The government has no place in telling you what you can or cannot eat, drink,
smoke or otherwise consume. It has a very limited place in protecting the
rights of others if your engagement in these activities infringes on them: that
is, only if it is clearly and imminently dangerous to others (IE, driving while
intoxicated, which inherently puts random others at immediate risk.)We all know the food police are not very far behind the tobacco police. It's
not a very long walk from "you can't smoke that" to "you can't
have fries with that."Any expansion of government powers in
controlling your private, peaceful, non-coercive actions is improper, and an
example of the "nanny state". For Republicans to assign expansion of
the nanny state solely to Democrats is disingenuous and outright false. The
destruction of individual rights and liberty is a thoroughly bipartisan act.
I love these legislators that try banning products to protect the children.
Seriously, if that is the case with tobacco, and it is such a danger to society,
just ban it altogether. However we all know that will not happen because they
love the sin tax that they collect every time someone buys alcohol or tobacco.
I find bills like this very upsetting. I believe that a lot of it is due to
misconceptions. I have been smoking a pipe since I was 23 years old, as did my
father and grandfather, and none of us ever got cancer or any other health
problems from it, and my dad is 88 years old, while my grandfather was 97 when
he passed away. While most of my tobaccos are unflavoured I do like to buy
aromatic tobaccos to smoke after dinner. I do not understand why they do not
attempt to simply be more careful to whom they sell to as opposed to what they
sell. They need to be more considerate of others before they attempt to pass
these ridiculous laws.