Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sooner or later, tobacco is going down the tubes & w/that the contributions to the republican party. Interesting to see for sure.
My guess is they will find out the plastic being used in the paper so the cigarettes go out mandated by the government will be found to be enormous health risk and they'll sink under the ensuing lawsuits.
Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.
So you can now drop your insurance or not get any if you don't have any. Adjust your withholding's so the government has nothing to collect and go get insurance if you get sick.
You know I used to believe this same logic. A soda tax? A fat tax? Cigarette taxes going through the roof? If these people are stupid enough to do it let them!
But then I joined the real world and figured out, right or wrong this is just the way it has to be. If people in general were smart enough to make the smart decision then we wouldn't have obesity skyrocketing, we wouldn't have as many people still smoking as we have. So if it takes taxing it to death to make people change their habits I'm for it. I'm definately not for the Republican ideal that you just let corporate america decide whats good and bad for us based on popularity and profits.
Here's the thing, the 'free-marketeer republican talk-radiots' hate this stuff because they would rather see a company have record profits from selling 'Salt-Cookies' than to have 15,000 kids avoid some disease because they don't grow up eating 'Salt-Cookies' thanks to some 'evil government regulation'. Thing is in the long run the kids not growing up addicted to 'salt-cookies' and eating healthier will probably do more to help the 'free market', these people are just too ignorant to understand that.
This is the kind of thought that is considered "elitist". "You are too dumb to know what is right for you so I must take your hand and guide you". But what happens when someone else decides you are too dumb and that they must take you by the hand and guide you?
And lets get real with taxes as a effect to control people. While it may stop a few the real reason is it is a perfect excuse to shake the pockets of people with the excuse of helping people.
Both parties have strong prohibitionist streaks. For instance, just look back at the 2006 Internet poker ban. Or our continued drug war. Or various state bans on "alcohol without liquid" (AWOL) devices, salvia divinorum, or any number of other things.
I'm sorry, but there is no "party of freedom" in mainstream US politics.
I don't think that's what they're talking about. People can put however much salt they want on food once they have the food. What they're looking to restrict is how much sodium is put in packaged foods by corporations. You'd be shocked at how much they put in nearly everything we eat. It's really, really unehealthy and hard to avoid since it's in everything but fresh food.
As to the larger point, there is an argument to be made that banning unhealthy actions is in the public interest. Must we continue to foot the health care bills of people who smoke or consume massive amounts of sodium and then spend years dependent upon our medical system? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply prevent the diseases in the first place?
All this does is turn people off even more. Keep telling them, that they can't do this, or do that, and they will do it anyway, and even more! I have no issue with having facts about ingredients in foods, and being informed of potential health risks, however; I feel it isn't up to the government or anyone else to decide what is right for me to consume. Let me decide and make the decision for myself! I don't need someone else deciding for me! If I screw up, then it's my fault.
Good god, as if conservatives don't have a dream list of things they would love to ban, abortion, welfare, gay rights, the right to dye with dignity, teaching evolution, separation of church and state... please spare us the hypocrisy!
Wow, the right to dye with dignity.
I often shame people who dye their clothes in hippie colors, and it's my freakin' right to do so!
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,468,448 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet
Wow, the right to dye with dignity.
I often shame people who dye their clothes in hippie colors, and it's my freakin' right to do so!
Hey, as long as they "dye" quietly, I don't care!
But whether they need 'em or not, I draw the line at forcing "morans" to "get brains". Because who knows, then conservatives might actually become a force to be taken seriously again!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
