The Alienation Of Tobacco Users

[bigpond]

warren said:

A strict adherent to the US Constitution might respond with "What about the pursuit of happiness?" My response would be; "Pursue it all you want. No where in the document is there any mention of a right to happiness."

perd said:

Beautiful Warren, Simply Beautiful.

A strict adherent would realize that the declaration of independence, which refers to the pursuit, is unambiguously the foundation of the constitution. It's the why, the constitution is the how.
Anyway, "promoting the general welfare" is right there in the first sentence of the constitution. If anyone can make a compelling argument that smoking benefits the general welfare, we'll, I have a client that want's to meet you.

 

[perdurabo]

Big pond, the general welfare refers to powers of government as limited in the constituition, not some living and breathing document that now includes tobacco, or another thing the government deems are for the public good.
I think it's better to invoke the Pursuit of Happiness, which is Lassiez Faire. Happiness means moral risk, that's how the founders saw it.

 

[bigpond]

Perd, people have been interpreting the constitution to best serve serve their own agenda every since it was ratified. I was a bit tongue in cheek in my last post but I will say the term general welfare most frequently is interpreted as referring to tax. Since taxation of tobacco is, as we all have been recently reminded, well within the purview of the government, the argument about "not living and breathing" seems out of step with the current reality. I don't claim to be a constitutional law scholar but I am a lawyer and if it helps, I went to the most liberal of liberal law schools :rofl:
Actually, now that I think about it, what was ultra liberal 18 years ago would probably be ultra conservative in todays' political arena.

 

[perdurabo]

Big pond, well it seems you are being quite crass, and your eduction has failed you. You probably never learned anything of worth about the Founding of the US in law school, much less anything of substantial use from the Bar. It's quite easy to read and comprehend English. It's also easier, now more than ever, to study the Original Intent of these documents. I'll be daft and concede, the Wilsonian wing of Progressive Americanism has spent a considerable amount of time, trying to reinterpret the Constitution or simply find ways to side step it. We would be fools to fall into this camp, as well as to summon taxation as some scheme to promote the welfare. :rofl:
The Constitution is a restricting document, where rights are not conferred by government, this simple fact sheds a clear and consise light on the Welfare that the Constituion is speaking of. No offense, but you have set yourself up for a laugh with the above statement, It's been the ideologues with an agenda.

 

[tmb152]

I see a few people identifying themselves as being anti-social or not liking people, and some others talking of the vilification of smokers. Well, that raises the question of whether being anti-social made you a smoker or whether smoking made you anti-social--- I submit it is the body politic of the world today that picks and chooses which banks will survive and fail, and which laws and industries it will enforce. Time was when smoking was such a common thing that it was even featured in the comics characters (Fred Flintstone sold cigarettes) and all one needs is to watch an old movie. All those people smoked and they were very sociable so it must not be the smoking.
It is a fallacy that smoking raises HC costs or anything else, if you buy your own care then whose business is it of anyone but yourself how you live? Yet the proactivist Left have ascribed for themselves the role of telling you how you must live your life.
You can't smoke in a building even if the building owner doesn't mind, you cannot have a smoking section even if it can be made not to offend anyone else, and the rights of a hundred must be stepped on if even one person complains. It does not matter if you are a light or occasional smoker, you have been identified as an unpopular sect of society--- children are conditioned at an early age not to question authority and to revile smoking as a dirty evil habit and by association those who practice it, without ever even seeing a pipe, tasting a cigar or smelling a blend to decide freely themselves.
If that does not make a person feel hostile and anti-social, I don't know what would. The best thing the pipe smoker can do is keep smoking anywhere and everywhere he or she can, to proclaim their right of autonomy and to let the world know that the art of smoking is alive and well, and the world can be damned!

 

[warren]

You speak in such generalities. As a child I was pretty much "asocial" and a loner. I preferred my own company to the company of others. I was not anti-social though. Yours above reads as though smoking causes you a lot of stress. Baring some third world slavery or a fraternal initiation all of us here made a decision to smoke. It's our choice and we have to accept all the baggage that comes with the choice. It's also a choice we can all unmake if the stress of the social pressures overcomes us.
The right tells people how to live your life as do the so called "libertarians". It's what a lot of people do, in fact most of us, in our bloviating, are telling people what they should believe, who they should believe in, what they should or should not smoke, how to clean a pipe, to wax or not to wax (pipes not pubes), and how to "correctly" live their lives. It's human nature for one to think they know best and want the best for every other living soul they are interested in.
I will say this: "Life's a bitch and then you die." That's pretty much part and parcel of life as I see it. One won't recognize good times without the hard times for reference.

 

[deathmetal]

If everyone likes you, you are doing something wrong.

Underrated comment of the day!

 

[bigpond]

No offense, but you have set yourself up for a laugh with the above statement, It's been the ideologues with an agenda.

One of the greatest assets of modern society is the availability of information. My post wasn't opinion or ideology and a simple google search will lay clear how the term "general welfare" has been historical interpreted by the court and the implication this had and continues to have on modern policy.
Here are a few:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare

http://lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause

 

[perdurabo]

Like I said, the Gernal welfare, refers to the powers as limited per the constitution. I believe it was Hamiliton who wanted to expand these powers in a broad range beyond the scope of the Constituiton. Being a strong Centralized Governemt advocate, Hamilton argued for this spending power, I believe the Whigs lost out, as history shows us. But in the long run, it doesn't matter, side stepping law is something that politicians have become masters at. Big pond and Perdurabo can't change that, Our perceptions are probably inline with the founders on the majority of these issues, maybe not. But the heated debate is fun and educational.
A side note on the Gernal Welfare, if we accept the fact, that if Federal Spending is limited to just what the Constitution implied in Article 1, Section 8, then we are left with a Governent whose spending would be wildly less than is spent now. The welfare implied, is a limited republican form of government that protects the Individual and the individual states against a Leviathan, not a bloated Over reaching Behemoth that we now have.
And the debate will continue from now until the fall of Future Societies. Man should never really be left to rule and make law over his fellow man, that was the drastic mistake the American Colonialist made. Articles of Confederation, would have been a wee bit less painful.
Cheers Bigpond, I think I'll enjoy another pipe, you have been a good sport. :clap:

 

[bigpond]

Man should never really be left to rule and make law over his fellow man, that was the drastic mistake the American Colonialist made

Well, good news 53% of US population agree's that men should not be making laws for everyone. Perd, turns out you are a feminist after all!

 

[deathmetal]

Man should never really be left to rule and make law over his fellow man, that was the drastic mistake the American Colonialist made.

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.

 

[tmb152]

Man should never really be left to rule and make law over his fellow man, that was the drastic mistake the American Colonialist made.

I'm sorry, huh?
Dramatic mistake of the American Colonialist? Huh?
Mensa society we are not.

 

[deathmetal]

Mensa Society is prone to the same mistakes.
Committee decision-making is fraught with problems.

 

[perdurabo]

LOL Bigpond...good one. Go ahead and change man to Human if you have to view the world from a sex-clusive point of view. Thanks for a good laugh. :wink:
Dramatic, HUH. I must be missing something. I'm sorry. :?

 

[deathmetal]

Go ahead and change man to Human

If we're all equal, it doesn't matter either way.
I'm more concerned with when we will explore space and perpetuate the species.
Isn't going to happen with neckbeards and bluehair academics.
Then the question is:
1. What has been, has been wrong

2. What is now, will soon be what has been
So where is it wrong?

 

[brian64]

Then the question is:
1. What has been, has been wrong

2. What is now, will soon be what has been
So where is it wrong?

I think it boils down to normalcy bias. Essentially a chronic condition of perceiving everything as normal no matter how big of a continually worsening cluster-fuck it all really is.
As Krishnamurti said, "It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

 

[tmb152]

As Krishnamurti said, "It is no measure of mental health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."

Did he really say that? Hrrumph. I could not disagree more. IMO, That IS the measure of mental health--- it is no accomplishment to be sane when all around you are too, the trick is to maintain your balance when all around you are loons! And I do not think we are a sick society, I think the problem resides in our leaders, people who aspire to govern us because they could not hold down a real job and earn a buck the honest way if their life depended on it. Most of these people are WAY F---cked up and screwing us over big time and I think the ills of our society can be traced right back to them and the topsy turvy world they force us into.
People are growing up in a world now that makes so little sense (even less than ever) that they have no choice but to revolt--- inwardly, outwardly, or some way. Talk to a millennial or some kid just out of school and you will likely find a person with no real clue about the world, doesn't really care either, just starting out in life and in many cases, already deeply jaundiced by what they went through in the public schools, which is now a factory of mental illness.

 

[bigpond]

A note to posters that may be, for whatever reason, feel inclined to post to this thread:
The discourse herein is not to be taken lightly. Please be respectful to the subject matter at hand and the many posters, several of which have expended considerable intellectual resources to bring fourth a meeting on minds rarely found outside of a convention.
I strongly urge posters attune themselves to the dynamics of this thread prior to posting by following this link, and allowing the content to play in the background while you compose your post. This will undoubtedly elevate your mindset to the lofty heights required to post alongside such august, wise gentlemen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1rUqecfA0

 

[warren]

Why in the world would you want us to elevate our mindset before posting in what is a totally nonsensical thread? Also, youtube? An essentially nonsensical site? Thank you, no. Benny did indeed operate on a higher plane. But, to drag such an august personage into this, is to disparage Mr. Hill's revered legacy.

 

[brian64]

@tmb: I think you're misinterpreting his saying. He's simply stating that being comfortable with and accepting of the systemic ills of society and the "power structure" as if nothing is wrong...being in denial in other words...is not a sign of mental health.
It's easy to blame everything on our so-called leaders, but when around 96% of incumbents are returned to office every congressional election you have to assign some blame to the populace. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.