BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

BAR[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On 2/28/12 7:24 AM, BAR wrote:
In , dump-on-
says...

On 2/28/12 1:22 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 21:30:45 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 2/27/12 8:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:22:59 -0500, X ` Man

Every majority that wants to discriminate against a minority has Peer
Reviewed studies to prove they are right whether it is Goebbels, David
Duke or Rick Santorum.
When all of the "peers" are anti smoking groups it is not surprising
that they come to the same conclusion about very low levels of second
hand smoke.

You think "peers" should be pro-smoking?

No but they should be pro freedom.

There are acceptable threshold limit values on every chemical in
cigarette smoke but they do not apply if the source is cigarette
smoke.

GOOD.

So you admit this is not science, tt is prejudice.

Naw. I don't buy your argument so I'm just playing with the language.

Cigarette smoke is not one of those trade-off thingies you like so much.
It's like Hitler...there's no reason to compromise about it...it's all
bad and *anything* that can be done to eliminate cigarettes is a good
thing.

The outlaw them completely. Why should people benefit from taxes on
cigarettes.

I would argue that it makes sense to continue to raise the taxes on
cigarettes to the point where they are so expensive, the market for them
collapses. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies are now concentrating
selling their deadly wares to minors in third world countries. I'm sure
at some point there will be a worldwide ban on the manufacture and sale
of the damned things.

Legal is legal. Besides tobacco built the USA. If there was no tobacco
then we would have been just a very large lumber yard.