Originally posted by quackquack What about the positives of banning substances? There would certainly would be people who would not use the product if it were banned. Illegal activity might be a grounds for denying expensive medical treatments. It would increase protections of people who are vitcitms of second hand smoke. It might make the message of the dangers of smoking clearer ...[text shortened]... rid of the social smoking aspect in many settings. We ban less dangerous, less costly things.
Once something has become widely established as a legal practice, it becomes extremely hard to ban it. That was why prohibition was such a fiasco. You'll just end up driving it underground, where people will then be buying tobacco from the same dealers that also sell hard drugs. You'll end up filling up prisons with legions of people who do not belong in prison. You'll end up tying up police departments chasing down and arresting people who don't need to be arrested.
Consider how difficult it is to get an amendment passed. Now consider what has to happen to cause the population to shift from supporting something so much that an amendment can get passed - and THEN a mere 14 years later, become so strongly opposed to it that the amendment gets repealed.
Originally posted by sh76 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?
Assuming for the sake of argument that the pictures are meant to scare, I still do not see how that equates to not trusting people's "personal responsibility".
Originally posted by Melanerpes Using tobacco has scary results -- and for some reason, many people don't respond to words -- pictures have a much bigger impact.
There's a major difference between saying the words "Michael Dukakis driving a tank" and showing a picture of him doing it.
Should the Dukakis campaign have been forced by the government to run a picture of Dukakis in the ill filling helmet looking like a 60 year old child on every ad in the spirit of providing voters with accurate information?
Originally posted by sh76 Should the Dukakis campaign have been forced by the government to run a picture of Dukakis in the ill filling helmet looking like a 60 year old child on every ad in the spirit of providing voters with accurate information?
No - because Dukakis' discomfort or otherwise in a military helmet told us nothing whatsoever about his abilities to serve from the White House as commander-in-chief.
On the other hand, the horror pictures to be provided on cigarette packets are a fairly accurate portrait of the likely consequences of smoking.
Originally posted by Melanerpes Once something has become widely established as a legal practice, it becomes extremely hard to ban it. That was why prohibition was such a fiasco. You'll just end up driving it underground, where people will then be buying tobacco from the same dealers that also sell hard drugs. You'll end up filling up prisons with legions of people who do not belong in EN a mere 14 years later, become so strongly opposed to it that the amendment gets repealed.
I agree that it is difficult to ban activities that are already established, although doesn't every new law does that to some degree?
I certainly do not think smoking is a personal responsibility issue; it is a "will society tolerate its growing negatives issue. Like every other political issue, it seems that no one want changes unless it inconveniences someone else. So perhaps we can just keep our personal freedom to poison ourselves and others with cigarettes and tax the perceived wealth to pay for the inevitable medical costs.
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.
That 'DUCK' is NOT the nanny-state! The state just wants pictures.
Originally posted by sh76 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?
Did you understand who the pictures are for? Clue: not smokers! It is for children who are not legally capable of making the decisions that an adult must. Think!
I can guarantee that those pictures will mean nothing to any smoker! Do you smoke or have you ever? If not, you ought to not comment on this because you are talking from a region other than your head.
I can guarantee that those pictures will mean nothing to any smoker! Do you smoke or have you ever? If not, you ought to not comment on this because you are talking from a region other than your head.[/b]
Now, you set up qualification for who is allowed to comment?
I don't see how being a would make your opinion any more valid on this issue anyway.
Originally posted by quackquack Now, you set up qualification for who is allowed to comment?
I don't see how being a would make your opinion any more valid on this issue anyway.
Because you would understand that the pictures (even if they were twice as horrible as the ones they showed me in driver's ed) would have ZERO impact on a smoker. People that smoke for 20 years know that it is harming them! They get up every morning and light up a Chesterfield and cough their lungs out after that first draw. It is not a secret! Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs ever used by humans. Understanding that will lead you to the correct conclusion that these pictures are only likely to have an effect on NON-SMOKERS! (Kids.)
I swear, sometimes on this site you have to use a construction crane to extract people's heads from their "underground" hiding places.
Originally posted by sh76 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?
Why are you assuming the goal is to disseminate information? The goal is to dissuade smokers and those who may take up smoking. In any case, if you really believe that people are free to make their choices and responsible for those choices, then surely that freedom is undermined and subverted more by the addictive effects of tobacco than pictures on a cigarette box.
Originally posted by TerrierJack Because you would understand that the pictures (even if they were twice as horrible as the ones they showed me in driver's ed) would have ZERO impact on a smoker. People that smoke for 20 years know that it is harming them! They get up every morning and light up a Chesterfield and cough their lungs out after that first draw. It is not a secret! Nicoti ...[text shortened]... o use a construction crane to extract people's heads from their "underground" hiding places.
It is inconceivable that pictures would have zero impact.
(1) The idea that everyone who is dumb enough to smoke has been sufficiently educated on the dangers is probably untrue. Furthermore, the idea that no one would change their opinion from a visual image instead of a text image is probably also untrue. Cigarette companies spend millions creating pictures that encourage people to smoke. It is likely possibel to create images that would make it less likely to smoke.
(2) People quit smoking (was varying degrees of success) all the time. I see no reason why it isn't possible taht some sort of pictures would cause some to change their smoking habits.
(3) Even if everyone had sufficient information, pictures might change our perception of smokers. If people did not wrongfully think it was cool to smoke or that cool people smoke, they would be less likely to start an expensive, smelly, dangerous addictive habit. The government has an interest in discouraging new people from smoking.
Originally posted by no1marauder 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.
You get insurance for catastrophic illness. You buy insurance with the money you make from the job.
If we want Americans employed, then step away from leftist programs and cut taxes.
Personal responsibility??
11 Nov '10 16:001 edit
Back to Top