quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

King or Dictator?....A little much,don't you think Sanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


As an ex smoker who absolutely hates the habit, I still believe that it should be MY decision whether or not to smoke.

Or to eat fattening foods.

Or drink soda pop.

Or have a beer.

Or have any kind of sex I want without a condom.

Or bungee jump.

Or go hang gliding.

Or climb a mountain.

Or go mountain biking.

Or race on the NASCAR circuit.

Or pilot an experimental aircraft.[sm=couch.gif]

NOT the federal governments!

quote:

Wow...that little "monologue" reminds me of the funeral scene from "Four Weddings and a Funeral"...so, so sad....

quote:

Extra taxes are just another form of taking liberty away, of imposing the will of someone who thinks he should have the power of  king or a dictator over us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


After he's done taxing our cigarettes in order to impose his will on the people, what comes next, mike. We won't give up our freedom all at once, we'll give it up a little at a time, and only kings and popes and dictators believe they have the moral duty or whatever you want to call it to decide for the people what liberties they may or may not enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

King or Dictator?....A little much,don't you think Sanity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

in my opinion extra taxes aren't nearly as scary as...ummm....i dunno...say...wiretapping, or removing civil liberties and setting up black ops at will.  And as far as bedroom monitoring goes:  i've been much happier knowing my bj's aren't going to have Pat Robertson pounding on my door with a bunch of angry villagers....His "folks"  are no longer running the government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

in my opinion extra taxes aren't nearly as scary as...ummm....i dunno...say...wiretapping, or removing civil liberties and setting up black ops at will.  And as far as bedroom monitoring goes:  i've been much happier knowing my bj's aren't going to have Pat Robertson pounding on my door with a bunch of angry villagers....His "folks"  are no longer running the government.

id be more concerned about taxes, they affect far more innocent people than wiretapping and imaginary losses of civil liberties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

in my opinion extra taxes aren't nearly as scary as...ummm....i dunno...say...wiretapping, or removing civil liberties and setting up black ops at will.  And as far as bedroom monitoring goes:  i've been much happier knowing my bj's aren't going to have Pat Robertson pounding on my door with a bunch of angry villagers....His "folks"  are no longer running the government.

id be more concerned about taxes, they affect far more innocent people than wiretapping and imaginary losses of civil liberties.

quote:

In 1914, a watershed event in America's race towards Prohibition occurs: The Harrison Narcotics Act is passed, which severely restricted the sale of opiates and cocaine. As interesting as what was restricted was how it was done. Recognizing that it was unconstitutional for the US government to simply outlaw drug sales/use, they employed a tactic that had been growing in popularity: They called it a tax. Instead of outlawing the drug trade, they required that anybody involved in it had to be registered and pay a tax. However, the tax was not equally applied; doctors and pharmacists were required to pay only a registration fee, while other people were required to pay a prohibitive tax on every sale. As a result, the sale of opiates and cocaine was effectively restricted to medical professionals "in the course of [their] professional practice only." Others, unwilling or unable to pay the tax, would be charged with tax evasion and fined/imprisoned if they sold the restricted drugs. Thus, the federal government was able to tell itself that it was acting within the constitution because it was 'just using its power to tax', which of course they did have a right to do. (The argument against the constitutionality of federal prohibition at the time was primarily one of state's rights and limited federal power; the states could outlaw drugs, the federal government could not.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Raising the tax on tobacco is not and never has been analogous to stripping people of their liberties......Why you would make such a major leap is beyond me....unless you have another agenda?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

in my opinion extra taxes aren't nearly as scary as...ummm....i dunno...say...wiretapping, or removing civil liberties and setting up black ops at will.  And as far as bedroom monitoring goes:  i've been much happier knowing my bj's aren't going to have Pat Robertson pounding on my door with a bunch of angry villagers....His "folks"  are no longer running the government.

id be more concerned about taxes, they affect far more innocent people than wiretapping and imaginary losses of civil liberties.

Cigarette taxes???????  Because that's what we're talking about here. Ask any smoker if they'd prefer cheaper cigs over roving wiretaps or being put on a  watch list  because they once went to a website that contained anti-government sentiments (or even hardcore porn), or attended a peace rally, or married a Muslim.  think besides a staunch few, and they might just be hot under the collar....most would prefer a free America to a cheaper pack of Marlboro Lights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

in my opinion extra taxes aren't nearly as scary as...ummm....i dunno...say...wiretapping, or removing civil liberties and setting up black ops at will.  And as far as bedroom monitoring goes:  i've been much happier knowing my bj's aren't going to have Pat Robertson pounding on my door with a bunch of angry villagers....His "folks"  are no longer running the government.

id be more concerned about taxes, they affect far more innocent people than wiretapping and imaginary losses of civil liberties.

Cigarette taxes???????  Because that's what we're talking about here. Ask any smoker if they'd prefer cheaper cigs over roving wiretaps or being put on a  watch list  because they once went to a website that contained anti-government sentiments (or even hardcore porn), or attended a peace rally, or married a Muslim.  think besides a staunch few, and they might just be hot under the collar....most would prefer a free America to a cheaper pack of Marlboro Lights.

That is a proposition you would lose in a heartbeat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thegirlincharge

"Extra taxes are just another form of taking liberty away, of imposing the will of someone who thinks he should have the power of  king or a dictator over us."

See now that's the point, Sanity,  he is not taking anything away from anyone, he is recognizing the things that can be taxed and in doing so not harm anyone. Smokers can smoke all they want! I smoked 2 packs a day until 6 years ago when I quit...I know the addiction, but I also know that anyone can do without them. I have never seen a smoker quit only because cigarettes were too expensive. Taxes are a necessity and luxuries should be taxed.