Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Last week, another bill was passed and signed into law that takes more of our freedoms and violates the Constitution of the United States. It was, of course, done for the sake of the children, and in the name of the health of the citizenry. It’s always the case that when your liberty is seized, it is seized for your own good. Such is the condescension of Washington. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act will give sweeping new powers over tobacco to the FDA. It will require everyone engaged in manufacturing, preparing, compounding, or processing tobacco to register with the FDA and be subjected to FDA inspections, which is yet another violation of the Fourth Amendment. It violates the First Amendment by allowing the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising in multiple ways, as well as an outright ban on advertising any cigarettes as light, mild or low-tar. The FDA will have the power of pre-market reviews of all new tobacco products, and will impose new user fees, meaning taxes, on manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. It will even regulate the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. My objections to the bill are not an endorsement of tobacco. As a physician I understand the adverse health effects of this bad habit. And that is exactly how smoking should be treated — as a bad habit and a personal choice. The way to combat poor choices is through education and information. Other than ensuring that tobacco companies do not engage in force or fraud to market their products, the federal government needs to stay out of the health habits of free people. Regulations for children should be at the state level. Unfortunately, government is using its already overly intrusive financial and regulatory roles in healthcare to establish a justifiable interest in intervening in your personal lifestyle choices as well. We all need to anticipate the level of health freedom that will remain once government manages all health care in this country. Actions in Congress such as this tobacco bill are especially disconcerting after we thought we were beginning to see some progress in drawing down the wrong-headed and failed war on drugs. A majority of Americans now think mar1juana should be legal, taxed and regulated, according to a recent Zogby poll and over 70 percent are in favor of allowing medicinal use of mar1juana. Bills like this take us down exactly the wrong path. Instead of gaining more freedom with mar1juana, we are moving closer to prohibiting tobacco. Our prisons are already bursting with non-violent drug offenders. How long will it be before a black market in tobacco fills the prisons with non-violent cigarette smokers? Hemp and tobacco were staple crops for our founding fathers when our country was new. It is baffling to see how far removed from real freedom this country has become since then. Hemp, even for industrial uses, of which there are many, is illegal to grow at all. Now tobacco will have more layers of bureaucracy and interference piled on top of it. In this economy it is extremely upsetting to see this additional squeeze put on an entire industry. One has to wonder how many smaller farmers will be forced out of business because of this bill. <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBozAosnKO0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RBozAosnKO0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> http://www.ronpaul.com/
the most disturbing and sad part about this thread is the lack of replies compared to the hundred reply nonsense on the same page. the degredation of society continues and the flock of sheeple continues to grow.
philip morris just did away with the competition of flavored cigarettes and took away lesser known companies ability to advertise. They already have established brands. Anyone want to bet the nicotine limit is very similar to where marlboro is right now?
Sorry Ron but our government and most of the drones in support of this, believe the way to combat poor choices is through regulation and monetary punishment. They love Cap and Trade, sin taxes, heavy regulations, anything and everything that takes away more of the descision making from people and gives it to national bureaus and czars.
I don't believe in sin taxes or punishing people financially for bad habits.... But high taxes on cigarettes does have an impact, cigarette use is down in NYC dramatically since the taxes and bans were put into place. Personally, I do feel smokers should pay higher health care premiums. If you want to destroy your body, that's fine, but why make the rest of us pay for your health care coverage?
I think that's one of the reasons some people fear a "government-run" health care program. It has the possibility of leading to more of this type of regulation. If the "government" is footing the bill for health care it's in their direct financial interest (and the interest of all the taxpayers) to stop you from engaging in unhealthy behavior. In a note unrelated to the above post, if you use the word "sheeple" in your post I'm willing to bet 90% of the people who read it disregard everything you wrote.
yeah prohibition. it works so well we should just keep doing it. Nothing like people deciding what others can and can't do. Yeah lack of personal freedom.
Well, why would people fear a gov't health program? You have the choice to pick whatever program you want or can afford. You can go with Oxford, Aetna, Guardian. Adding one that anyone is automatically eligible for is great. Today you really need two health care policies anyway for more in-patient services since insurance doesn't cover 100%. Look, I think all insurance companies should be able to adjust their premiums based on how you treat your body. It's just like auto insurance, if you speed or drive an expensive car which costs more to repair, you pay higher insurance. I don't get this whole, poor smokers are being exploited non-sense. Just as I don't want to pay higher premiums for someone who is a reckless driver, why should you force me to pay higher premiums for someone who treats their body recklessly? Maybe smokers should fear that.
No one pays higher premiums because of smokers, they die sooner and thus cost less over the long haul. Being old for a long period of time is the most expensive option for your insurance provider.
DING DING DING! WINNER! Seriously, I'd like anyone who has a problem with heavy regulations on smoking to look me in the eye and, with a straight face, tell me that smokers don't drag up MY health insurance costs, even though I've never smoked and never will. Now, when the day comes that people who get cancer as a result of smoking, and insurance companies have the power to say "we're not paying a cent for your treatment, because you brought this on yourself," THEN smokers can have all the "personal freedom" they want.
Yes, then lets do the same for HIV and AIDS patients, because they also made bad choices. Why should I have to pay for their treatment when I wasn't the one having unprotected sex or sharing a needle. Also, if you catch a disease that has a vaccine available you shouldn't be covered in that case either. People with type 2 diabetes should also loose their coverage since they could just put the fork down and end most of their complications.
HIV/AIDS: Bad comparison. First of all, the act itself (sex) is crucial to survival and is a basic human function, smoking is not. You can get AIDS without even really doing anything wrong... bad syringe, or having sex with someone who *claims* they don't have it. But a smoker knows they're putting themselves at risk. Diabetes: Again, bad comparison. Eating is crucial to human survival and is a basic human function, just as sex is. Smoking is not. The end. I'd also like to note that both my parents are smokers. I've been telling them for years that when they get cancer, I won't feel sorry for them... How about I modify the idea a bit: every health plan needs an opt-in to buy coverage for smoking-related complications. That way smokers can still get coverage when they get lung cancer from it... only difference is, they bear the cost themselves.
bleh, boo hiss. I'm against this wholeheartedly. When will we ever learn that man's vices are plentiful and subject to no state or god? And that the only way to become a saint is through self-realization, not restrictions that force you one way or another. Though, on the plus side, seeing a few multimillion dollar corporations squirm is kinda cool, although my heart goes out to the employees that will inevitably suffer in place of the executives on top.
Sex without a condom is not necessary neither is *over* eating. Bad Choices are simply Bad Choices Just because one is YOUR BAD CHOICE and one is someone ELSE'S BAD CHOICE it does not matter We all make a bad choice. . . society is about a collective group of individuals live together for the betterment of all . . . well . .it use to be now . .. it is we live together to benefit me. . .soon as you don't benefit me . ..well you can just die Rocket River
Exactly what I was getting at. And I maintain that the lowered life expectancy offsets the cost of increased cancer risk and treatment for smokers.
