Originally posted by TerrierJack This is not about banning or allowing. It is about providing accurate information so citizens can take responsibility by making an informed choice.
It is more than a personal choice when the goverment has to pay for the expenses of your dumb decisions. I'd have less problem if we were ok with letting those people die if they cannot pay for medical treatement related to smoking.
Originally posted by quackquack It is more than a personal choice when the goverment has to pay for the expenses of your dumb decisions. I'd have less problem if we were ok with letting those people die if they cannot pay for medical treatement related to smoking.
That's the problem with the nanny state, it takes away personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you don't subsidize medical care, then people can live and let live.
Originally posted by Eladar That's the problem with the nanny state, it takes away personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you don't subsidize medical care, then people can live and let live.
I object far greater to the state taking away my money to pay for one dumb decisions (smoking) than the fact that the state might take away someones freedom to smoke (something that is destructive to themsleves and those around them).
Originally posted by Eladar That's the problem with the nanny state, it takes away personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you don't subsidize medical care, then people can live and let live.
More likely, people can just die if medical care isn't subsidized for those who can't afford it. That seems to be A-OK with the right wing nuts here.
Originally posted by no1marauder More likely, people can just die if medical care isn't subsidized for those who can't afford it. That seems to be A-OK with the right wing nuts here.
Everyone does not get to live in a manson, eat in a four star restaurant, get the best tickets for the entertainment of their choice. Healthcare should be no different.
But if we decide it is different, then at the very least the government should stop people from destructive expensive habits like cigarettes.
Originally posted by quackquack Everyone does not get to live in a manson, eat in a four star restaurant, get the best tickets for the entertainment of their choice. Healthcare should be no different.
But if we decide it is different, then at the very least the government should stop people from destructive expensive habits like cigarettes.
Health care is a necessity not a luxury like the other items you disingenuously mention. You often die if you don't get health care when you need it. And even the most primitive societies take care of their sick; the idea that the richest one on Earth would refuse to is outrageous.
Originally posted by no1marauder More likely, people can just die if medical care isn't subsidized for those who can't afford it. That seems to be A-OK with the right wing nuts here.
Originally posted by sh76 No guts to outlaw the substance and destroy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
I don't understand how putting images that show the consequences of smoking "not trusting the personal responsibility of the people".
Originally posted by quackquack It is more than a personal choice when the goverment has to pay for the expenses of your dumb decisions. I'd have less problem if we were ok with letting those people die if they cannot pay for medical treatement related to smoking.
Letting people die of causes that are treatable is not in our nature.
Are you really so ignorant as to believe that simply "getting a job" enables you to pay the cost of catastrophic illness? And are you really simple minded enough to think that anyone can just get a job when presently 30 million people in the US are un- and under-employed?
The stupidity level of right wingers here is appalling.
Originally posted by sh76 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20022390-10391704.html?
[quote]Can the federal government scare cigarette smokers into stopping with a new campaign of horrific images to be placed on cigarette packages?
They're certainly going to try.
Images of corpses, cancer patients, and diseased lungs are just some of whats in store in graphic new warning la ...[text shortened]... oy a profitable industry and yet no trust in the personal responsibility of the people.
Sad.
Like Pal, I don't see where the policy has anything to do with "personal responsibility". I do think the policy is a bit silly and unnecessary, however.
Originally posted by Palynka I don't understand how putting images that show the consequences of smoking "not trusting the personal responsibility of the people".
Forcing private companies to use scare tactics on consumers regarding their own products (and putting a picture of a corpse on the box is a scare tactic... smoking is dangerous and, IMO, stupid, but it is not a guaranteed death sentence) is essentially the same as saying that people cannot be trusted to make decisions based on rational bases by themselves.
Originally posted by TerrierJack This is not about banning or allowing. It is about providing accurate information so citizens can take responsibility by making an informed choice.
Putting a picture of a corpse on a box of cigarettes is not "accurate information." It is a Pavlovian scare tactic.
Originally posted by sh76 Forcing private companies to use scare tactics on consumers regarding their own products (and putting a picture of a corpse on the box is a scare tactic... smoking is dangerous and, IMO, stupid, but it is not a guaranteed death sentence) is essentially the same as saying that people cannot be trusted to make decisions based on rational bases by themselves.
That's quite a stretch; you must be taking Chicken Little lessons from whodey.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's quite a stretch; you must be taking Chicken Little lessons from whodey.
Okay, let's make this simple.
Is or is not putting a picture of a corpse on a box of a product something other than rationally informing consumers of the potential danger involved?
Is there a less draconian way of informing consumers of the dangers that would be equally effective... assuming your goal is to disseminate information and not to scare?
11 Nov '10 14:291 edit
Personal responsibility??
Back to Top