Thursday, January 24, 2013

Responsible Government or Intrusive Big Brother Nanny State Mentality on the March...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


If anyone doubts the presence of Nanny State Progressive Mentality in the nation's democrats one need look no further than Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland Oregon and his ridiculously absurd anti smoking legislation that he introduced in Oregon.

Don't get me wrong. As an aspiring personal fitness trainer I advocate a healthy and active lifestyle. Certainly smoking does not lend itself to a healthy lifestyle. Quite the opposite.

However, I do not support the state as being the vehicle to control the individuals choice with respect to fitness and health practices. Certainly not beyond the aspect of education and requiring the accurate representation of the health risks associated to risky behavior.

SALEM, OR (KPTV) - If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both.

Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.

Watch KPTV news video HERE.

Be very leery of Big Brother and the Nanny State Mentality. Just sating...

Via: Memeorandum

37 comments:

  1. My libertarian sensibilities are blunted a lot by how tobacco abusers in way too large numbers thinking nothing of throwing trash all over the place and forcing others to smoke as well.

    I'd have no complaint if they cleaned up after themselves and didn't force others to smoke. That is what needs a stiff criminal penalty, really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. dmarks,

      Point of Order, sir.

      If smokers are outside, in the open air, is this them forcing you to breathe in their toxins? Or were you referencing a closed-space, filled with their second-hand smoke?

      Yes, I agree on the trash aspect. Cigarette butts upon the ground look slovenly and trashy. I wonder how Obama does it? Does he have a special "Smoking Area" behind the White House with a special "Presidential Ashtray"? ;)

      I mention the open-air thing because even as a non-smoker, I see no harm in smokers being outside, with a breeze, toking it up, and avoiding entrances and doors to buildings.

      Delete
  2. Mayor Bloomberg may have finally found his soul-mate, fellas'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not on the other stuff, Will. It is not comparable at all. No one ever forces anyone to drink a giant soda.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Morbidly obese governments at all levels are starving, going broke, and their talon-clawed grasp will leave no life or activity unscathed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. America is going broke. That's because Republicans cut taxes before they cut spending. We owe 17 trillion, and that cannot be changed even if we cut spending NOW. Obviously we are not being taxed high enough to pay for our spending. That is irresponsible leadership, not an overbearing bureaucracy. Have Americans said they want to eliminate SS, Medicare, or any other program? Not yet, and until they do, they must be responsible for and pay for the services they demand from their government. The generation that started these programs knew that, and taxed themselves accordingly, at twice the rate we tax ourselves now.

      Delete
    2. Well Anonymous, whichever one you are, your logic makes perfect sense. Won't argue against that kind of logic, it would be a sure losing argument.

      However...

      Either we find a reasonable path to 1) cut some spending (don't tale the DoD off the cutting block, 2) overhaul and simplify the tax code closing loopholes, 3) reduce foreign aid (particularly to regimes that are corrupt or hate us), 4)eliminate any duplicitous government programs, 5)and start focusing on taking care of our on citizen's issue o this nation will indeed implode.

      The Clinton era tax rates certainly weren't stifling, and he left GWB with a budget surplus. Although I must point out a rEpublican Congress had a hand in helping Clinton's. Nonetheless I now have found memories of the "Clinton Economic Expansion." And he even managed welfare reform.,

      Delete
    3. "The Clinton era tax rates certainly weren't stifling, and he left GWB with a budget surplus."

      According to the Treasury Department, Clinton left GWB with a deficit. A low one, but a deficit nonetheless.

      Delete
  5. Agreed, but those decisions should have been made 30 years ago when Regan submitted his tax cut plan. Those who have run on the "No New Tax" pledge and ideology within the last 30 years should be held accountable for the financial mess and their misjudgments. Accountable meaning they do not deserve a place at the negotiating table to balance our budget. Even today, all Republicans are saying is they will vote down tax increases, they don't offer spending cuts. In fact they refuse to cut DOD. Leadership must either convince Americans we live without these programs, or we must drastically raise taxes. So far leadership has not convinced Americans to eliminate these programs, so.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I'm not mistaken Reagan did in fact raise taxes, I believe it was 9 times?

      No new taxes at the time made a bit of sense, to a point. Lowering taxes during economic downturn to stimulate spending and investment has merit, in IMNHO. Of course the flip side of this is that during the cycle(s) of expansion and economic growth taxes should be adjusted so as balance the budget, create a surplus, and pay down the debt.

      It's too late to turn back the clock. It's not too late for rEpublicans and the Tea Party to jump out of the box and think a bit differently. IMNHO more like a real conservative or classical liberal.

      There is plenty of opportunity and room for spending cuts. They should be made. As the economy improves taxes (for everybody) need to be ticked up a bit. Otherwise no matter who is President or who holds the congress deficits and the debt will continue its upward trajectory.

      Delete
  6. So tax levels should float according to spending? I agree. No reason tax levels should stay the same, if spending goes up, or down.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's time to quit smoking geniuses. The dangers of smoking tobacco have been understood for over sixty years now. Why protect this industry that produces skeletons out of otherwise healthy people?

    Now a relatively harmless product like marijuana is actually protected by illegal status. This avoids the commercialism and profit-seeking that are the bane of our civilisation. The worst thing that ever happened for stoners is legalization of any kind. Huge mistake.

    Alcohol is okay to be legal. I think that has been demonstrated. Let's go ahead and try outlawing tobacco. We could avoid senseless early death.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Now a relatively harmless product like marijuana is actually protected by illegal status."

    Only relatively harmless because it isn't abused as much. But the smoke does damage lungs, and unlike with tobacco, abuse of marijuana impairs people. That is a big danger tobacco does not have.

    ReplyDelete
  9. dmarks, the volume of smoke inhaled by a cigarette smoker is exponentially greater than that of even the heaviest pot smoker. As for impairment, if we trust that people will be aware of that and act responsible is the question, and one would thank any conservative or libertarian would rather err on the side of trust than ban the substance entirely - a substance that no matter what the law, millions will still use. Of course, if you mean by "impairment" some long-term complication, there's little evidence of any significant problem there.

    At least cigarette content should be at least regulated so as to be less dangerous (as should be marijuana).

    That could save billions and billions in healthcare costs, boost economic activity, and let's face it - save a lot of lives.

    In a way, I wish they would just ban the damned things, but then that never works. Not for guns, not for booze, not for drugs, not for prostitution, not for any ubiquitous social ill at all. Regulation is the only way to deal with it. Keep it legal, but keep it responsibly monitored and regulated by the society.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jersey: You might be right.....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Gah! The Nanny State is going wild.

    So, when can we expect a ban on alcohol?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, smoking is bad for your health.

    But I recall hearing about any smokers taking out carloads of people on the roads the way that those driving drunk do on a regular basis.

    Just sayin'.

    Too much glucose (carbs) is bad too. Shall we be consigned to food packets that are rationed by the Nanny State?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Too much of anything can be bad.

      Stick with the complex carbs, they provide vitamins and minerals as well as being a primary substrate forom which energy is produced.

      Delete
  13. Still, drunks typically abuse alcohol without forcing everyone nearby to do so. Not so with tobacco abusers. If they kept it to themselves, I'd have no problem at all with it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. dmarks, the sicker your fellow man the less productive he could be for you. There is a very healthy (excuse the joke) capitalistic reason to regulate cigarette smoking.

    It's rather sad that your problem with it comprises no compassion for your fellow man at all.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  15. To Anon: We would have to implement taxes higher that Europe's in order to cover out deficits. Good luck with that...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck with future Americans being able to make good choices as a country being broke. Most mistakes do mean hardships, to correct. Americans are willing to die anywhere in the world to make America safe (?) they are just not prepared to sacrifice some of their money to create a stable future, yet, they were willing to go broke to save themselves a little in taxes.

      Delete
  16. Jersey: So? Someone could also eat 5 pounds of bacon a day and no fruit, and get at least as sick. Do you want this regulated also?

    It's not "rather sad" at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do you know what 5 pounds of bacon costs? Do you know anyone who ever did that?

    You never smoked, did you?

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey jmj, still waiting for your response to my last response to you.

      Delete
  18. "I need government to save me from myself!" - said no sensible person, ever.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "...typically abuse alcohol without forcing everyone nearby to do so."

    This ignores the very real danger of drunk driving, which in fact, is a very real danger to non-abusers. Also, alcohol abuse has destroyed many families and often is the cause of domestic violence. No, we can't save people from their stupid addictions and habits, but we can make it harder for them to indulge in them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw,

      We agree. Alcohol, unrestrained and in an undisciplined sense of usage, has caused great horror and damage to Americans. How many rapes, murders, assaults, robberies, homicides, etc, have had their root in alcohol abuse?

      However, while we agree, may I pose a somewhat related question? If we agree that alcohol is the cause of drunk driving and it is drunk driving that kills so many Americans, can we not then also consider that it is mental instability and not guns themselves that have caused such horror in regards to the shootings we have all seen recently? In simpler terms, neither you nor I would blame the car for the actions of a drunk driver, we would blame alcohol. Can't we blame the person, then, and not the gun for these shootings, using similar logic?

      By the way, it's nice to see you again on RationalNationUSA. I am still waiting, however, for you to prove that Nancy Lanza was mentally unstable and the reason Adam Lanza did what he did.

      Delete
    2. "This ignores the very real danger of drunk driving..."

      I didn't ignore it. I just pointed out the fact that tobacco abuse is very commonly foisted/forced on those nearby, and this rarely if ever happens with alcohol.

      If someone drinks a beer in a crowded room, it is entirely unknown that they will force others to drink the beer. There is a chance they might drive drunk after drinking it, but this is a very small chance. It's a lot different from the tobacco abuser, who will force at least several people to consume what he or she is consuming.

      Delete
  20. ConFire3: "...can we not then also consider that it is mental instability and not guns themselves that have caused such horror in regards to the shootings we have all seen recently? In simpler terms, neither you nor I would blame the car for the actions of a drunk driver, we would blame alcohol. Can't we blame the person, then, and not the gun for these shootings, using similar logic?"


    Here's the difference, ConFire3, unless you're in the military or law enforcement, or employed as a guard for either banks or any prive business, a gun is not necessary to live one's life. I needed a car in my life because I lived in the suburbs and needed to drive to get everywhere. I've never owned a gun, and that has not impaired my ability to live my life. A car is necessary; a gun is not. We give people tests in order to get a driver's license; we register cars and in many states require yearly inspections to make sure it is in proper working condition. If a driver causes either property damage or personal injury while driving a car, he/she pays for it through insurance; or depending on the kind of damage; a jail sentence. We impose all sorts of restrictions, demands, etc. on cars. We should do the same for guns. Those two drunk men in Ohio who were shooting off their guns--I think they were using an AR-15s--need to lose their guns and have to reapply to own guns ever again. We need to start punishing idiots severely who are not responsible with their guns--like leaving loaded guns around the home so that kids get their hands on them. Parents or relatives who do so should be mandated prison severe sentences. It's not an "accident" when a child picks up a loaded gun in the home and kills himself or another child--that's gross negligence. The owner of the gun should spend years and years in jail. That would serve as a warning to everyone who owns guns to keep them locked up and away from children.

    ConFire3: "By the way, it's nice to see you again on RationalNationUSA. I am still waiting, however, for you to prove that Nancy Lanza was mentally unstable and the reason Adam Lanza did what he did."

    I don't recall that I ever wrote that. Can you tell me where I did?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw,

      *blushing* You are so correct, it was NOT you who said Nancy Lanza was unstable and you could prove it! My apologies, my sincerest apologies! It was taospeaks, on the post "Unspeakable Evil" that Les wrote regarding the Sandy Hook shootings. Again, Shaw, I apologize. (I get you liberals mixed up, sorry....:))

      Okay, now that I've eaten crow, let's move on...

      I agree with your comments about guns. I disagree however that I don't need one, and I am surely neither military (any more) or police. I have guns because I am rightfully permitted to have guns. Being former military (11 series US Army and some other MOS designators thrown in)I am personally comfortable around guns, and have a deep and abiding respect for them. I know what they are capable of doing in the hands of a person like me.

      You would penalize gun ownership for people who treat them carelessly. I get that. I would, as well, but much harsher than you. Trust me, Shaw, if you (used generically) act the fool with guns in front of me, I will put you in your place with the quickness.

      As to keeping guns away from children, this is grey area to me. Allow me to elaborate before you disagree. I have every intention of raising my daughters to know, understand, be familiar with, and respect guns. Definitely. I will start teaching them when I believe they are ready. So my daughters will not fear guns in a scared way, but in a sober-minded respectful way.

      Does this mean I do not have my guns secured? Of course not. I do have them secured. No one I know who has young, young kids does not have theirs secured. Should there be stiffer penalties for unsecured private guns in a private house in America, when children are present? Hmmm. Not 100% sure about this. I see a slippery slope there, and I'm not 100% ready to squeeze this trigger on it. I would hope people would have the common sense to be responsible with their guns, but...well, we both know that is not realistic.

      Anyhoos, I've babbled enough. Again, my apologies for attributing a statement from taospeaks to you.

      Delete
  21. No problem with the mistake. It was honest, and besides that, I was not offended.

    We agree on punishing those gun owners who do not take their responsibilities seriously. Perhaps if those who are careless and leave loaded guns around the house are punished, other will get the message that that is not acceptable.

    I understand that you own a gun[s] because it is your right to. It is my right to own one as well. But I don't need to own a gun to live my life. Would you be able to live your life without a gun, that is if you're not living in a lonely remote area of the country where law enforcement is miles and miles away? Or do you own one because you just enjoy the ownership? That is what I was trying to illustrate in showing the difference between owning a car and owning a gun. One is necessary to one's life; one is not, unless for the reasons I've pointed to in my previous comment and in this one.

    Anyway, no one has an argument with responsible firearms owners. We need to educate those who are NOT responsible on what the consequences are for NOT taking firearms ownership seriously. And that would have included Adam Lanza's mother. Her son was unstable and yet she had loaded guns accessible to him. Pure idiocy on her part, and she paid a terrible price for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shaw,

      I own guns because ....yes. I will simply say yes.

      I do have a small point of order though. I hear it said, time and again, that Nancy Lanza was irresponsible with her legal guns and this is how her son got ahold of them and did what he did. I have heard people say they were basically lying about the Lanza house, on the kitchen counters, in the bathroom, etc, etc, and Adam just picked one up and shot his mother with it. Oh, because all of them were also loaded.

      I am being a bit melodramatic and sarcastic, but in all seriousness allow me to ask: has any proof been put forth that proves Nancy Lanza did not have the guns secured? Has there been a police report saying that there was no gun safe in her house? Has someone provided photos of the interior of the house and it can be plainly seen that no gun safe was present?

      I mention this only because it reminds me of how if a woman says a man raped her, and he is cleared, the accusation still hangs in the air. Once a man is called a rapist, his life is pretty much over. With Nancy Lanza, people are mentioning that she just had those guns lying about the house all willy-nilly, but...but...no one knows this for sure, and it is inappropriate that people keep parroting this untruth. Once it is out there, though, it becomes gospel. No one but Adam Lanza and his dead mother know how those weapons were either stored or not.

      Delete
    2. Nancy Lanza was gone out of town for two or three days immediately preceding the shooting.

      I think that I read somewhere that she was advised by an expert to give Adam more opportunities for independence. From what I gleaned, she was accessing or trying to access expert advice regarding her son.

      It is not out of the realm of possibility that Nancy Lanza was advised to leave the house for a few days. Her son killed her quite soon after she returned.

      I have read from several sources information indicating that she was concerned about her son's recent behavior and had stopped taking him to the gun range some time back.

      So, I have to wonder if she didn't have the guns secured. Gun safes can be broken into -- given enough time and sufficient isolation (out of earshot, etc.).

      Delete
    3. Shaw,

      Just to clarify, I totally support the idea and reality of being responsible stewards of privately-owned guns. Definitely!

      Delete
  22. I'll give up my Prince Albert pipe tobacco when you pry it from my cold dead hands. :)

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.



LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails