has addressed my point that you are literally using threats of violence to get your way here. This is a mafia tactic, it is completeley immoral.
It's completely immoral to rely on the government to impose business regulations to protect the public safety? I don't really see that. I don't even recall the Wizard mentioning holding a gun to someone's head or threatening violence of any sort. Where did that come from?
Quote: iluvdisco33
People who smoke don't even deserve the time of day on any forum but cancer-is-us. I cheer whenever I hear that a smoker has been reduced to rubble in horrific pain from the horrors of cancer. THAT is what we need more of today so our children and their children can get some sense shocked into them.
Wow!
That's some animosity. Granted, I smoke a good deal less than many other smokers...but my Lord, if I had $5.00 just for being in better physical shape and (overall) likely to live longer than some non-smokers, I'd be loaded...probably just on obese non-smokers vs. me alone.
Quote: bigfoot66This argument begs the question. The government requires A, B, and C, therefore the government can require D. No one has addressed my point that you are literally using threats of violence to get your way here. This is a mafia tactic, it is completeley immoral.
Violence? I don't know about any violence. Every industry is required to provide a safe working environment for its employees. Would you consider a cigarette smoke filled casino a safe working environment? Businesses and individuals do have freedom and choice, However when their choice is to spew toxins in the air that effect other people they might need a little regulation. :}
Quote: DocIt's completely immoral to rely on the government to impose business regulations to protect the public safety? I don't really see that. I don't even recall the Wizard mentioning holding a gun to someone's head or threatening violence of any sort. Where did that come from?
C'mon Doc, didn't you take Polical Theory 101 at Davidson? The definition of government is "an organization that claims the monopoly on the right to initiate force in a geographical area". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence Violence is the only tool at the governments disposal. This guy agrees, and he should know http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ (see the statement in context here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ilSNa0Cgs).
So when you pass a law against smoking in a casino, you are saying that if I open a casino that allows smoking, you will send uniformed armed strong men called police to stop it by force, and they may well throw me in jail. Yes, this is a violent action.
Quote: sodawaterthe thing about freedom is that exercising "freedom" can't impinge on others' freedoms. and everyone should have the freedom to breathe clean air. smoking impinges on that because the smoke goes into everyone's lungs, not just the smoker's. that's not right. even if smokers would like the freedom to smoke, that cannot supersede others' right to a clean environment.
Yes, and any business that allows smoking (in a jurisdiction in which such is legal) certainly can exercise their, "Freedom," as Revel is doing, by not allowing smoking. If the business chooses not to do that, then you may exercise your freedom by not going to that establishment, as a smoker may exercise his/her freedom by going to only the establishments that allow smoking.
In my opinion, (and again, I understand why NSers would vote in favor of such bans) the only rights truly being impinged on by such Legislations are those of the business owner.
yes well putQuote: Mission146Yes, and any business that allows smoking (in a jurisdiction in which such is legal) certainly can exercise their, "Freedom," as Revel is doing, by not allowing smoking. If the business chooses not to do that, then you may exercise your freedom by not going to that establishment, as a smoker may exercise his/her freedom by going to only the establishments that allow smoking.
In my opinion, (and again, I understand why NSers would vote in favor of such bans) the only rights truly being impinged on by such Legislations are those of the business owner.
Quote: bigfoot66C'mon Doc, didn't you take Polical Theory 101 at Davidson?
No.
Quote: bigfoot66Violence is the only tool at the governments disposal. ...
So when you pass a law against smoking in a casino, you are saying that if I open a casino that allows smoking, you will send uniformed armed strong men called police to stop it by force, and they may well throw me in jail. Yes, this is a violent action.
I don't really remember any government agency or employee treating me violently in my entire life. Guess we must have had very different life experiences.
Of course, if you believe that the only government tool is violence and that every action the government takes in performing its role is a violent act, then you are probably quite used to it by now, and a little bit more to protect the health and safety of the rest of the citizenry probably won't cause you any harm beyond what you already expect in your everyday life.
I think that governmental violence is generally encountered when people will not conform to the expectations of our society unless they are absolutely forced to.
Quote: Mission146
In my opinion, (and again, I understand why NSers would vote in favor of such bans) the only rights truly being impinged on by such Legislations are those of the business owner.
Someone that understands! When a smoking ban passes and people say "The government took away my rights because I cannot smoke in that bar anymore" they completely miss the point. It was the business owner's rights that got trampled because the general public does not have an open ended right to access private property nor an obligation to go there. Smokers never had the right to smoke there, they had the privilege, just as non smokers don't have the right to go in someone's property and demand everyone conform to their beliefs.
The business owner can say at any time "No smoking in here" and they are the judge and jury or they can throw you out for any reason. You don't have rights on other people's property. All rights belong to the land and business owners. This is the point that seems to be missed.
You also don't have the right to work there. You are free to go work somewhere else if you do not like the working conditions. Tens of millions of people have far more dangerous jobs than dealing blackjack to someone smoking.
With that said, I am all for seeing this experiment Revel failed with done by someone competent. That would settle the argument once and for all. This may have set the smoke free Las Vegas lobbyists back five years. Now everyone is going to point to Revel and say "It already failed there" while ignoring all of their other errors.
Quote: bigfoot66This argument begs the question. The government requires A, B, and C, therefore the government can require D. No one has addressed my point that you are literally using threats of violence to get your way here. This is a mafia tactic, it is completeley immoral.
I disagree. The coersion you decry, yet which is an inherent and necessary aspect of any society driven by rule of law, is amoral. Alternately, if you believe all laws are immoral as an unacceptable impingement of individual freedom, then you need to leave this society and go to one where there is no coercive government. No such government exists, of course, though you may be able to find anarchist enclaves here or there, or go live in such a remote location that you never encounter other people.
It is not inconsistent with the desire to preserve individual freedom for people to collectively agree on restrictions thereof for their mutual benefit. That's what a law is. Neither is it subsequently inconsistent for those same people to set forth an enforcement mechanism based on coercive force. We all agree to the coercion so there is nothing immoral about it.
But if the premise behind law-giving is not immoral, and the inherently consequent enforcement is not immoral, then your objection must be specifically addressed toward the subject matter of smoking bans. However, any philosophy that allows for the reduction of individual freedoms in exchange for mutually-agreed benefits must necessarily admit that what is mutually-agreed may change over time. In other words, the Public Good is not static, and laws should (and must) keep up with the times. Consider marijuana legalization, for example, even as states enact more smoking bans.
If anything, the legislative process in this country is too inertial and based on the ridiculous premise that the status quo is a good place to start, but that's a critique for another time. (Consider what would happen if all laws had expiration dates, even the Constitution...)
Quote: WizardDo you also oppose smoking bans in restaurants?
Yes, I would oppose those bans. If the restaurant felt that they would sell more meals by allowing smoking, then I would not frequent that restaurant. Let the free market decide. As long as the restaurant owner was allowed to prohibit smoking, i would leave it up to each individual business owner to decide.
Quote: Doc
I don't really remember any government agency or employee treating me violently in my entire life. Guess we must have had very different life experiences.
Of course, if you believe that the only government tool is violence and that every action the government takes in performing its role is a violent act, then you are probably quite used to it by now, and a little bit more to protect the health and safety of the rest of the citizenry probably won't cause you any harm beyond what you already expect in your everyday life.
Try not paying their taxes or violating any of their other rules and you will see the violence firsthand. If a mugger points a gun at you at demands your wallet, you hand it to him, and he leaves, do you consider this a violent interaction? This is your same interaction with government. Virtually every letter I have ever recieved from a govt agency included a list of penalties for not complying, this is a threat.
Your second point is an excellent one, this is what Hayek called "The Road to Serfdom". The bottom line is that the first piece of legislation causes unforeseen problems that requires another piece of legislation that causes further unintended consequences and so on. The truth of the matter is that a smoking ban on the margin might actually make my personal life a little better. If you stole $100 from my neighbor and gave it to me that would also make my life marginally better, but I would not approve of the behavior.
Quote: SOOPOOYes, I would oppose those bans. If the restaurant felt that they would sell more meals by allowing smoking, then I would not frequent that restaurant. Let the free market decide. As long as the restaurant owner was allowed to prohibit smoking, i would leave it up to each individual business owner to decide.
How do you distinguish between a smoking ban, an alcohol ban, and an opium ban? Do you believe opium dens should be re-legalized so the free market can decide?
Quote: DocAnd perhaps you think there would be less violence in our daily lives if we had no government? I always have visualized anarchy as being filled with violent acts.
I think that governmental violence is generally encountered when people will not conform to the expectations of our society unless they are absolutely forced to.
Well governments have killed at least 100 million of people since 1900 with their wars and their other evil, rotten policies. If you are an upper middle class white guy in North Carolina or Orange County, CA it is probably true that you have little to worry about. but what if you are one of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed in the 90's by United States trade sanctions? What did they do wrong besides being born a slave to that madman Saddam Hussein? Here is Madeline Albright defending the killing of the children as it was necessary to punish Saddam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
No, the Nation State is the chief source of violence. We need a new way to regulate the actions of man, the nation state model is thousands of years old and everybody knows that politicians are sociopaths and the government is corrupt and inefficent.
Quote: sodawaterFor what it's worth, I spent all of last weekend in the Revel, and I asked at least 10 employees about this rumor.
Every one of them said the same thing: There have been discussions about building a smoking section in an enclosed room or rooms, but not on the main casino floor as it exists currently. Which is good news for all of us that hate smoke.
How come I get no credit for this - since I stated it way back on page 2 of this thread
Quote: MathExtremistHow do you distinguish between a smoking ban, an alcohol ban, and an opium ban? Do you believe opium dens should be re-legalized so the free market can decide?
The ban on alcohol didn't work out so well. The resources we have used (wasted?) in the 'war on drugs' has not worked out so well.
I am not an anarchist. But I can see drugs being regulated just like alcohol. Legal, but no driving while impaired.
The biggest joke.... it is illegal to commit suicide....
Quote: aceofspadesHow come I get no credit for this - since I stated it way back on page 2 of this thread
I gave you credit. I said that your rumor made more sense.
Quote: bigfoot66We need a new way to regulate the actions of man.
"Nothing is new under the sun" - King Solomon
Yet... A new way is coming soon. I don't have the intelligence to describe what it is but here's a hint: The Jews were right.
Quote: MathExtremistI disagree. The coersion you decry, yet which is an inherent and necessary aspect of any society driven by rule of law, is amoral. Alternately, if you believe all laws are immoral as an unacceptable impingement of individual freedom, then you need to leave this society and go to one where there is no coercive government.
"If you don't like 'Merica, then why don't you geeeeeeet out!"
Quote: MathExtremistNo such government exists, of course, though you may be able to find anarchist enclaves here or there, or go live in such a remote location that you never encounter other people.
It is not inconsistent with the desire to preserve individual freedom for people to collectively agree on restrictions thereof for their mutual benefit. That's what a law is. Neither is it subsequently inconsistent for those same people to set forth an enforcement mechanism based on coercive force. We all agree to the coercion so there is nothing immoral about it.
How it is impossible for someone to agree to be forced to do something? That is not how the US govt works, regardless. They take a 250 year old document and claim to get power over me from it, even though they regularly violate its provisions. By your argument suggests I assume you support secessionist movements and agree with me that the southern states should have been allowed to peacefully leave the union?
The fact that people who are subjected to 12 years of government propaganda at public schools come to support the same institution is beside the point. No matter what everyone else thinks, it is completely immoral for you to kidnap and jail my friends because they smoke pot. There is no way to paper over this moral outrage.
Quote: MathExtremist
But if the premise behind law-giving is not immoral, and the inherently consequent enforcement is not immoral, then your objection must be specifically addressed toward the subject matter of smoking bans. However, any philosophy that allows for the reduction of individual freedoms in exchange for mutually-agreed benefits must necessarily admit that what is mutually-agreed may change over time. In other words, the Public Good is not static, and laws should (and must) keep up with the times. Consider marijuana legalization, for example, even as states enact more smoking bans.
If anything, the legislative process in this country is too inertial and based on the ridiculous premise that the status quo is a good place to start, but that's a critique for another time. (Consider what would happen if all laws had expiration dates, even the Constitution...)
The bottom line is that you who want to use violence to shape society carry the burden of proof, not me. You want to form/maintain a leviathan government that claims first dibs on my paycheck and claims the right to draft me to fight in their army to defend their rotten politicians. I claim this is wrong and that all human interaction should be voluntary/
Quote: RogerKint"Nothing is new under the sun" - King Solomon
Yet... A new way is coming soon and I don't have the intelligence to describe what it is but here's a hint: The Jews were right.
The Manna Machine?
Quote: BhappyI gave you credit. I said that your rumor made more sense.
I was kidding - I was trying to come across as a petulant child...I suppose that does not translate well on here
Quote: bigfoot66No, the Nation State is the chief source of violence. We need a new way to regulate the actions of man, the nation state model is thousands of years old and everybody knows that politicians are sociopaths and the government is corrupt and inefficent.
Aside from what "everybody knows," what is your proposal for the new way to regulate the actions of man -- and why would it be *more* legitimate than a mutually-agreed-upon set of rules?
Quote: MathExtremistHow do you distinguish between a smoking ban, an alcohol ban, and an opium ban? Do you believe opium dens should be re-legalized so the free market can decide?
The government cannot even keep drugs out of prison. If you don't like opium then don't smoke opium. What gives you the right to cage a person whose drug of choice is different than yours?
Quote: MathExtremistAside from what "everybody knows," what is your proposal for the new way to regulate the actions of man -- and why would it be *more* legitimate than a mutually-agreed-upon set of rules?
I do propose that we have a mutually agreed upon set of rules/laws. Very simple, It is wrong to initiate force against another person or his property. The government rules are not mutually agreed upon, they are imposed on people against their will. This is why the police carry guns, in case you decide not to follow their rules. Of course I am ok with imprisoning rapist/murders/theives etc. I do have ideas about better ways to organize society, if you are interested try The Market For Liberty, it is available for free at http://book.freekeene.com
Quote: bigfoot66The government cannot even keep drugs out of prison. If you don't like opium then don't smoke opium. What gives you the right to cage a person whose drug of choice is different than yours?
+1
Quote: MathExtremistHow do you distinguish between a smoking ban, an alcohol ban, and an opium ban? Do you believe opium dens should be re-legalized so the free market can decide?
Opium is not a legal substance. That makes it very easy to distinguish between the three.
Quote: PokeraddictOpium is not a legal substance. That makes it very easy to distinguish between the three.
That reminds me of a problem that may be exacerbated by the new marijuanna legalization laws.
For instance: Adjoining neighbors. Both like to leave their windows open. One neighbor has young kids; the other neighbor blows weed smoke out his window which of course enters kids room in neighbor's house.
Both think they have rights here.
(people have these battles over cigarette smoke -- can't wait for the future with doobie smoke)
Quote: bigfoot66I do propose that we have a mutually agreed upon set of rules/laws. Very simple, It is wrong to initiate force against another person or his property. The government rules are not mutually agreed upon, they are imposed on people against their will. This is why the police carry guns, in case you decide not to follow their rules. Of course I am ok with imprisoning rapist/murders/theives etc. I do have ideas about better ways to organize society, if you are interested try The Market For Liberty, it is available for free at http://book.freekeene.com
I don't think you've thought this through fully. Anarcho-capitalism is unsustainable even if you started with an immediate coercive wealth-redistribution to level the playing field (which, ironically, runs counter to the premise of anarcho-capitalism in the first place).
Without checks and balances (that is, coercive regulation) on private enterprises, power in an anarcho-capitalist society would centralize. Capital wants to preserve itself and reproduce, just like genetic material does, and without adequate competition you'd end up with a government-like corporate entity but, instead of the one we have now which is "for the People", would be "for the Shareholders." So you'd have just as much coercion but, unlike now, absolutely no redress.
Quote: MathExtremistI don't think you've thought this through fully. Anarcho-capitalism is unsustainable even if you started with an immediate coercive wealth-redistribution to level the playing field (which, ironically, runs counter to the premise of anarcho-capitalism in the first place).
Without checks and balances (that is, coercive regulation) on private enterprises, power in an anarcho-capitalist society would centralize. Capital wants to preserve itself and reproduce, just like genetic material does, and without adequate competition you'd end up with a government-like corporate entity but, instead of the one we have now which is "for the People", would be "for the Shareholders." So you'd have just as much coercion but, unlike now, absolutely no redress.
I don't have the time to properly address this now but I think you have this backwards, power centralizes under the state. Under the free market once great companies like gm (but for the bailout), hostess, etc come and go at the whim of consumers. More importantly, it seems that your chief fear of a free society is that....a government will evolve. This is a possibility I guess. The important thing is that people would have to come to know and understand the non aggression principle. I have been aggressive with you here but I am
Enjoying the engaging discussion, your opinion is shared by many more people than mine and it would be easy for you to just call me crazy and write me off.
Quote: MathExtremistHow do you distinguish between a smoking ban, an alcohol ban, and an opium ban? Do you believe opium dens should be re-legalized so the free market can decide?
mmmmmmm, opium dens. I can dream.
Quote: EvenBobIts amazing, isn't it. They've known cig's cause
cancer since the 40's, yet they are still sold. Its
the tobacco lobby, they are that powerful.
Remember Saccharin? The gov't banned it in
the 70's because it 'might' cause cancer. When
it was proven it didn't 30 years later, they dropped
the ban.
There was no Saccharin lobby to protect it. We know
for a FACT that smoking kills people and its sold in
every store. It boggles the mind.
I remember one baseball player dying from ephedrine use, and within a couple months Sudafed is whisked off the market, or at least put behind the counter where now we have to sign a paper with our DL# just to get that cold medicine. The Sudafed out on the floor isn't the same active ingredient. Ridiculous that one ball player can alter the law like that, yet cigarettes are still legal when they're documented to kill 500,000 people annually in the USA alone. If I believed in god, I wish the hand of god would come down and magically fix all the injustices of the world like apartheid, cigarettes and Honey Boo-Boo being a celebrity.
Quote: iluvdisco33You can't argue with potheads.
I haven't smoked pot in years Mr Singer.
Quote: WizardWe should be paying smokers to smoke, not taxing them, because they will die sooner and collect Social Security and Medicare for a shorter time.
I agree but they should all be put into a room together with no ventilation, so they can inhale each other's second hand smoke...
Quote: allinriverkingI agree but they should all be put into a room together with no ventilation, so they can inhale each other's second hand smoke...
But that's part of the allure. Smokers go outside to smoke together, and it's not just the camaraderie, it's the intimacy of exhaling and breathing in someone's else's exhales, especially if it's someone you're attracted to. Like innocently sharing a drink and sucking on an opposite sex's straw.
Quote: PokeraddictSomeone that understands! When a smoking ban passes and people say "The government took away my rights because I cannot smoke in that bar anymore" they completely miss the point. It was the business owner's rights that got trampled because the general public does not have an open ended right to access private property nor an obligation to go there. Smokers never had the right to smoke there, they had the privilege, just as non smokers don't have the right to go in someone's property and demand everyone conform to their beliefs.
The business owner can say at any time "No smoking in here" and they are the judge and jury or they can throw you out for any reason. You don't have rights on other people's property. All rights belong to the land and business owners. This is the point that seems to be missed.
You also don't have the right to work there. You are free to go work somewhere else if you do not like the working conditions. Tens of millions of people have far more dangerous jobs than dealing blackjack to someone smoking.
With that said, I am all for seeing this experiment Revel failed with done by someone competent. That would settle the argument once and for all. This may have set the smoke free Las Vegas lobbyists back five years. Now everyone is going to point to Revel and say "It already failed there" while ignoring all of their other errors.
Where is it legal to poison people? Companies that have contaminated land, air and water while conducting business are held accountable for the cleanup costs and any fallout their poisons have caused. I can't eat french fries cooked in trans-fatty oils anymore. Those were the crispiest and tastiest fries I have ever eaten. Why? Because the government says so... Those fries would only cause harm to me, not to the people sitting next to me. But, someone can spew toxins into the air via smoking, of which causes me harm. Oh wait I have to make the choice of being somewhere, the person not causing harm to others. But the one who is causing harm to others has more rights. In what other situation does the assailant have more rights?
Quote: zippyboyyet cigarettes are still legal when they're documented to kill 500,000 people annually in the USA alone. .
Do you know what Mao did in 1949, when he took
over as the leader of China? He banned opium, made
it punishable by death to deal in it or possess it. Opium
addiction was killing the spirit of China. Guess what,
the addicts got over it. Its still illegal to this day, and
China is thriving.
My point is, you can ban a substance that kills people
and they accept it and move on. What a country of
weak willed politicians we have, everyone is in big
tobacco's pocket. Both party's. Hell, Obama smokes,
ferchrisakes.
