Welfare tobacco ranching?

[cjcj]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YoteGunner:
CJ,

This gets to be a slippery slope when you start arguing freedoms. Why have the right to smoke tobbacco and nicotine, but not pot or snort coke? Why make prostitituion illegal? Why regulate gambling....? In this country, we have limits on all sorts of activities, and for the most part, we all agree that the majority thinks it is bad, we pass laws, and away goes the activity.

If you think freedom of Choice is good for smokers, who kill themselves, why not for Crack-heads and Pot-heads?

I think you just end up drawing the line, somewhere, and to me, it is no more of a threat to freedom of choice to ban smoking as it is to ban Polygamy or Slavery. Some ideas are just bad, and they can go away, without a major impact to our "freedom".

Every flippin' state in the Union has its own Liquour laws, and all of them are set up as to what the "majority" want. In Idaho, we have to buy our Liquour (hard stuff) from the State, and pay taxes right there. We don't complain, as the law is OURS, written by our representatives. No threat to freedom, just our way of taxing/controlling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well some of what you say here is true, but consider the fact`s, how is that law against prostitution working out? [fact it`s not] how about the war on drug`s? [ total failure] maybee we should think about a compromise, partial legalisation, or somthing i say i don`t need the gov`t telling me to wear a seatbelt, whether to smoke or not or drink or not and if stupid people want to kill themselves doing drug`s why stop them? are we stopping drug`s,smoking, prostitution now? That is a big NO! as you said in your post if the majority think`s it`s bad then we pass laws, i bet you anything that in some states the MAJORITY think`s hunting is bad, so should they outlaw hunting? the more intrusive the gov`t get`s in everyone life [smokers etc.] the worse we all have it, so if you don`t want to defend your neighbor`s right`s the your`s are sure to be next. here is an example of how gov`t work`s, about 5 year`s ago there were to many kid`s drowning in pool`s , so they passed a law requiring all pool`s to have fences, now drowning`s in the county are up 250%, you see you don`t need to watch your kid`s anymore the gov`t will do it for you! all in all YOU CAN`T OUTLAW STUPIDITY, but the gov`t won`t stop trying [and we let them]

 

[JoseCuervo]

CJ,
I agree, you can't outlaw stupidity, but for some reason we try to pass laws to protect ourselves. I have been wearing seat belts since I got my pilot's license 17 years ago (negative G's are a bit awkward with out a seat belt), so I have just always worn one in the rig. Idaho just passed a mandatory seat belt law, effective last month. Is it a good idea? Yeah... does it take away our Freedoms? Doubtful.....

We have tons of white men running around with Bibles in their hand, thinking it is ok to ban Women's Freedoms to make the Choices they want. Should Hunters be aligning with the Pro-Choice camps, to make sure we ALL get our Freedoms? Probably no more than we should be aligning with Texas bait hunters and Nevada Brothel owners.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> so if you don`t want to defend your neighbor`s right`s the your`s are sure to be next. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my neighbors are illegal aliens who need healthcare, is it important for me to defend THEIR rights, so I can keep hunting? I would be stretching to find the connection.

Cj, the anti-hunting polls generally run 10% anti-hunting, and then a HUGE amount 70-80% no opinion, and the remainder being Pro-hunting. It is important for Hunters to police themselves, and keep the 10% number where it is. In Idaho, we ("real" Hunters) would never call High Fence Elk Shoots to be "hunting". I think they likely increase the 10% anti- toward the 51% majority.

 

[cjcj]

Gunner you know illegal`s have NO right`s , so you don`t have to worry about defending them. and i`m glad that you and me and others are smart enough to wear a seat belt without being told, but to pass a seatbelt law is bullshit,what`s next no riding in the back of a pickup? that`s alot more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt right, i`ve raced and road motocycle`s for 30 yrs. and alway`s wore a helmit, but that`s my choice, and i wouldn`t push it on anyone who does`nt want to, i guess my problem is law`s keep getting passed and passed and how many laws do we need when does it end? in my opinion enough already ! for every new law that is passed, they should have to remove one from the book`s`,this would keep all of these idiot legislator`s from passing their ne-jerk law`s,and make them consider what the hell their doing.

 

[dgibson]

There is (in my mind) a fundamental difference between no-smoking type stuff and no-drugs type stuff. It can be demonstrated that drug habits lead to crimes against others (robbery, muggings, etc.) because of an irrepressible need to feed the monkey. There is a recognizable victim directly attributable to drugs, outside of the druggie himself. There are people who will rob, mug, or murder for want of a cigarette or a shot of whiskey, but I bet those numbers are greatly reduced. By and large, the only victim is the smoker or drinker himself (not counting Buzz' insurance rates, which is debatable). Same thing for prostitution: there's no demonstrable victim; the hooker chooses to hook for money and the trick chooses to spend his money on community nookie. No one else gets hurt. The only REAL justification for prostitution laws is because it's morally wrong and the Bible says it's bad. Is that grounds enough for legislation?

So, that would be where I draw the line between personal rights and controlling laws: who's the victim? Flimsy and subject to debate, but it's all I've got!

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj, for being so smart....sometimes you miss a few things.

Lets use your seatbelt and helmet issue.

I'd be more than happy to not pass a law requiring either...you can keep your freedom of choosing not to wear one with no fines.

However, if you dont wear a seat belt or a helmet you dont get any medical attention if you get hurt because of your stupidity.

By choosing not to wear your seatbelt or helmet, you are endangering emergency workers lives unnecessarily. Therefore, your actions are directly affecting someone else. Thats why I'm in favor of seatbelt and helmet laws...I couldnt give a shit less about the idiots who dont wear them, run your head into the pavement and have the brain of a tomato afterward, whatever. But I do care about the people dispatched to rescue their dumb asses.

I feel your freedoms end where they directly affect someone elses.

 

[MarlandS]

Cj, actually illegals do have Rights , and they get them more than we do. "All men are created equal" not "all citizens", it ain't right but it is a fact.

The next time the anti-smokers sit around grill smelling the meat cook, just remember all the carcinogens in grilling meat or cooking meat for that matter.

I'm curious, not wearing a seatbelt endangers emergency personell, how so? Whether you wear a belt or not a wreck is a wreck and the personell are there. Seatbelts ain't got shit to do with nothing except saving the Life insurance companies money, sometimes. I'd rather be thrown out of a car and die of head trauma than burn up because the seatbelt wouldn't release like my cousin did. But that Freedom of Choice was legislated away from me.

 

[dgibson]

Here the EMT's roll regardless of the nature of the accident because each involved person has to sign a waiver of medical attention. That way you can't turn down medical services and then suddenly get whiplash when a ambulance chaser calls you.

Mars, I grill but I don't inhale.

 

[cjcj]

Very weak Buzz, your seatbelt argument, do the emt`s ask before they go on a call if the victim`s were wearing a seatbelt, or helmet? we have truck`s with 2-6 illegal`s in the back, and they have no protection[that`s a good thing] but they don`t get any ticket`s, isn`t that more of a danger than being inside the cab without a belt. like i said to much legislation SUCK`S pure and simple, the last thing i need is some asshole telling me what to wear.

 

[cjcj]

Just as an afterthought, following the Buzz philosophy maybee fireman and emt`s should just stand by and watch a house burn if the knew it was started by a SMOKER!

 

[BuzzH]

Marland, I disagree.

Theres many small collisions that occur every day that are no big deal and no need for EMT's, Ambulances, etc. because people wear seatbelts....those same accidents would require EMT's to rush to the scene to help injured people that would have otherwise not been harmed if they had used their freaking seatbelt or helmet.

Hey, like I say, you dont want to wear a seatbelt, dont do it, just dont expect EMT's to help your stupid ass either... The way I figure it, if your smart enough to choose not to wear a seat belt, you're basically telling everyone your smart enough to take care of yourself. So, when you get in a wreck and incure injuries from not wearing a seatbelt, lick your own wounds.

Oh, and take a look at some stats on injuries related wearing a seatbelt versus not wearing one...everyone I know has a friend of a friends brother-in-laws-uncles-nephew who has either 1. drowned because he couldnt get at his seatbelt or 2. died in a firery crash. Never mind the many thousands that walk away without injury because they wear them.

Oh, and you can still choose not to wear a seatbelt...you just have to pay a few bucks to the state for the right to not wear it (if you get caught). Kinda like needing a hunting license to hunt.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-03-2003 00:10: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[MarlandS]

Here it don't matter unless the crasher refuses , EMT's are dispatched anyway. Unless the caller is the person in the wreck, the caller isn't qualified to make a medical decision.

The story about my cousin is true the same as stories about people getting thrown out and killed or impaled on the steering wheel from not wearing belts, but burning up scares me worse.

We all know why the cops like seatbelts anyway, it make it easier to find the victim.

The bad part is it ain't like a hunting license, it's more like pay to hunt, it happens each time. $75