|
Post by libertylover on Apr 15, 2009 12:37:18 GMT -8
I'm pretty sure SOME of the tax money taken from us hard working citizens does some good for the community. How else would all these "homeless" teenagers be on foodstamps and still live with their parents? Money taken away from individuals by taxation does harm, not good. It is a myth that subsidation by taxation produces positive results.
|
|
|
Post by libertylover on Apr 15, 2009 13:47:28 GMT -8
For the government to tell you whats healthy, or what age something is appropriate is unconstitutional. Besides, I think there is very little chance that the smoking age is going to change. It was just a proposal. Don't tread on me. how is it "unconstitutional" for them to require experts to advise you of health risks? exactly which of your rights does this violate? cigarette companies inform consumers of health risks ONLY because they have been sued so many goddamned times by idiots that they wised up. the smoking age will not change, and as a smoker, i don't think it should. until you're legally an adult (and until you're legally able to bring forth an actual lawsuit or enter into a contract) the government doesn't view you as being fit to decide whether or not you are mature enough to risk health. and sean-- for one, your argument is really only valid concerning alcohol, not cigarettes. the legal drinking age was also put into effect due to health studies in human development. and shit, waiting until you're 21 seems really lame now, but once you are old enough, you will definitely understand. at least there isn't prohibition, right? when you are old enough to go into bars, you will be thankful that there aren't a bunch of 18 year old skeezies there with you. the tax is lame, but i prefer it over sales tax on EVERY item. oregon is lucky not to have sales tax, so don't get too greedy kids. enjoy the prices while they last, cause they're only going up from here... For one, you must understand how the constitution was written. The constitution lists what the federal government CAN do. If the federal government does anything that is not specified in the constitution, it is unconstitutional. If they are going to write a law that says you can't smoke until you are 21, it goes beyond what the constitution allows the federal government to do. A disproportionate tax on cigarettes is also unfair to smokers and cigarette companies. The government should not have free reign to control an industry through taxation.
|
|
|
Post by libertylover on Apr 15, 2009 14:04:37 GMT -8
Hey, maybe you should keep repeating the same paragraph in a different order and then I might agree...wait, you already have! No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it is not unconstitutional. And If you would really like to prove me wrong, show me the amendment where it outlaws the government from making laws to protect their citizens. Stop being a whiny bitch cause you can't get into bars. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the constitution is.
|
|
|
Post by ericdietrich on Apr 15, 2009 16:10:28 GMT -8
"As long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's rights, I think people should be able to do what they like."
Thats all I'm trying to say, but not in opinion form. Its a fact. Thanks, perry.
|
|
|
Post by Lady S. on Apr 15, 2009 16:20:39 GMT -8
"As long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's rights, I think people should be able to do what they like." Thats all I'm trying to say, but not in opinion form. Its a fact. Thanks, perry. libertylover/ericdietrich- the only thing sadder than misunderstanding the constitution is going to 541ms.com and making more than one profile so you can agree with yourself over and again. i rest my case.
|
|
B
Newbie
Posts: 24
|
Post by B on Apr 15, 2009 17:30:08 GMT -8
When it comes down to it, it seems as though the government chose cigarettes to further tax knowing many smokers will cough up the money rather than give up the habit. And yes, when given rights such as going to war and voting at the age of 18, why should the smoking age be risen? This is a personal issue and although restrictions such as smoking in restaurants should be given, the actually act of smoking shouldnt be restricted from younger smokers. Do they really think by raising the age it will discourage people? I don't know about others, but when I was younger I found it pretty damn easy to get them despite the 18 year old requirement.
|
|
|
Post by username on Apr 15, 2009 18:52:30 GMT -8
"As long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's rights, I think people should be able to do what they like." Thats all I'm trying to say, but not in opinion form. Its a fact. Thanks, perry. libertylover/ericdietrich- the only thing sadder than misunderstanding the constitution is going to 541ms.com and making more than one profile so you can agree with yourself over and again. i rest my case. That's not an argument, so technically, you can't rest your case. Good try though. The only thing sadder than... Man, I don't even know. I was going to try to write something clever, but then I realized that clever is no replacement for something intelligent. That's something you might want to look into.
|
|
|
Post by ericdietrich on Apr 15, 2009 19:12:58 GMT -8
Wait, who has more than one profile on 541ms?
Not I, thats for sure.
Maybe you should look into that, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lady S. on Apr 15, 2009 19:17:05 GMT -8
libertylover/ericdietrich- the only thing sadder than misunderstanding the constitution is going to 541ms.com and making more than one profile so you can agree with yourself over and again. i rest my case. That's not an argument, so technically, you can't rest your case. Good try though. The only thing sadder than... Man, I don't even know. I was going to try to write something clever, but then I realized that clever is no replacement for something intelligent. That's something you might want to look into. everything before it was an argument. i assumed you would have noticed. but that's cool, i guess i'm neither clever nor unintelligent according to you. damn, and i was trying so hard to impress you too....ha
|
|
|
Post by ericdietrich on Apr 15, 2009 19:37:03 GMT -8
Again, it was a nice try.
And what was the argument again? I'm yet to find a valid argument on your part.
|
|
|
Post by max on Apr 22, 2009 18:06:09 GMT -8
how is it "unconstitutional" for them to require experts to advise you of health risks? exactly which of your rights does this violate? cigarette companies inform consumers of health risks ONLY because they have been sued so many goddamned times by idiots that they wised up. the smoking age will not change, and as a smoker, i don't think it should. until you're legally an adult (and until you're legally able to bring forth an actual lawsuit or enter into a contract) the government doesn't view you as being fit to decide whether or not you are mature enough to risk health. and sean-- for one, your argument is really only valid concerning alcohol, not cigarettes. the legal drinking age was also put into effect due to health studies in human development. and shit, waiting until you're 21 seems really lame now, but once you are old enough, you will definitely understand. at least there isn't prohibition, right? when you are old enough to go into bars, you will be thankful that there aren't a bunch of 18 year old skeezies there with you. the tax is lame, but i prefer it over sales tax on EVERY item. oregon is lucky not to have sales tax, so don't get too greedy kids. enjoy the prices while they last, cause they're only going up from here... For one, you must understand how the constitution was written. The constitution lists what the federal government CAN do. If the federal government does anything that is not specified in the constitution, it is unconstitutional. If they are going to write a law that says you can't smoke until you are 21, it goes beyond what the constitution allows the federal government to do. A disproportionate tax on cigarettes is also unfair to smokers and cigarette companies. The government should not have free reign to control an industry through taxation. Not true. The Necessary and Proper clause allows the Federal Government to do stuff like that. Anywho, what's the big whoop with cigs? They're terrible disgusting, and stank! I don't know about you guys, but I like having lungs. and breathing. Seems pretty rad to me...
|
|
|
Post by Shayne the Kid on Apr 22, 2009 20:25:37 GMT -8
Cigarettes are cheap here, about $1.70 a pack and it's legal to drink at 18 which I think is a lot better. You don't see a bunch of underage kids running around getting wasted, since they know 18 years old isn't that far away. I also don't see a lot of people getting super fucking trashed here (except all of the tourists...) It's also nice to walk into a bar, buy a sandwich and a beer and not have anyone bother you by asking for your ID.
|
|
|
Post by perry on Apr 23, 2009 6:49:20 GMT -8
Lucky as a muthafuck.
|
|
|
Post by libertylover on Apr 23, 2009 21:47:45 GMT -8
For one, you must understand how the constitution was written. The constitution lists what the federal government CAN do. If the federal government does anything that is not specified in the constitution, it is unconstitutional. If they are going to write a law that says you can't smoke until you are 21, it goes beyond what the constitution allows the federal government to do. A disproportionate tax on cigarettes is also unfair to smokers and cigarette companies. The government should not have free reign to control an industry through taxation. Not true. The Necessary and Proper clause allows the Federal Government to do stuff like that. Anywho, what's the big whoop with cigs? They're terrible disgusting, and stank! I don't know about you guys, but I like having lungs. and breathing. Seems pretty rad to me... "The "necessary and proper" clause requires a right fit between means and ends. Besides being a proper end, the end must also be necessary (in the plainest sense of the word), in terms of the stated purpose of government ("to secure theBlessings of Liberty"). The ends must be necessary, and if they are, the means may be proper or improper. The means may violate the principles of federalism and the separation of powers, the enumerated powers or may violate natural rights. All laws enacted by congress must be necessary to secure liberty, aimed at goals consistent with the enumerated powers, preserving federalism and the separation of powers and protect natural rights." Read about it. www.reasontofreedom.com/necessary_and_proper_clause.htmlUnderstanding how the Constitution is written is a key to understanding it's authority. It was a document that was written to restrain the government's power. It was a contract with the people and the government. Read the 9th and 10th amendments. They show the spirit of the Constitution clearly. The necessary and proper clause was not a blank check authorization for Congress to do whatever they feel OK with doing. It was written to say that Congress could write laws as long as they were within the restrictions of the rest of the Constitution. If the necessary and proper clause was written to authorize anything the Congress wanted to pass as law, there would be no point to the rest of the document. The natural reading of the Constitution in accurate context places your justification of such a law in a light that exposes its absurdity.
|
|