I guess I should post some of my 'issues' as per the OP.
1. Religion - I believe there is no God. Sure, there's a possibility in some sense, but I haven't seen any evidence. That said, I like Vonnegut's quote: 'Live by the harmless untruths that make you brave and kind and happy and healthy.' So if someone gets a kick out of religion that's great, as long as they don't try to legislate based on something wholly outside reality.
2. Censorship - I'm against it. When I found out my little brother's middle school blocked Wikipedia, I was pretty livid. After some thought I assume it was so the kids wouldn't look up sexy or subversive things, but at least they can't vandalize pages so it's a wash.
3. Food - I don't eat meat. No gelatin, no poultry, no fish. It's a personal choice and I don't try to force it on people, but then I don't tiptoe through the tulips if someone asks my opinion either. We need to quit funding agribusiness to pump everything full of corn, and start encouraging people to eat right. "Low fat" cookies are not a health food. If you're a whale because you're eating too much fried cheese, the solution is not a hydrogenated soy cheese-flavored spread, it's to lay off the fucking cheese.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
Most of my college professors do this too. It doesn't matter that the Wikipedia article for "Operation Ajax" had 75 citations, if all I'm doing is marking the date of the 1953 Iranian Coup, I can't use Wikipedia, I have to cite a source from a book, dammit. I don't mean to say that Wikipedia should be used for an extensive paper, but if all I want to do is say what day somethign happened, Wikipedia is one of the best sources, because it lists that information right at the top, instead of burying it somewhere. And yet, no one I know is allowed to use Wikipedia at all for any kind of paper.
-edit-
That's not to say that I think Wikipedia is an excellent source for an academic paper. I just don't think that I need to go into a 500 page book to look for the first mention of "July 1, 1863" to say when the Battle of Gettysburg started, instead of leaving that unsourced or just using the first line of Wikipedia.
South host on
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I think my dissonance is based on the fact that government has such a convoluted relationship with tobacco companies. How can you tax something at a higher rate because "it's dangerous to your health?" By that insane logic, heroin should be sold at the 7-11.
Why are these damn Marlboros so expensive? They'll give you cancer, that's why.
If I'm gonna get cancer, shouldn't I have more disposable income. You know, for hospital bills?
I find it confounding that the government can make money off the sale of lethal substances at a higher rate with that logic. If cigarettes are bad for you, don't sell them. If they're not bad enough, don't restrict them.
Re religion in politics: it's a controversy because you need to be a logical, rational human being for that to work. You are. I am. Most posters here are. The vast majority of the world just isn't, and unfortunately the vox populi matters.
And the issue with drugs is that they impact every individual differently. Someone can snort 3 lines of coke in a row and be fine (physically), while another person will die after snorting half a line. People start with weed, then they go to a party where someone has some X, then while on X they try LSD, etc.. it's a very slippery slope for some.
If cannabis were the only drug used for recreational purposes, it would be legal pretty much anywhere. I've yet to see anyone try to murder another person because they took a bong hit. And, for the record, strong drugs (stronger than Cannabis/Xanax) are bad for you.
Atomic, they can't outright ban cigarettes (because they're in no way illegal or immoral, unless you blow smoke in a baby's face), because OMGMYFREEDOM bullshit. But they can add a price tag to them that will discourage most people from picking up smoking/continuing smoking as much as they do currently. The high price is supposed to (and does) work as a deterrent.
Atomic, they can't outright ban cigarettes (because they're in no way illegal or immoral, unless you blow smoke in a baby's face), because OMGMYFREEDOM bullshit. But they can add a price tag to them that will discourage most people from picking up smoking/continuing smoking as much as they do currently. The high price is supposed to (and does) work as a deterrent.
There is another factor here - the "Strike me down and I will grow more powerful than you could possibly imagine." Outlawing cigarettes without addressing the demand is going to criminalize them, and anyone with a grounding in the history of the prohibition era is going to recognize the problem here.
In my teenage years the price of cigarettes in Ontario, Canada was very high. I made a killing by crossing the border, picking up cheap wholesale cartons in the USA and reselling them back home. It became a serious enough problem that the government was forced to drop taxes by a significant amount. My market immediately dried up.
That was just with high taxes. Criminalize it, and you all you do is make criminals of the people who smoke without addressing the addictive need.* Suddenly there will be an enormous gain in the profitability of manufacturing and selling illicit cigarettes.
*
People who either never smoked, or are able to casually smoke often disregard how insanely addictive smoking can be to certain people. Research is starting to show this may be genetic, and some people barely feel the addictive part of smoking, while for others the pull is immediate and powerful. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the second grouping.
A more modern parallel than prohibition can be found in weed. That's no illusion. Criminalization of weed has left the manufacture and distribution of cannabis largely in the hands of criminals. Some would argue that decriminalization of weed is the answer, but that doesn't work in isolation. All of north american society would have to follow suit.
e.g. A study of the income for motorcycle gangs in Montreal and Vancouver shows that weed is a primary cash product. Crops grown in Vancouver, which is highly permissive of weed, are frequently sold not to residents of Vancouver, but as trade for more serious products like heroin and cocaine. There was a case about 10 years ago that revealed frequent exchanges of weed crops for foreign prostitutes - essentially slave trade.
Bringing this back to smoking, the current strategy is to reverse the perception that smoking is socially acceptable. I'm in California now, and smoking is damn near invisible in my peer group. Until 6 weeks ago I was the last holdout. (Wish me luck)
This longer term strategy addresses the demand first. If it succeeds, there should come a point in the future where the demand for cigarettes will drop, and this will affect production of tobacco, causing prices to rise. In theory the cycle should begins to self sustain, assuming the ability for tobacco companies to advertise to new markets is restricted.
Zacharde on
"For future reference, I was sort of hoping for a suggestion that didn't sound like it came from that Bolshevik Muppet with all the dynamite."
Atomic, they can't outright ban cigarettes (because they're in no way illegal or immoral, unless you blow smoke in a baby's face), because OMGMYFREEDOM bullshit. But they can add a price tag to them that will discourage most people from picking up smoking/continuing smoking as much as they do currently. The high price is supposed to (and does) work as a deterrent.
Well, they aren't illegal because there are no laws against them, and that's the extent of it. However, there are laws that regulate their tax rate, laws that regulate where and when and to who they can be sold, and laws that regulate how they can be advertised. Also, each city has laws on where they can be enjoyed.
There's nothing negative about cigarettes that couldn't also be applied to pot, meth, coke, or speed. Cigarettes are inherently unhealthy. But there's no logical recourse for taxing something because it's unhealthy. Taxation doesn't stop people from doing an addictive habit, it only makes people take it somewhere cheaper. Taxation doesn't remove health concerns. If it's unhealthy, get the fuck rid of it. If you're not going to, stop pretending that you're doing us a favor by making it more expensive. The money goes right into the government's pocket. It's the ultimate racket: they don't spend any money producing the product, yet they get as much kickback as they want while still taking the high road by decrying its damaging health effects.
Atomic, they can't outright ban cigarettes (because they're in no way illegal or immoral, unless you blow smoke in a baby's face), because OMGMYFREEDOM bullshit. But they can add a price tag to them that will discourage most people from picking up smoking/continuing smoking as much as they do currently. The high price is supposed to (and does) work as a deterrent.
Well, they aren't illegal because there are no laws against them, and that's the extent of it. However, there are laws that regulate their tax rate, laws that regulate where and when and to who they can be sold, and laws that regulate how they can be advertised. Also, each city has laws on where they can be enjoyed.
There's nothing negative about cigarettes that couldn't also be applied to pot, meth, coke, or speed. Cigarettes are inherently unhealthy. But there's no logical recourse for taxing something because it's unhealthy. Taxation doesn't stop people from doing an addictive habit, it only makes people take it somewhere cheaper. Taxation doesn't remove health concerns. If it's unhealthy, get the fuck rid of it. If you're not going to, stop pretending that you're doing us a favor by making it more expensive. The money goes right into the government's pocket. It's the ultimate racket: they don't spend any money producing the product, yet they get as much kickback as they want while still taking the high road by decrying its damaging health effects.
Your first paragraph basically reiterates my point. There's nothing illegal about selling cigarettes to people. If they banned cigarettes, they would also have to ban knives and razor blades and Draino, since people use those to hurt other people or themselves. And comparing smokes to coke and amphetamines is stupid. You can't OD and die when you take your first smoke. You can with your first snort.
And again, I feel the high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there to discourage people from buying those items, because the government can't just make them illegal substances (see above). You're going into dangerous conspiracy theory territory.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
There are pictures of dongs and whatnot. And the kids might learn that their teachers are feeding them bullshit.
You know, they may be trying to discourage the kids from lazy research. Citing wiki is teh bad.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
There are pictures of dongs and whatnot. And the kids might learn that their teachers are feeding them bullshit.
You know, they may be trying to discourage the kids from lazy research. Citing wiki is teh bad.
Citing a wiki page that has proper citations isn't at all "teh bad". Then again, you should only cite that wiki page after you made sure that the citations are from reliable sources. In which case, unless you're the laziest motherfucker ever, you can just copy the URL of the site you just checked out to make sure it's reliable, instead of adding the wikipedia article url as a citation.
What Leary said seems much more likely to be the case (especially in non-democratic countries).
evilintent on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
And again, I feel the high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there to discourage people from buying those items, because the government can't just make them illegal substances (see above).
This is what I don't get.
Why can't the government make cigarettes illegal? It's only not illegal because it's not illegal. The minute federal law says, "Hey, cigarettes? You're illegal," they become contraband.
And again, I feel the high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there to discourage people from buying those items, because the government can't just make them illegal substances (see above).
This is what I don't get.
Why can't the government make cigarettes illegal? It's only not illegal because it's not illegal. The minute federal law says, "Hey, cigarettes? You're illegal," they become contraband.
What is illegal about them?
The manufacturing process? No.
The method of distribution? No.
Misleading advertising? No.
It's not possible for them to outlaw cigs. By your logic, anything that is legal could be considered illegal just because it would be outlawed. Well, duh, that's what illegal means. Only something that is not illegal isn't illegal for a good reason, usually (and vice-versa).
So.. what?
Edit: Let me expand a little. They can define where it is legal to smoke. They can't just outright ban them, because they don't have authority to tell me what the fuck I can consume in my own home, so long as it doesn't have a [fair?] chance of turning me into a violent person that will go outside and blow up my neighbor's house. I might do that if I used coke or meth, but not cigs. Also not going to happen if I just drank 2 bottles of Jack Daniel's, because I wouldn't be able to move.
About #2; Seriously?! Banning Wikipedia? As long as the information provided has links/citations that are legitamite, I see no issue with it. Censorship as a whole is based off what society deems publicy acceptable, and as far as I know Wikipedia isn't Redtube.
There are pictures of dongs and whatnot. And the kids might learn that their teachers are feeding them bullshit.
You know, they may be trying to discourage the kids from lazy research. Citing wiki is teh bad.
Citing a wiki page that has proper citations isn't at all "teh bad".
ok, this is for your own good: NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN AN ASSIGNMENT
NEVER EVER, FOR THE LOVE OF SHINY THINGS AND CUTE KITTENS
Doesn't matter if its technically 'right' or if it has citations out the wazoo. Firstly, it can be edited at anytime between submission and final marking, secondly the citations rarely, if ever, link to solid research, particularly in the sciences. Most of the links are to other webpages and news articles. Wiki is a readers' digest. Its a good starting point for research, where you can pick up basic concepts and search terms and take them to a real knowledge repository. Never ever ever cite it directly. Its worse than putting smiley faces in an essay
Of course I'm not going to cite wikipedia. I'm lazy, but not that lazy. Come on, how hard is it to go to citations, right click the relevant link, and hit "copy link location".
Seriously, it takes less than 3 seconds to hit the End key, right click, left click.
I think that banning flavored cigarettes is reprehensible. Adults should be allowed to smoke flavors if they want to.
yes, they COULD be used to entice children, but you could also just make the laws about that stricter.
The fact that menthol is always exempted from these bans is very telling.
Ah yes, the new ban on flavored cigarettes. It seems more to me that with the new laws passed today that they're trying to stop people from smoking in a sneaky way. Rather than attack the companies head-on, they're undermining the foundation of them.
We should have harsher punishments for those who are selling cigarettes to minors, or those providing them(i.e.buying them) for minors, not blame the fact the cigarette says it tastes like mint. I didn't try my first cigarette because it looked fun and childish.
Also, menthol was left out? Why?
we already have these laws in effect in Maryland, making it difficult for anyone who wants, say, clove cigarettes.
And menthol is left out, to be perfectly frank, because black people like menthol. You see, these clauses in bills are back by the emotional center of the left-wing, rather than the rational one, which you can tell because they go out of their way not to do things that could be perceived in the slightest as inconveniencing minorities, to the point of absurdity.
And again, I feel the high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there to discourage people from buying those items, because the government can't just make them illegal substances (see above).
This is what I don't get.
Why can't the government make cigarettes illegal? It's only not illegal because it's not illegal. The minute federal law says, "Hey, cigarettes? You're illegal," they become contraband.
What is illegal about them?
The manufacturing process? No.
The method of distribution? No.
Misleading advertising? No.
It's not possible for them to outlaw cigs. By your logic, anything that is legal could be considered illegal just because it would be outlawed. Well, duh, that's what illegal means. Only something that is not illegal isn't illegal for a good reason, usually (and vice-versa).
So you can't make them illegal because they're not illegal? This makes no fucking sense.
secondly the citations rarely, if ever, link to solid research, particularly in the sciences. Most of the links are to other webpages and news articles
news flash: scientific research isn't the only source of reliable information
They can't just outright ban them, because they don't have authority to tell me what the fuck I can consume in my own home, so long as it doesn't have a [fair?] chance of turning me into a violent person that will go outside and blow up my neighbor's house.
They absolutely can, man.
There is no constitutional right to smoke.
Personally, I don't support legisloating this kind of personal morality, but that doesn't change the fact that THAT'S HOW LAWS WORK.
It just seems to me that there are too many guns around, and that it's more of a grey area than it was made out to be in the post I quoted.
America has 'some' gun control. Mostly the NRA and other lobbying groups (and a big chunk of the gun owning community) think the laws should either remain stagnant or modify to less gun control. Most gun control advocates think the system is currently too liberal in its allowance of gun ownership.
i definitely dont get why this gun thing is controversial. i think the government should take away everyone's guns, no ifs ands or buts. and i mean all of them.
i actually have a shitload of guns. i still dont think they are good for society though, even though i love them so.
It just seems to me that there are too many guns around, and that it's more of a grey area than it was made out to be in the post I quoted.
America has 'some' gun control. Mostly the NRA and other lobbying groups (and a big chunk of the gun owning community) think the laws should either remain stagnant or modify to less gun control. Most gun control advocates think the system is currently too liberal in its allowance of gun ownership.
i definitely dont get why this gun thing is controversial. i think the government should take away everyone's guns, no ifs ands or buts. and i mean all of them.
i actually have a shitload of guns. i still dont think they are good for society though, even though i love them so.
The Second Ammendment to the constitution DIRECTLY makes what you are saying impossible. That ammendment would have to be removed for it to happen, and there would NEVER be enough support for that to occur.
edit: sorry, it was farthing who stated that he had no idea the importance of the constitution.
And again, I feel the high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there to discourage people from buying those items, because the government can't just make them illegal substances (see above).
This is what I don't get.
Why can't the government make cigarettes illegal? It's only not illegal because it's not illegal. The minute federal law says, "Hey, cigarettes? You're illegal," they become contraband.
What is illegal about them?
The manufacturing process? No.
The method of distribution? No.
Misleading advertising? No.
It's not possible for them to outlaw cigs. By your logic, anything that is legal could be considered illegal just because it would be outlawed. Well, duh, that's what illegal means. Only something that is not illegal isn't illegal for a good reason, usually (and vice-versa).
Man, what? Of course the government can make cigarettes illegal if they want to. They're the government. They make laws. They decide what's legal and illegal.
You can apply your logic to anything. What about driving through a red light. What's illegal about that?
The manufacturing process of my car? No.
The distribution of red lights? No.
Misleading advertisement painted on my car? No.
Well, driving through red lights should be legal then! What about shooting my gun into a crowd? What's wrong with that?
The manufacturing process of the gun or bullets? No.
The gun shop? No.
Gun advertisements? No.
Well then, I'm off to shoot a crowd. Cya!
There is a perfectly good reason to outlaw cigarettes (besides the fact the government could do it for no reason if they wanted to): they are packed full of dangerous chemicals, they're very addictive, and they're very damaging to the health of whoever uses them and everyone around them who's not even using cigarettes but just happens to stand by. That is reason enough to ban them.
So to answer Atomic Ross, why aren't they banned? Black market. To fix the old slogan: if cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes. Except a large segment of the population will still smoke, and will want cigarettes, and if they can't get them legally they will get them illegally from the black market. That's a massive amount of money flowing into organized crime. It's basically the same problem the USA had with prohibition, and we're already seeing it happen in regions where cigarette tax rates were hiked very high very quickly. It's better to keep cigarette trade legal and slowly reduce it with information campaigns and taxes than to outright ban it all at once.
i definitely dont get why this gun thing is controversial. i think the government should take away everyone's guns, no ifs ands or buts. and i mean all of them.
i actually have a shitload of guns. i still dont think they are good for society though, even though i love them so.
The Second Ammendment to the constitution DIRECTLY makes what you are saying impossible. That ammendment would have to be removed for it to happen, and there would NEVER be enough support for that to occur.
edit: sorry, it was farthing who stated that he had no idea the importance of the constitution.
i know that.
i was just wondering why it's a controversial issue. just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it's good for us. i mean, if i could, would i repeal the second amendment? hell yes.
It just seems to me that there are too many guns around, and that it's more of a grey area than it was made out to be in the post I quoted.
America has 'some' gun control. Mostly the NRA and other lobbying groups (and a big chunk of the gun owning community) think the laws should either remain stagnant or modify to less gun control. Most gun control advocates think the system is currently too liberal in its allowance of gun ownership.
i definitely dont get why this gun thing is controversial. i think the government should take away everyone's guns, no ifs ands or buts. and i mean all of them.
i actually have a shitload of guns. i still dont think they are good for society though, even though i love them so.
The Second Ammendment to the constitution DIRECTLY makes what you are saying impossible. That ammendment would have to be removed for it to happen, and there would NEVER be enough support for that to occur.
edit: sorry, it was farthing who stated that he had no idea the importance of the constitution.
the problem is that the extremists will spin it around into an attack against american's rights and declare that no amendment is safe and that the rest are at risk if it gets removed. a shit ton of politicians would jump on the bandwagon and garner as many supporters as they can.
not to mention that there is quite literally an extremist movement in the states that's buying up all the ammunition just because they think obama will take away their guns. these people are fucking nuts.
all of that said, i want a gun. it makes me feel safe.
I think the larger point to be made is that as far as marijuana acts as a gateway drug, it is BECAUSE it is illegal.
It ties in to somethng called "Broken Windows" theory, which says that a house with broken windows is already more likely to be broken in to, because the rule of law surrounding it is already broken, making it that much easier for criminals to rationalize their behavior.
Broken Windows has been shown to work, in the past. Through crack down on till-hoppers, and cleaning up graffitti, New York City was able to significantly reduce the instances of larger crimes on their subway system.
Marijuana users who go on to harder drugs often do it because marijuana is so often lumped in with harder drugs, by our societal perceptions. There is nothing inherent in the chemistry of marijuana that makes some one want to try ecstacy or heroin. If Marijuana were legalized, it would be no more fo a gateway that cigarettes or alcohol are.
Marijuana users who go on to harder drugs often do it because marijuana is so often lumped in with harder drugs, by our societal perceptions. There is nothing inherent in the chemistry of marijuana that makes some one want to try ecstacy or heroin. If Marijuana were legalized, it would be no more fo a gateway that cigarettes or alcohol are.
marijuana being illegal has just never made any sense ever. it's like the poster child for this thread.
guns are fucking awesome. but they really are just too harmful to our society.
i would gladly sacrifice all my legal guns if we could get rid of 80% of illegal guns.
I'm a pretty anti-gun dude. I turned down the opportunity to fire an M-16 on an Israeli Army shooting range when it was offered to me, because I just don't like guns.
I think that, realistically, it is simply impossible to egt rid of them in the US at this point. they are too ingrained in our society. Instead, I'd prefer to limit gun types, and abolish concealed carry (if you have a gun, everyone around you shold be perfectly aware of it.)
Marijuana users who go on to harder drugs often do it because marijuana is so often lumped in with harder drugs, by our societal perceptions. There is nothing inherent in the chemistry of marijuana that makes some one want to try ecstacy or heroin. If Marijuana were legalized, it would be no more fo a gateway that cigarettes or alcohol are.
marijuana being illegal has just never made any sense ever. it's like the poster child for this thread.
it's like absinthe
some other slightly related idustry with more political pull was affraid of their business being taken away, so they propped up charges and got it outlawed.
Absinthe, by the way, for all of the stories associated with it, is no different in effect that a vodka/redbull (minus the "wired" feeling of cafienne)
"Let's mention a bunch of different topics in the OP so that the thread will turn into a big ol' messy discussion of three or four wildly different tangents!"
Yeah, no.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
-edit-
That's not to say that I think Wikipedia is an excellent source for an academic paper. I just don't think that I need to go into a 500 page book to look for the first mention of "July 1, 1863" to say when the Battle of Gettysburg started, instead of leaving that unsourced or just using the first line of Wikipedia.
I think my dissonance is based on the fact that government has such a convoluted relationship with tobacco companies. How can you tax something at a higher rate because "it's dangerous to your health?" By that insane logic, heroin should be sold at the 7-11.
Why are these damn Marlboros so expensive?
They'll give you cancer, that's why.
If I'm gonna get cancer, shouldn't I have more disposable income. You know, for hospital bills?
I find it confounding that the government can make money off the sale of lethal substances at a higher rate with that logic. If cigarettes are bad for you, don't sell them. If they're not bad enough, don't restrict them.
And the issue with drugs is that they impact every individual differently. Someone can snort 3 lines of coke in a row and be fine (physically), while another person will die after snorting half a line. People start with weed, then they go to a party where someone has some X, then while on X they try LSD, etc.. it's a very slippery slope for some.
If cannabis were the only drug used for recreational purposes, it would be legal pretty much anywhere. I've yet to see anyone try to murder another person because they took a bong hit. And, for the record, strong drugs (stronger than Cannabis/Xanax) are bad for you.
Atomic, they can't outright ban cigarettes (because they're in no way illegal or immoral, unless you blow smoke in a baby's face), because OMGMYFREEDOM bullshit. But they can add a price tag to them that will discourage most people from picking up smoking/continuing smoking as much as they do currently. The high price is supposed to (and does) work as a deterrent.
There is another factor here - the "Strike me down and I will grow more powerful than you could possibly imagine." Outlawing cigarettes without addressing the demand is going to criminalize them, and anyone with a grounding in the history of the prohibition era is going to recognize the problem here.
In my teenage years the price of cigarettes in Ontario, Canada was very high. I made a killing by crossing the border, picking up cheap wholesale cartons in the USA and reselling them back home. It became a serious enough problem that the government was forced to drop taxes by a significant amount. My market immediately dried up.
That was just with high taxes. Criminalize it, and you all you do is make criminals of the people who smoke without addressing the addictive need.* Suddenly there will be an enormous gain in the profitability of manufacturing and selling illicit cigarettes.
*
A more modern parallel than prohibition can be found in weed. That's no illusion. Criminalization of weed has left the manufacture and distribution of cannabis largely in the hands of criminals. Some would argue that decriminalization of weed is the answer, but that doesn't work in isolation. All of north american society would have to follow suit.
e.g. A study of the income for motorcycle gangs in Montreal and Vancouver shows that weed is a primary cash product. Crops grown in Vancouver, which is highly permissive of weed, are frequently sold not to residents of Vancouver, but as trade for more serious products like heroin and cocaine. There was a case about 10 years ago that revealed frequent exchanges of weed crops for foreign prostitutes - essentially slave trade.
Bringing this back to smoking, the current strategy is to reverse the perception that smoking is socially acceptable. I'm in California now, and smoking is damn near invisible in my peer group. Until 6 weeks ago I was the last holdout. (Wish me luck)
This longer term strategy addresses the demand first. If it succeeds, there should come a point in the future where the demand for cigarettes will drop, and this will affect production of tobacco, causing prices to rise. In theory the cycle should begins to self sustain, assuming the ability for tobacco companies to advertise to new markets is restricted.
Well, they aren't illegal because there are no laws against them, and that's the extent of it. However, there are laws that regulate their tax rate, laws that regulate where and when and to who they can be sold, and laws that regulate how they can be advertised. Also, each city has laws on where they can be enjoyed.
There's nothing negative about cigarettes that couldn't also be applied to pot, meth, coke, or speed. Cigarettes are inherently unhealthy. But there's no logical recourse for taxing something because it's unhealthy. Taxation doesn't stop people from doing an addictive habit, it only makes people take it somewhere cheaper. Taxation doesn't remove health concerns. If it's unhealthy, get the fuck rid of it. If you're not going to, stop pretending that you're doing us a favor by making it more expensive. The money goes right into the government's pocket. It's the ultimate racket: they don't spend any money producing the product, yet they get as much kickback as they want while still taking the high road by decrying its damaging health effects.
Your first paragraph basically reiterates my point. There's nothing illegal about selling cigarettes to people. If they banned cigarettes, they would also have to ban knives and razor blades and Draino, since people use those to hurt other people or themselves. And comparing smokes to coke and amphetamines is stupid. You can't OD and die when you take your first smoke. You can with your first snort.
And again, I feel the high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are there to discourage people from buying those items, because the government can't just make them illegal substances (see above). You're going into dangerous conspiracy theory territory.
Citing a wiki page that has proper citations isn't at all "teh bad". Then again, you should only cite that wiki page after you made sure that the citations are from reliable sources. In which case, unless you're the laziest motherfucker ever, you can just copy the URL of the site you just checked out to make sure it's reliable, instead of adding the wikipedia article url as a citation.
What Leary said seems much more likely to be the case (especially in non-democratic countries).
This is what I don't get.
Why can't the government make cigarettes illegal? It's only not illegal because it's not illegal. The minute federal law says, "Hey, cigarettes? You're illegal," they become contraband.
What is illegal about them?
The manufacturing process? No.
The method of distribution? No.
Misleading advertising? No.
It's not possible for them to outlaw cigs. By your logic, anything that is legal could be considered illegal just because it would be outlawed. Well, duh, that's what illegal means. Only something that is not illegal isn't illegal for a good reason, usually (and vice-versa).
So.. what?
Edit: Let me expand a little. They can define where it is legal to smoke. They can't just outright ban them, because they don't have authority to tell me what the fuck I can consume in my own home, so long as it doesn't have a [fair?] chance of turning me into a violent person that will go outside and blow up my neighbor's house. I might do that if I used coke or meth, but not cigs. Also not going to happen if I just drank 2 bottles of Jack Daniel's, because I wouldn't be able to move.
ok, this is for your own good: NEVER CITE WIKIPEDIA IN AN ASSIGNMENT
NEVER EVER, FOR THE LOVE OF SHINY THINGS AND CUTE KITTENS
Doesn't matter if its technically 'right' or if it has citations out the wazoo. Firstly, it can be edited at anytime between submission and final marking, secondly the citations rarely, if ever, link to solid research, particularly in the sciences. Most of the links are to other webpages and news articles. Wiki is a readers' digest. Its a good starting point for research, where you can pick up basic concepts and search terms and take them to a real knowledge repository. Never ever ever cite it directly. Its worse than putting smiley faces in an essay
/rant over
Seriously, it takes less than 3 seconds to hit the End key, right click, left click.
and get off my lawn damnit
on topic, I find myself constantly amazed and bewildered by anti climate change loonies. Really, people, why are you so dumb.
we already have these laws in effect in Maryland, making it difficult for anyone who wants, say, clove cigarettes.
And menthol is left out, to be perfectly frank, because black people like menthol. You see, these clauses in bills are back by the emotional center of the left-wing, rather than the rational one, which you can tell because they go out of their way not to do things that could be perceived in the slightest as inconveniencing minorities, to the point of absurdity.
They absolutely can, man.
There is no constitutional right to smoke.
Personally, I don't support legisloating this kind of personal morality, but that doesn't change the fact that THAT'S HOW LAWS WORK.
i definitely dont get why this gun thing is controversial. i think the government should take away everyone's guns, no ifs ands or buts. and i mean all of them.
i actually have a shitload of guns. i still dont think they are good for society though, even though i love them so.
The Second Ammendment to the constitution DIRECTLY makes what you are saying impossible. That ammendment would have to be removed for it to happen, and there would NEVER be enough support for that to occur.
edit: sorry, it was farthing who stated that he had no idea the importance of the constitution.
I've never known anyone who sucked cock for weed that wasn't already wanting to suck that cock without it.
can crack addicts say the same!?
You can apply your logic to anything. What about driving through a red light. What's illegal about that?
The manufacturing process of my car? No.
The distribution of red lights? No.
Misleading advertisement painted on my car? No.
Well, driving through red lights should be legal then! What about shooting my gun into a crowd? What's wrong with that?
The manufacturing process of the gun or bullets? No.
The gun shop? No.
Gun advertisements? No.
Well then, I'm off to shoot a crowd. Cya!
There is a perfectly good reason to outlaw cigarettes (besides the fact the government could do it for no reason if they wanted to): they are packed full of dangerous chemicals, they're very addictive, and they're very damaging to the health of whoever uses them and everyone around them who's not even using cigarettes but just happens to stand by. That is reason enough to ban them.
So to answer Atomic Ross, why aren't they banned? Black market. To fix the old slogan: if cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes. Except a large segment of the population will still smoke, and will want cigarettes, and if they can't get them legally they will get them illegally from the black market. That's a massive amount of money flowing into organized crime. It's basically the same problem the USA had with prohibition, and we're already seeing it happen in regions where cigarette tax rates were hiked very high very quickly. It's better to keep cigarette trade legal and slowly reduce it with information campaigns and taxes than to outright ban it all at once.
i know that.
i was just wondering why it's a controversial issue. just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean it's good for us. i mean, if i could, would i repeal the second amendment? hell yes.
the problem is that the extremists will spin it around into an attack against american's rights and declare that no amendment is safe and that the rest are at risk if it gets removed. a shit ton of politicians would jump on the bandwagon and garner as many supporters as they can.
not to mention that there is quite literally an extremist movement in the states that's buying up all the ammunition just because they think obama will take away their guns. these people are fucking nuts.
all of that said, i want a gun. it makes me feel safe.
It ties in to somethng called "Broken Windows" theory, which says that a house with broken windows is already more likely to be broken in to, because the rule of law surrounding it is already broken, making it that much easier for criminals to rationalize their behavior.
Broken Windows has been shown to work, in the past. Through crack down on till-hoppers, and cleaning up graffitti, New York City was able to significantly reduce the instances of larger crimes on their subway system.
Marijuana users who go on to harder drugs often do it because marijuana is so often lumped in with harder drugs, by our societal perceptions. There is nothing inherent in the chemistry of marijuana that makes some one want to try ecstacy or heroin. If Marijuana were legalized, it would be no more fo a gateway that cigarettes or alcohol are.
i would gladly sacrifice all my legal guns if we could get rid of 80% of illegal guns.
marijuana being illegal has just never made any sense ever. it's like the poster child for this thread.
I'm a pretty anti-gun dude. I turned down the opportunity to fire an M-16 on an Israeli Army shooting range when it was offered to me, because I just don't like guns.
I think that, realistically, it is simply impossible to egt rid of them in the US at this point. they are too ingrained in our society. Instead, I'd prefer to limit gun types, and abolish concealed carry (if you have a gun, everyone around you shold be perfectly aware of it.)
it's like absinthe
some other slightly related idustry with more political pull was affraid of their business being taken away, so they propped up charges and got it outlawed.
Absinthe, by the way, for all of the stories associated with it, is no different in effect that a vodka/redbull (minus the "wired" feeling of cafienne)
"Let's mention a bunch of different topics in the OP so that the thread will turn into a big ol' messy discussion of three or four wildly different tangents!"
Yeah, no.