Obama bans clove cigarettes and other types, nothing of value lost.

[Maxxthepenguin]

God people need to stop using this argument. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it restricts government powers. I really think the Federalists were right on this one...where we may have been better off without the Bill of Rights. Which is the reason for the often ignored 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Right there is my right to smoke.

And for even more proof against the "if it's not in the Constitution, you don't have the right to it!" argument...The word "privacy" does not appear in the Bill of Rights. Try to deny that we have the right to privacy.

It's not that simple. The 9th Amendment may seem to be a catch all, but how our country has worked and survived has been through less strict interpretations of it. The Supreme Court is allowed to set precedent in interpretation. It has decided that this means that the government is not limited to exactly what is written in the constitution. Things have evolved since the constitution and an understanding of the constitution only gives a basic understanding of what our government can and does do.

Also, if the 9th Amendment restricted all powers not said to be given to the government in the constitution and amendments then why the hell are there other amendments that specifically say the government can't do certain things? That would be absolutely redundant and unnecessary.

[Cephius]

I'm not one to say that smoking isn't bad for you, of course it is. So is hundreds of other activities that people chose to engage in on a daily basis, and for me that's why I prefer to live in the US, we have been given the choice to kill ourselves in any fashion deemed legal by our government.

The operative word here is ourselves. If you want to hang yourself, jump off a bridge, shoot yourself, run in front of a bus or whatever, no one is going to stop you. But by smoking in public places or around kids you are potentially harming others. It's no coincidence that the laws regarding smoking in restaurants and public places have come at the same time when we've become more aware at how harmful cigarette smoke is.

It's the same thing with alcohol. Drink as much as you want, but as soon as you get behind the wheel and have the potential to harm other people is where the line is drawn. I think this is less about encroaching on the private life and more about safety for the people who don't smoke.

[Olo401]

I love how the smokers are up in arms about the government controlling their lives, but they have no problem shelling out $5/pack to Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man, or any other gigantic corporation. These companies have a decades-long history of scheming to make their products as chemically addicting as possible, yet you still defend them.

So you're against Bush, Obama, and all the bullies in government. Good for you! Stand up to the Man!

Just keep on taking it in the ass like Big Tobacco's bitch.

Hey.. I pay $10 a pack and it goes to a muslim-majority country. WASSUP!

[Koyuki]

I love how the smokers are up in arms about the government controlling their lives, but they have no problem shelling out $5/pack to Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man, or any other gigantic corporation.

3.18 before tax tyvm

[Cephius]

Also, who would ever claim that smoking (and drinking, for that matter) are bad for the economy of this country? Cigarettes have to be taxed more than practically anything else. It's like a golden ticket for politicians looking for funding. Want funding for a new government program? Add a tax hike to cigarettes. Who's going to cry about it? If they don't like it they should stop smoking. I heard earlier this year that one of Obama's new programs (I believe it was something healthcare related) was funded by a 10 cent tax hike on cigarettes.

[Cyn]

I love how the smokers are up in arms about the government controlling their lives, but they have no problem shelling out $5/pack to Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man, or any other gigantic corporation. These companies have a decades-long history of scheming to make their products as chemically addicting as possible, yet you still defend them.

So you're against Bush, Obama, and all the bullies in government. Good for you! Stand up to the Man!

Just keep on taking it in the ass like Big Tobacco's bitch.

Are you fucking retarded? You know that most of the cost of cigarettes is taxes right?

Furthermore, an outright ban on cigarettes would have a very noticeable effect on annual state tax revenues. You like having paved roads, right?

[Gregorio]

It's not that simple. The 9th Amendment may seem to be a catch all, but how our country has worked and survived has been through less strict interpretations of it. The Supreme Court is allowed to set precedent in interpretation. It has decided that this means that the government is not limited to exactly what is written in the constitution. Things have evolved since the constitution and an understanding of the constitution only gives a basic understanding of what our government can and does do.

Also, if the 9th Amendment restricted all powers not said to be given to the government in the constitution and amendments then why the hell are there other amendments that specifically say the government can't do certain things? That would be absolutely redundant and unnecessary.

The government assumed most of the powers that are not specifically delegated through various wordings in the Constitution, not just the Supreme Court. The most notable and often abused example of this is the interstate commerce clause.

And regarding the redundancy of the Bill of Rights, read some of the Federalist Papers or even just wiki the history of the 9th amendment to answer your question.

[Furionstormrage]

I love how people assume that I'm a smoker because I posted a link to a topic discussing healthcare costs for smokers that went against some other results being shared. If you bothered to read the link and the relevant links contained there-in, feel free to discuss it with me.

Dimmauk obviously didn't, he/she didn't have time, so I'll ignore that.

It doesn't matter if I smoke or not, my fear is that our government will reach the point that they are directly regulating our everyday activities "for our protection". It starts out with things that are obviously for the betterment of society, but where does it end? And I'm not being paranoid or anything, it's just something to think about.

Regarding Cephius' comments, that's a pretty grey area you're painting. Jumping in front of a bus affects more than my life, it affects everyone on the bus, everyone near the accident, etc. So does jumping off a bridge, especially if said bridge is an overpass for a populated highway.

For quite some time we've had designated smoking areas in most restaurants, those that did not wish to be subjected to smokers would sit in non-smoking areas (As do my wife and I when we eat at such establishments, it's not hard of a task to undertake), but now business owners are forced to eliminate smoking areas, without receiving any compensation for the loss of business from smokers not wanting to eat where they can't smoke. (More prevalent in bars obviously).

But hey, if it doesn't affect you it doesn't matter, right?

[archibaldcrane]

Again, ban smoking in buildings, public places, anywhere it can affect others, sure. Hell, ban it in private homes that have children in them if you like, fine by me.

But banning this particular product is fucking stupid - and I hate smoking. This is a Phillip Morris rubber-stamped piece of bullshit legislation to eliminate competition, and Obama should be more responsible to the American people than to sign it.

[Absolutely Virtue]

Are you fucking retarded? You know that most of the cost of cigarettes is taxes right?

Furthermore, an outright ban on cigarettes would have a very noticeable effect on annual state tax revenues. You like having paved roads, right?

Philip Morris earned $1.52B in profits in 1Q09. About $6b/year selling EIGHT HUNDRED BILLION cigarettes worldwide.

Philip Morris profit beats Street; backs '09 view | Reuters

Yes, I'm fucking retarded. The taxes make the tobacco industry practically a charity, and we need those cigarettes to pay for roads. How else can we drive to the hospital to visit our friends dying from lung cancer?

Keep giving them your money, you're not their bitch at all.

[Cyn]

I can post links too:

The Tax Foundation - The Effect of the Federal Cigarette Tax Increase on State Revenue

Massive Tobacco Tax Increase by Congress Spells Even More Economic Disaster for Jobs... | Reuters

[Maxxthepenguin]

The government assumed most of the powers that are not specifically delegated through various wordings in the Constitution, not just the Supreme Court. The most notable and often abused example of this is the interstate commerce clause.

Well, my perspective is that though legislature passes laws or the executive branch acts in ways that stretch or interpret the constitution in certain ways, it is the supreme court that, by not deeming the laws or actions unconstitutional it gives its implicit approval. Short of an amendment, they are the final say in what is constitutional.

And regarding the redundancy of the Bill of Rights, read some of the Federalist Papers or even just wiki the history of the 9th amendment to answer your question.

I did. It more or less says "ok we aren't going to cover everything the government can't do but we'll make sure the important stuff is covered and the rest is less important but covered." To me, and to the people who had the power to make the decisions throughout history, that means that the people after the bill of rights were free to expand upon what the government can't do as long as we don't cross the important, stated lines. The separate governmental powers, however, can't just up and do whatever it damn well pleases whenever it wants.

[Maxxthepenguin]

But banning this particular product is fucking stupid - and I hate smoking. This is a Phillip Morris rubber-stamped piece of bullshit legislation to eliminate competition, and Obama should be more responsible to the American people than to sign it.

If it was a separate bill, I would agree with you, but things don't get passed in legislature as separate things for the president to pick and choose. They get bundled into bills and though banning flavored cigs is not a good thing, vetoing a bill that makes the ambiguous and misleading labels that are put onto cigarettes regulated would be absolutely fucktarded.

He simply doesn't have the kind of control over the lawmaking process to do things how you and I think is right. I DO blame the congress, which is overwhelmingly Democratic, for this unnecessary and useless (as far as public health is concerned) ban.

[Cephius]

Regarding Cephius' comments, that's a pretty grey area you're painting. Jumping in front of a bus affects more than my life, it affects everyone on the bus, everyone near the accident, etc. So does jumping off a bridge, especially if said bridge is an overpass for a populated highway.

Granted my examples weren't the strongest. But I think you see my point.

For quite some time we've had designated smoking areas in most restaurants, those that did not wish to be subjected to smokers would sit in non-smoking areas (As do my wife and I when we eat at such establishments, it's not hard of a task to undertake), but now business owners are forced to eliminate smoking areas, without receiving any compensation for the loss of business from smokers not wanting to eat where they can't smoke. (More prevalent in bars obviously).

There have been publications asserting that not only is there no negative effect on businesses who ban smoking, but that they actually have positive effects, too. There's counter-arguments by the restaurants of course, so I guess it depends on who you want to believe. It is at least debatable on whether or not the smoking ban actually caused a loss of business. People still eat where they like, and just leave when they need to smoke.

But hey, if it doesn't affect you it doesn't matter, right?

The whole point of my argument is that someone else smoking does affect me and thus does matter.

[archibaldcrane]

I can post links too:
Massive Tobacco Tax Increase by Congress Spells Even More Economic Disaster for Jobs... | Reuters

MINNEAPOLIS, Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- In an urgent message to Congress and
President-Elect Barack Obama, the National Association of Tobacco Outlets
(NATO)

Rofl NATO

[Olo401]

I've been doing some thinking.. help me out here.

What would happen if someone who enjoys purchasing and/or smoking clove cigarettes (or even hand-rolled cigs with flavored tobacco) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law? On what basis could a constitutional argument be made? On what basis could an argument be made against such a challenge?

[Maxxthepenguin]

I've been doing some thinking.. help me out here.

What would happen if someone who enjoys purchasing and/or smoking clove cigarettes (or even hand-rolled cigs with flavored tobacco) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law? On what basis could a constitutional argument be made? On what basis could an argument be made against such a challenge?

BG lawyers are about as good as BG doctors and BG relationship counselors.

[Dimmauk]

BG should open up an online University.

I'd love to see the Class Catalog.

[Zilong]

Evolutionary Theory 101: Darwinism and you

[Maxxthepenguin]

Humanities 115: Religions of the world and why you should hate them