FDA delays deeming regulation
- Thread starter brudnic1
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Yes, I'm going far afield, but the point is that being white in the US or Australia makes one innocent by color in a criminal case, and being aboriginal in either country, with a history of being subject to genocide reflects the biased judgments they are likely to receive in court. Yes, now American Indians have come into this! At any rate, social norms live in the courtroom, and as tobacco has become a pariah, I don't think it can get a fair hearing. The statue of justice as a blindfolded woman holding up the scales reflecting only the weight of arguments made by the prosecution and defense is almost never true and will certainly be less so in this matter.
saltedplug: You've not heard of "jury nullification" I take it. This often occurs in the US. In many cases the legislatures have happily turned over their respo9nsibilities to the courts so as to wash their hands of unpopular acts.
Tobacco use has had a fair hearing over the last 70 years. The jury has spoken. You and I are now an oppressed, if unrecognized and protected, minority.
Tobacco use is a purely selfish and personal choice. Prohibiting tobacco use makes sense to some.
There are no proven positives, except self-gratification, to the use of tobacco and there are proven negatives. I understand the dangers and yet choose to smoke for purely selfish reasons. That is my choice. In making that choice I limit my employment choices, possibly shorten my life, I reek of stale smoke, as does my house and vehicle, etc.
I am unsure how the plight of blacks and aborigines enters into the discussion of tobacco usage. But, if we are to conflate the argument we should not forget to include the Polar Bear, the demise of two parent home, the loss of Hamm's beer (a deeply personal loss to me), the state of Dunhill, the plight of the Maple Leafs, the inhumanity of bull fighting, whether bats or guns should be used to harvest baby seals, seat belts, marijuana, and so forth ad infinitum, ad nausium, ad abserdum . Laws are established because parts of society desire such and the reasonableness of such laws are often not part of the discussion. Voters are the engine and votes are the goal of those who write such and sign into into law.
Tobacco use has had a fair hearing over the last 70 years. The jury has spoken. You and I are now an oppressed, if unrecognized and protected, minority.
Tobacco use is a purely selfish and personal choice. Prohibiting tobacco use makes sense to some.
There are no proven positives, except self-gratification, to the use of tobacco and there are proven negatives. I understand the dangers and yet choose to smoke for purely selfish reasons. That is my choice. In making that choice I limit my employment choices, possibly shorten my life, I reek of stale smoke, as does my house and vehicle, etc.
I am unsure how the plight of blacks and aborigines enters into the discussion of tobacco usage. But, if we are to conflate the argument we should not forget to include the Polar Bear, the demise of two parent home, the loss of Hamm's beer (a deeply personal loss to me), the state of Dunhill, the plight of the Maple Leafs, the inhumanity of bull fighting, whether bats or guns should be used to harvest baby seals, seat belts, marijuana, and so forth ad infinitum, ad nausium, ad abserdum . Laws are established because parts of society desire such and the reasonableness of such laws are often not part of the discussion. Voters are the engine and votes are the goal of those who write such and sign into into law.
Warren, I think you are correct in saying that the plight of aboriginal people does not belong in an argument for the free use of tobacco. Genocide and tobacco aren't even close to being in the same class. But I think my point stands, however lame the examples.
I am free to smoke. And, others are free to prohibit my smoking on their property. In Anchorage the people now prohibit my smoking in their buildings and on certain of their properties, parks and such. Smoking is allowed on their sidewalks as long as I remain fifty feet from an entrance to a business. Business owners are also free to prohibit my smoking in their hotel, cafe, hardware store, etc. as I am free to choose not to frequent their establishment, should I feel so moved. Business owners are free to withhold permission to smoke in the workplace. I am free to seek employment elsewhere if tobacco is such a force in my life. But, most importantly, I am free to cease smoking, there by increasing my disposable income, increase the resale value of my vehicle and home. I might also gain a few years above ground.
I was lucky enough to work at a time when smoking was "manly" and I smoked in my patrol car and behind my desk. The kids wearing the "bag" today can't do that. Most of them wouldn't if they couldn as they are more health conscious than my generation was. The new station house even has a well equipped gym full of what I consider expensive clothes hooks. Unbelievably it is nearly full 24/7.
I simply do not feel "put upon" with the restrictions. I resent some of them but, I understand that I am on the losing side of the argument. I can, infrequently of course, be a "good loser." I do not take the antis personally, nor wish to expend too much energy fighting them. I'm old, retired and not much interested the plight of younger smokers. Point of fact, I discourage people taking up the fair weed when asked.
I was lucky enough to work at a time when smoking was "manly" and I smoked in my patrol car and behind my desk. The kids wearing the "bag" today can't do that. Most of them wouldn't if they couldn as they are more health conscious than my generation was. The new station house even has a well equipped gym full of what I consider expensive clothes hooks. Unbelievably it is nearly full 24/7.
I simply do not feel "put upon" with the restrictions. I resent some of them but, I understand that I am on the losing side of the argument. I can, infrequently of course, be a "good loser." I do not take the antis personally, nor wish to expend too much energy fighting them. I'm old, retired and not much interested the plight of younger smokers. Point of fact, I discourage people taking up the fair weed when asked.
And no, for you new members, I am most emphatically not anti-smoking. I just think taking up the weed is fiscally stupid unless you have the extra cash to support; and that it is purely a selfish choice which should only be made with a full comprehension of the negatives. I fault no one for smoking. I'm thoroughly enjoying a bowl of of the old nag, War Horse as I type this.
Warren, I believe they still sell Hamm's beer in my neck of the woods, as I have seen it recently at the grocery store and the local liquor store, but I haven't had occasion to purchase Hamm's since high school. Maybe I should buy a case to reminisce.
My beer of choice in my wayward youth. I'll ask my spirits vendor. Thanks! I'm sure it won't taste as good as when it was taboo. Still, I'd like a stroll down memory lane.
Yeah, I'm a little lost here as well.
Thought we were a talkin about the FDA.
Not really sure how BLM, ANTIFA or Acorn, for that matter, would fit into this conversation. :?:
Thought we were a talkin about the FDA.
Not really sure how BLM, ANTIFA or Acorn, for that matter, would fit into this conversation. :?:
- Status