"An Argument Against Pipe Smoking" (Blog entry)

[ssjones]

I saw this on Facebook today, an interesting take on our dilemma.
http://thejaggedword.com/2015/04/21/the-argument-against-pipe-smoking-an-ethical-quiddity/

 

[elbert]

Just yesterday I discovered that King James (VI of Scotland and I of England) wrote a pamphlet called A Counter blast to Tobacco. My initial reaction?
"I knew there must have been a reason we've dispensed with Kings in this part of the world."
Now in my view there is an ethical quandary, but it has more to do with tracing the effect of the dollar than the effect of the smoke--am I subsidizing someone else's addiction every time I purchase Tobacco?

 

[brass]

hmm, the scenario is unbelievable as it portrays legislature actually reading and researching the bills they pass.

 

[buroak]

This was an enjoyable read. Brass is right, though, the scenario stretches credulity. In addition to Brass's point, the idea that the Senator from California would recognize a Virginia tobacco made me chuckle. I am pretty sure that Senator would only distinguish between Regular Death Leaf, Menthol Death Leaf, and Sweetened New-Smoker-Seducer Death Leaf.
No offense intended to our Californian Brothers - all of you bravely persist under burdens I would not bear.

 

[mso489]

If public discussion doesn't have balance, it isn't discussion. We are beset today by true believers on all sides who don't want to discuss anything and whose minds are firmly closed.

 

[spartanfan]

debate and discussion are missing in many parts of society - but I guess me stating that is not really opening this up to discussion either, it can be difficult but is truly valuable

 

[gloucesterman]

Well presented and enjoyable. Unfortunately there are many out there whose minds are made up and they don't care to be confused by the facts

 

[okiescout]

You have to wonder when you see folks who cannot abide tobacco in any form or amount and yet want to legalize a weed far dirtier in content. :crazy:

 

[lostandfound]

^^^Science seems to say otherwise.^^^

 

[drwatson]

That was such a good read. I wish there were truly leaders like that.

 

[ssjones]

hmm, the scenario is unbelievable as it portrays legislature actually reading and researching the bills they pass.

You are quite right Pax. My wife works for the Maryland State Senate and we frequently talk about bills she is asked to research. Many times, our legislators are submitting bills that are far beyond their expertise and the research/bill writing teams. Recently, Maryland proposed some changes to classic car license plates, as you might imagine, 99% of the legislators involved didn't own a classic car (thankfully one Senator did, and stopped a nonsensical bill) I had hoped at the Federal level, that the talent would increase. Probably not...

 

[ssjones]

Here is the original article that inspired this tobacco themed entry, from Father Capon circa 1983.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/10/05/garden/the-case-against-heavy-cream-a-metaphysical-quibble.html
The Fr. Capon saw all of this coming over 30 years ago. This man had a pretty interesting life:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Farrar_Capon

 

[elbert]

You have to wonder when you see folks who cannot abide tobacco in any form or amount and yet want to legalize a weed far dirtier in content. :crazy:

I don't personally smoke the 'weed' in question, but I do consider myself a friend to that lobby. Which is why it's so disheartening to see their activists turn around and say "If you're going to ban anything, ban tobacco! Tobacco's the guy you want!"
Let's have both and (god forbid) let the individual make their own choice.