[redbaron]

non smokers won't see the packet, so that won't help with secondhand smoke, and there's a ton of debate on how accurate the studies on second hand smoke are in the first place. I've seen claims on tv that second hand smoke kills as many people as smoking does, which I find incredibly hard to believe.

At some point, you have to take the warning labels off and let society sort itself out.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

No. I want the same thing you want. I want people to have the freedom to choose activities that have consequences they are willing to live with. That necessitates however that people know the consequences of their decisions. Go ask people on the street how many years smoking is likely to take away from their life. See if they know. Go ask them what the impact of second-hand smoke is. See if they know. If they don't, they need more information, and putting it on the pack is the only way to be sure they see it.

and see now you are expecting the government to educate us or require the private sector to educate us about the risks. People should take responsibility for their own actions. Smoking is bad for you. It increases your chance dying from heart disease, cancer, and a whole host of other diseases.

But there comes a point where I have to be responsible for my own actions and I am responsible for knowing the risks of actions I am thinking about taking.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Bryan

and see now you are expecting the government to educate us or require the private sector to educate us about the risks. People should take responsibility for their own actions. Smoking is bad for you. It increases your chance dying from heart disease, cancer, and a whole host of other diseases.

But there comes a point where I have to be responsible for my own actions and I am responsible for knowing the risks of actions I am thinking about taking.

No, I'm expecting the government to require the private sector to provide the information necessary to obtain the education necessary to make a personal, responsible, informed decision.

No responsibility or choice is taken from the individual.

[redbaron]

If you were arguing about obesity, maybe you'd have a point.

You have to have been living under a rock since the 1940's to not know that smoking has a very likely chance of killing you. Kids are taught this in kindergarten for crying out loud.

The threat of death will never outweigh the buzz, and the fact that smoking makes you cool. Duh.

[bobthecockroach]

I'd need to see a study on public awareness of tobacco danger to be convinced.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by redbaron

At some point, you have to take the warning labels off and let society sort itself out.

Are you in favor of drug law liberalization as well?

[redbaron]

To an extent. Obviously with some of the risks, I'd prefer to see a zero tolerance for driving under the influence of whatever substence, as well as the ability for employers to continue to discriminate towards drug users (you don't want a heart surgeon that's high, or a heavy equipment operator who's trippin' for obvious reasons).

I think we ought to tax the sale as well, I'm still wrestling with whether or not medical costs directly related to drug use should be solely the responsibility of the user as well...

Even if it were all legal, I doubt I'd partake.

[tlj009]

You have to have been living under a rock since the 1940's to not know that smoking has a very likely chance of killing you. Kids are taught this in kindergarten for crying out loud.

My brother was rather irritated when his child came home from kindergarten and wanted to know why grandpa does drugs. My dad dips. And apparently, the school made no difference between tobacco and heroin.

[BAND]

Originally Posted by thesteve

I find the pictures to be laughable and question their effectiveness as a deterrent to smoking.

Ditto. Excellent if you want to gross out 10 yr old girls. Maybe that's congress' master plan.

Everyone knows how dangerous excessive smoking is and how bad it is for your lungs, skin, throat, etc.

I personally quit a couple of years ago because the taxes became even more outrageous and because I'm a vocalist, and I can tell my voice sounds better when I haven't been smoking.

As a reply to this I'm going to pass a bill before congress that requires every McDonalds bag to have the attached photo on it

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Are you in favor of drug law liberalization as well?

Yes, but not just for reasons of personal responsibility. It would completely restructure our police state as well.

My children did not know that I was a light smoker because I hid it from them, but I quit when my son started talking about how cool smoking was. I certainly didn't want him to at any point think that I endorse him picking up the habit. That was the final straw, but the health concerns had been nagging at me for a while and I knew the day was coming for quite some time.

[BAND]

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

Yes, but not just for reasons of personal responsibility. It would completely restructure our police state as well.

Good call

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

My children did not know that I was a light smoker because I hid it from them, but I quit when my son started talking about how cool smoking was. I certainly didn't want him to at any point think that I endorse him picking up the habit. That was the final straw, but the health concerns had been nagging at me for a while and I knew the day was coming for quite some time.

Here you have it, a parent actually setting an example rather than subjecting their children to the "do as I say, not as I do" cliche. The world would be a better place if more parents looked out for the good of their own kids and set their own example instead of blaming the government for not having proper warning labels and advocating that the government should be responsible for telling us what common knowledge effortlessly sets before us and what our parents should be responsible to teach their children. Cheers to you, sir

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by redbaron

I'd prefer to see a zero tolerance for driving under the influence of whatever substence

I would love to see that now for alcohol.

as well as the ability for employers to continue to discriminate towards drug users (you don't want a heart surgeon that's high, or a heavy equipment operator who's trippin' for obvious reasons).

I think this is one of the things that hurt prop 19 (aside from the exaggerated claims about hurting drug cartels). They practically made pot users a protected class.

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

Yes, but not just for reasons of personal responsibility. It would completely restructure our police state as well.

By far that is the main reason I am in favor of the idea.

[BAND]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I would love to see that now for alcohol.

Ditto. Gettin your buzz on in the privacy of your own home is one thing, getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and endangering yourself and others is entirely another thing.

I think this is one of the things that hurt prop 19 (aside from the exaggerated claims about hurting drug cartels). They practically made pot users a protected class.

Pot just legalized in my homestate. I'm actually undecided on the matter and I'm still weighing the pros and cons... possible (and already proven) health benefits vs. possible health and mental health risks (long & short term), also the fact that marijuana is viewed as a gateway drug, that it could impair a user's judgement, etc. I guess it's more of a discussion that could be saved for "the finer things" thread or a biology sub-forum, which I haven't found yet. Maybe science then? idk