Should smoking be illegal?

My idea of having a free and easy way to quit smoking is a good one. Imagine how many people would take advantage of it, if it were available? The only problem you have with it is you wouldn't be able to make something illegal that many people are using.

 

Neither state nor federal governments have the power to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. No government, under our law, has the power to tell the citizen what he must or must not consume.

If you think otherwise, might you cite the constitutional authority for your opinion?

 

Wrong on multiple counts!

First off you are DEMANDING that doctors and scientists put a great deal of research and effort into something without any possibility of even being recompensed for any of it merely for your own personal convenience.

Why should smokers NOT be required to pay for such a service and/or treatment?

Finally I am on the record AGAINST making smoking illegal so your utterly BOGUS strawman allegation about me is completely and utterly fallacious.

 

The Constitution grants the government the power to regulate commerce and maintain law and order.

 

That is a true statement, but regulating commerce is not equal to prohibiting the citizen from possessing or consuming certain substances. Indeed, such a prohibition is a violation of the law. All political power flows from the people under our system. The government has been granted no such power, and its usurpation of a violation of the law.

 

Please feel free to take your argument to the SCOTUS in order to repeal the FDA's right to regulate drugs and the DEA's right to enforce those regulations.

 

I never demanded anything, I merely pointed out that if it is so important for everyone to quit smoking it would be good if someone would come up with a free and easy way to do it. It would be an altruistic endeavor on their part to do it. Companies and scientist have done it before in other areas without any hope of recompense.

You sure to take things personally here, my comment about not being able to make something illegal was using the colloquial you meaning everyone here who want it illegal. Remember these posts are not text messages and are meant to be read by all not just you.

 

Thanks, I have better things to do in my life than appear before such a corrupt gang as SCOTUS.

Here, we are talking about the meanings of words, specifically "regulate commerce", "ingest substances", and a few others. "Regulate" and "prohibit" are not synonyms, though the way you are posting here, you might want me to believe that. Sorry Charlie, no can do.

Further, we need to determine the meanings of the words "power", as used in the US Constitution, and "rights" as also used there. To be clear, the federal government has certain specific and enumerated powers, granted by the people, and the people have "rights". Those two words are not synonyms either. Accurate discussion demands accurate and consistent definitions.

 

Typical smoker's response!

 

I think the government would only be able to make tobacco products illegal to use or manufacture but I don't see that happening because they get a lot of money off it's use.

 

Typical Derideo post.

 

I'm not really sure of your point here, but recall that the government chose to make alcoholic products illegal a century ago. After about 12 years everybody realized it was a horrible policy, and they repealed the (legal) prohibition. They realized that a policy of prohibition of consumer products causes more harm to the country, and repealed the Volstead Act and its constitutional amendment.

Today we are either much more stupid than they were then, or much more corrupt.

 

My point is the government is not likely to make it illegal as they get a lot of money in taxes from it's use.

 

Well, let's see...

Should smoking be illegal?
jgoins made an unreasonable demand that scientists must come up with a free and easy method to quit.
Your response was to point out the fiscal benefits of quitting that don't cost anything but instead put money back into the pocket of the now ex-smoker.

So then actually, it was jgoins and you that led the thread down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Close but no cigar! Jgoins came up with the inane demand and I exposed it as fallacious. From that point onwards it was you that decided that the ludicrous rabbit hole had merit and persisted in pushing the idiocy while I continued to expose it as selfish and asinine.

 

mostly because of the unreasonable tax put on consumers

be like taxing sugar 500% and saying if you quit sugar you will save money

 

yes, we do not stop kids from playing sports cause they might get injured, people from going to beaches cause they might get skin cancer, people buying sugar cause they might get obese and get diabetes, people from drinking alcohol cause they might become a alcoholic, people from driving cause they might get in a accident, the list goes on

we are a free country, we should not give up that freedom so easy

 

How do you feel about all the free (to the user!) treatment for those addicted to ILLEGAL drugs? Medicaid spends a fortune on this. So do communities! At least tobacco smokers have paid taxes and contributed to the societal coffers for their drug of choice. I personally think tobacco smokers would be MORE deserving of free assistance to quit and free healthcare for the effects of their addiction. At least their drug was legal and they paid taxes on it. But hey, let's keep treating the heart infections of 25 to 30 year old heroin addicts who have overdosed multiple times and go right back to using after their month long stay in the hospital costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc etc. At least the tobacco smokers aren't driving and passing out behind the wheel, endangering others. I could go on and on. The point is.......lay off tobacco smokers, unless you are going to cut off everyone else who makes choices that cost society. At least the tobacco smokers are addicted to a LEGAL product, and as we all know, addiction is now considered a medical condition. If it means addicts get free treatment for illegal drug use, then it really ought to be free for legal drug use, right?

 

Only commerce among the states.

 

to be honest I have never had a issue with smokers, now Drunks, there is a group that needs taxed 500% if were gonna tax things

 

If a terminally ill person is a prisoner, leaving him/her without care would be cruel punishment contrary to 8th Amendment. How can a non-prisoner be subjected to such neglect?

 

All States have Laws prohibiting many narcotics.

I am not an expert in Law.

 

In my experience, all smokers are *******s. **** them. Blowing their nasty **** in my face. I vote for making it illegal.

 

How do you feel about the FACTS that prove you to be WRONG?

https://www.grammy.com/musicares/news/steep-costs-drug-addiction-united-states

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicati...tions/drug-addiction-treatment-worth-its-cost

So it is CHEAPER to treat addicts than it is to incarcerate them which is SAVING taxpayers money.

As far as the cost of treating smokers goes the MAJORITY of their health problems only start AFTER 20 years of smoking which means that they are treated via Medicare and Medicaid at taxpayer expense when their healthcare costs are at their highest and yes, that is effectively "free treatment" given how it is heavily subsidized.

One more point about addicts that you FAILED to mention is the massive OPIOID CRISIS in RURAL areas. What is that costing taxpayers and do you even care?

 

State governments also regulate commerce WITHIN their states.