Slashdot Mirror


Oregon Raises the Smoking Age (fastcompany.com)

From a report: Some 95 percent of lifetime smokers pick up the habit before their 21st birthday, so Oregon lawmakers yesterday passed a law making it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase cigarettes in the hopes of nipping the bad habit in the bud. "By the age of 25, this addiction is cemented in the brain and it becomes very difficult -- almost impossible -- to quit," State Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, told KGW. Oregon is not the first state to do this, and it probably won't be the last. No one under 21 can (lawfully) buy cigarettes in Hawaii, California, Washington, D.C., and Guam to date. It also passed in New Jersey, but noted beachcomber Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the bill -- although it could still become law there. According to the American Cancer Society, at least 250 localities across the country have passed similar local ordinances.

45 of 410 comments (clear)

  1. Is this to save lives? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will it also be illegal to send those under 21 off to die in wars?

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re: Is this to save lives? by Time_Ngler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But why can't the same 18 y.o. person who can sign their life away in the military not be deemed responsible enough to decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette?

    2. Re: Is this to save lives? by SirSlud · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    3. Re: Is this to save lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Basic training is 10-16 weeks 24x7. How many classes on the pros and cons of smoking does a person need to sit through before they're allowed try their first one?

      I've never smoked, don't agree with the ban, and have never been in the military, but I'd expect the military training makes you responsible enough to stay in it.

    4. Re: Is this to save lives? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because one act contributes to society while the other is costly to society.

      Both acts are costly to society, though in different ways.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Is this to save lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not voluntary, it only looks voluntary. We've largely stopped funding higher education and an increasing share of the jobs that pay a decent wage require a college degree of some sort. Sure, there are ones that don't, but there's a much higher supply of people who need those jobs than positions to fill.

      Calling it an all volunteer military when it's some people's only meaningful hope of bettering themselves in society is a rather large stretch.Even back in Vietnam most of the people in the military at that time were "volunteers." Even if many of them were like my dad hoping to get out of some backwater rural town with no other viable options.

    6. Re: Is this to save lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a former Army Officer I can tell you this is horse shit. The US military has a very carefully crafted indoctrination program that convinces these *children* they're serving their country and doing the right thing, when they're really being manipulated to fight rich men's wars. It is sick and one of the main reasons I left. There was no good that came from the US involvement in the middle east, other than lots of dead innocents and a whole generation of kids fucked up for life. This nationalist crap has got to stop, if you think it's better to train kids to kill and send them off to war is preferable to them shooting heroin, much less smoking cigarettes, you're a fucking mad man and exactly what is wrong with this country.

    7. Re: Is this to save lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please provide a reference for where you got that information...

      Smoking does cause a number of illnesses that are not lethal, but still very costly and may present themselves while a person is still quite young. You also have to factor in that most smokers are from low-income areas, so public school is an assumption. This would then be an extra cost where a person is home sick a lot more than a non-smoker and may also die earlier than the retirement-age resulting in a lower ROI on the person.

      A quick search pointed me to:
      https://www.treasury.gov/press...
      where it points to a total cost of $130 billions. (from 1998, adjusted value would be $195 billion.). $130 billions is excluding the increased cost of reduced mortality, see below quote.

      With each cigarette smoked taking seven minutes from the average smoker’s life — and taking
      into account the lives lost due to smoking-related fires and smoking during pregnancy — the
      estimated cost of reduced mortality is approximately $120 billion per year. This cost is the
      equivalent of $5 dollars for every pack sold, and represents the amount over and above the lost
      productive output mentioned earlier.
      While these costs are impressive, they are highly subjective. Exactly how one would apply this
      methodology to the human costs of smoking is a complex and certainly controversial question.
      As a result, we have chosen not to include the costs of reduced mortality in estimating the cost of
      smoking in the U.S.

    8. Re: Is this to save lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      I like how the only doctors you've been to are a dentist and a "chiropractor" (note: they're quacks) and somehow know there's nothing wrong with you. That cancer is going to be a fun surprise when it metastasizes.

    9. Re:Is this to save lives? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      It depends. How addictive is fighting in a war? I've known plenty of guys who quit cold turkey once their tours of duty were over and didn't feel any constant urge to keep shooting.

    10. Re: Is this to save lives? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      Treatment for lung cancer can be as expensive as a house. If you live in a state like Oregon with filial responsibility laws and your father dies of lung cancer, you can be socked with bills that will make you homeless.

    11. Re: Is this to save lives? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      You didn't have an intensive 12-week training on the dangers of smoking. And if you think chiropractors are real doctors, you are as dumb as you sound.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  2. Re:Nanny state socialism by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, the reasonable law would be to raise the smoking age 1 year every year, no new smokers.

  3. Terminology compounds the problem by garryknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not a "bad habit," it's a drug addiction.

    --
    Garry Knight
  4. Age of Consent by mlookaba · · Score: 2, Insightful

    States that require someone be 21 years of age to consent to engaging in risky smoking behavior will also ban those under 21 from enlisting in the military, right?

    Young people do lots of risky things. Let's be consistent.

    1. Re:Age of Consent by SirSlud · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One thing is risky because it's dangerous to serve in the military to defend the geopolitical interests of your country, while the other thing is dangerous because it's a drug that carries significant health risks.

      I don't see why you think you're being smart by appealing to treat these things the same way.

      Vehicles are also very dangerous, but using vehicles provides a massive net benefit to society that cigarettes do not. It doesn't take a genius to understand why in actual fact, legally and socially, we view and legislate these activities differently.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  5. Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You need to be 21 to smoke a cigarette, but at 18 you can go into the army and kill people

  6. Re:State rep. quote is complete rubbish by peragrin · · Score: 2

    And you are among the exception. Actually I would argue that you were never permenately addicted to begin with. While yes you did develop a short term chemical dependacy you never developed or at least changed the nerve dependacy that makes change harder to impossible to quit.

    Some people just can't quit a chemical dependacy,. Alcohol, coffee, nicotine.

    Me I knew what I would be like with an alcohol drpendancy and so never let it develop while young, so now older I can have just one drink.. I only drank under the age of 30 when in a truly good mood and happy environment. Drinking while angry leads to other issues in my family.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  7. Nicholas Alkemade says ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately it also turns out that if you're going to learn statistics you must do it before you're 23.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Re: Whew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you comparing murder with smoking ? How about we forbid people ALL unhealthy behavior- starting with alcohol and food, moving to cars, extreme sports and anything that may somehow harm your precious little life. After all, the state should know better what's better for your body. That's all I can say about your comparisons...

  9. Re:State rep. quote is complete rubbish by dwywit · · Score: 2

    40 years a smoker (and I enjoyed it), quit cold turkey 4 years ago - that's not a "short-term chemical dependency". I did some self-reflection, and decided it was time to stop.

    Some can do it, others need help. If you *want* to give up, you will.

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  10. Addictive Personality by zifn4b · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This doesn't solve the root cause problem. The root cause problem is some people have addictive personality. Addictive personality in my estimation arises from an inability to cope with the anxieties of life and reality. Therefore the person turns to self medication. If it's not cigarettes, it'll be something else. If we addressed the root problem, the demand for these self medication "fixes" would reduce naturally.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  11. How many "new" smokers are there? by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The attitude towards smoking has changed so much in my lifetime. When I was in high school (80-85), the area around the door to the student parking lot was the semi-official smoking area. Students could openly smoke without any problems. The teacher lounges were a haze of smoke. The only real restrictions on smoking were restaurants had to offer a "non-smoking" section, bars could be all smoking. Private offices were often OK for smoking, even the downtown office building I worked in circa 1993 still had some accommodation for smoking (smoking lounge, departments could set their own smoking policy -- most banned it totally, but two allowed it, and a couple more allowed it after hours).

    Now, it's totally different. No smoking in any restaurant or bar, most buildings ban smoking with a large distance of their doors, pretty much any public place has no smoking at all. Even the parks have banned "tobacco use" (which IMHO is kind of ridiculous, but OK, less litter and the picnic table zone is smoke free). Unless you want to smoke in your own home (most rentals are no-smoking) or in your own car, you're pretty much out luck for smoking.

    So I'm kind of curious how many new smokers there are given how inconvenient it is to smoke, especially if you're under 21 or a teenager. Plus there are all the vaping options, which seem like they would be way more attractive (good flavors, little odor so you can get away with it in places you could never smoke). And let's not forget the cost, with all the new taxes, a pack of cigarettes is like $8.

    I would think that the rate of adoption for cigarettes would be low enough at this point that new enforcement measures would mostly be for show or a waste of effort. I also wonder if some of the new laws aren't an effort by "stop smoking" organizations looking for fresh PR to keep funding going when it already seems like they could just close shop and declare victory.

  12. Re:90% of smokers start before 18 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't be so quick to dismiss this idea. This law will mean 18 year old high school seniors can't just go buy cigarettes at the Quik-E-Mart across the street from school, which means there will be fewer 14 year old freshmen bumming their first smokes from seniors, and it may actually have an real impact on teen smoking.

  13. EVEN more reasonable by Texmaize · · Score: 2

    So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use, a product that is responsible for over 85% of all date rapes and is the 4th largest cause of death in the U.S?

    Was this not mentioned because you are friends with Mia Vice Izafine and Bee Cuz Ilikait?

    --
    "Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
    1. Re:EVEN more reasonable by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use, a product that is responsible for over 85% of all date rapes and is the 4th largest cause of death in the U.S?

      Ah, yes - I see you belong to the group that believes that a woman who had had a drink is incapable of giving consent, while a man who has had a drink is therefore a rapist if they engage in sexual activity, perhaps simple sexual assault if they hold hands or cuddle.

      It also means that if my wife has had a few and gets frisky, I am likewise guilty if I engage with her. And she'll be a tad pissed if I don't.

      So perhaps we need to install breathalyzers in all homes, and that the amorous couples be required to test negatively for alcohol before being allowed to engage in sexual activities. It's funny how many people claim that women are strong and independent at the same time they clam women are weak and helpless. It's like Alice's Red queen.

      Stop it! you're not doing women any favors.

      Life in itself is invariably fatal.

      Now making alcohol illegal. Good old prohibition. Yes, that was one of the biggest kickstarters for organized crime, caused widespread disrespect for government by way of turning most of America into criminals, and didn't do a thing it was intended to do.

      America's War on drugs part one was just as successful as the present Version 2.0.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:EVEN more reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, wouldn't it also be reasonable to ban alcohol use...

      Alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly and also has substantial uses in culinary arts. (cabernet sauce, beer-batter fried seafood, bourbon marinade, vodka sauce, moonshine BBQ sauce, Jack Daniels beans, garlic butter white wine sauce, kahlua chocolate mousse... etc.)

      It would be like banning crowbars because they can be used to break into homes.

      Or guns because they can kill people despite hundreds of millions only being used for target practice.

      Or explosives for the same reason despite the vast, vast majority going towards industrial uses.

      Or agent orange as an effective weed-killer which, when used in a controlled way, can be safe.

      We measure things based on their effects. Guns, explosives, and various chemicals are too dangerous to outweigh their benefits. Alcohol is in the same category.

  14. What a stupid idea. by thesandtiger · · Score: 2

    I started smoking at the age of 12 (and quit at 32), and I never, ever, not even once, had a problem getting cigarettes when I was underage, and I hardly think it's any more difficult for underage people to do the same nowadays.

    I'd say put all age restrictions on things - literally everything that is currently legal but with an age restriction - at the same age as the normal age of military service.

    If you really want to discourage smoking, ban it from anywhere but a private residence and tax the hell out of it. Make the fine for smoking anywhere but in a private residence double per offense, starting at $50, and if the person smoking is underage, make the parent or legal guardian responsible for the fine. Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes. Make the fines for selling age restricted products to an underaged person draconian - first offense $5000, second offense you lose your license to sell ANYTHING age restricted, period. Tobacco isn't a necessity, it isn't an essential - tax it as the (stupid, harmful) luxury it is.

    Mind you, I don't agree with the notion of doing the above, and I'm not on an anti-smoking crusade, but if the powers that be were actually serious about the public health elements of smoking they'd do more than this weak-tea pandering bullshit. They don't actually want to do anything to really break the back of big tobacco because of $$$, so they just do idiotic things like raise the age for legal purchase which plays well to some people, but is basically ignored.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    1. Re:What a stupid idea. by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Make the tax for tobacco something like $25 for a pack of cigarettes.

      I'm not a fan of that idea. I remember my dad talking about how after he quit he noticed how other people were dealing with their habit. Specifically he noted a lady at a filling station that bought a pack of cigarettes and then started counting pennies to buy enough gas to get home. You see, getting her nic-fix was more important to her than making sure she had enough gas to get home. You can raise the tax but then you have a lot of people still buying them because this is an addiction, not a luxury.

      I hear this all the time on how such taxes punish the poor. I used to think that this was just an excuse by the tobacco lobby but now I see some truth in it. This is an addiction that taxes cannot fix, at least not alone. People have to want to quit, and an addiction will cloud their thoughts. I'm sure that taxes will drive some people to stop smoking but they have to remain rational enough to make that decision. Dad tried quitting for decades before he could stop. He had nicotine patches and whatever. I don't know what it took for him to stop, but I suspect getting a new house and not wanting to stink it up helped a lot. He broke a lot of habits after he retired, like not getting up at 5:30 in the morning any more.

      What reduced smoking in the USA was the same thing that reduced drunk driving, people just didn't tolerate it any more. People still smoke, people still drive drunk, but people also generally find both behaviors unattractive. Sometimes government is not the solution.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  15. Re:Probably not by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    So to recap, you need to be 21 to slowly take your own life, but not to take another's (in the military, or that of an unborn child)

    We could just let unborn children smoke.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  16. Re:Nanny state socialism by ranton · · Score: 2

    Everybody is aware of the health risk. Some people decide the benefit outweighs the risk.

    People smoke because of addiction. I have never met even a reasonably intelligent person who is a smoker who didn't ultimately want to quit. They just didn't have the inner drive to quit yet. Nearly no one is making a benefit / risk analysis when choosing to smoke, they are being driven by addiction.

    smoking is good for people with mental health issues. Would you prefer them to get more anxiety attacks and commit suicide?

    There is no way you are getting that information from someone with any training in fighting mental health issues. Quitting smoking is well known to help combat mental health issues. Smoking is a very poor method of self medication to reduce stress and anxiety. While smokers may believe otherwise, smoking increases stress and anxiety. Smoking provides a very temporary sense of relaxation and without smoking a few packs a day will create an overall increase in stress and anxiety throughout a smoker's day.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  17. Re:Probably not by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    And here we're making the ultrasound and abortion pill free. Good up to the 7th week of pregnancy. It will save money in the immediate term, and lots of money in the long run.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  18. The 5 stages of dying for a smoke by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    1 "I can quit any time" - denial
    2 "I will quit when I'm ready" -negotiation
    3 "I enjoy it too much to quit" - rationalization
    4 "It's the only thing I have left to enjoy." - capitulation
    5 "I don't want to die!" - reality

    Followed by the ultimate personal smoking experience - cremation. Do you really want to be "smoking hot"?

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. Re:Nanny state socialism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Pot" has not killed anyone, ever.

  20. Re:Nanny state socialism by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    It often does. We made fireplaces and wood stoves illegal to reduce particulates (and added $5,000 fines for non-compliance). Worked like a charm.

    We made driving without a seatbelt illegal, and added $92 fines. Very high rates of compliance.

    We made it illegal to smoke in restaurants, work, enclosed public spaces, and certain outdoor spaces include outdoor restaurant terrasses and patios. with fines starting at $250 - $750 for the individual for a first offense. Nobody smokes in restaurants any more. Maximum fines can reach $250,000. Get caught selling tobacco products to a kid, pay $3000. Really cut down on sales of cigarettes to minors.

    Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  21. Re:Are you over 21? by Type44Q · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your a freeloader, you use services other people's taxes pay for.

    You really ought to pipe down; other peoples' taxes paid for your education and look what you fucking did with it...

  22. Re:Nanny state socialism by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

    And didn't Oregon legalize POT smoking? I'm sure that kills people too.

    Apparently you have never smoked weed. It id not like the 1930's movie "Refer Madness" You dont turn insane after one hit. Honestly it has some good mental health effects. The main reason I smoke weed is because I like it, taste, smell, feeling.. the whole thing. But it also relieves stress and occasional panic attacks my job tends to give me. Now, without weed. I'm sure I would have more homicidal feelings than I do currently(peoples stupidity makes me want to kill them). I live in Las Vegas, where recently was made legal to buy and consume in the privacy of your home. I can tell you that I didn't just start smoking weed last month. Back to your comment. I believe that weed not only DOESN'T kill people... But probably has saved peoples lives a time or two after what would have turned into a crime of passion, into a "fuck it I'm too high to care".

  23. Re:Cigarettes Don't Kill People by blindseer · · Score: 2

    I have a different view on that line of thinking.

    People accuse the NRA of the mantra of "more guns!!". Well, what I see from the government is the mantra of "more government!!" Can we perhaps get a solution from the government that does not involve more government? Maybe have the government say once in a while, "That's not a problem we can solve, all of you are going to have to figure that one out on your own."

    Nope, we have the government see a problem, therefore they must act to solve the problem. Often times the so called solution has little relation to the problem. We'll have a senator speak from a podium and effectively say, "Something must be done! This is something. Therefore it must be done!" There is little thought on if the solution would be effective, and rarely is there a means to remove the law if in the future there is evidence it's doing nothing or in fact making the problem worse.

    I agree that we've opened a Pandora's box here. We've created the idea that the government can solve all of our problems. Just like the solution may not in fact be more guns, sometimes the solution may not be more government.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  24. Re:Nanny state socialism by uM0p+ap!sdn+ · · Score: 2

    ROFLMFAO

    Do you see the trend here $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ greed, filthy greed that made us looooooose are rights for profit, greed has ruined this country, not smoking, drinking, sex

    Oh, what about the children !!

    One of the only countries in the world that does drug tests to work (illegal in countries outside the US because it invades privacy and is against the law to do so), my time off weekends, vacation, I should be able to smoke a joint if I want to and not be punished. lol free country, my privacy rights my @ss

    One of the only countries in the world that does credit checks to work/etc ...

    Outside the US, 18 years old (except Canada, 19) and you are an adult and can do what you please, smoke, drink, sex, etc ..

    I could go on, I won't, I am embarrassed at what has happened to this country and people like you that think this stuff is ok, perhaps you should live in russia or china= communism, oh wait, even in a communism state you don't have drug tests to work, you can smoke, drink, sex, hell they actually have more freedom and fun than the US, talk to Snowden or anyone else that has been there, I have, I had a great time.

    Pay for education/health insurance ?? No-one in this GREAT, FREE country should pay for education/health insurance (greed)

    We are a third world country when it comes to education/health insurance, and the most expensive, and it shows, just read this whole discussion, look at the people saying 18 is not old enough to smoke, drink, live, but, work to 70+ years old, then enjoy a few years of life after the government & states drained so much money and rights from you.

    You can go to war and die at 18 but not drink or smoke ?

    WTF is wrong with you people ??

    Freedom, freedom, freedom (basic fscking principles of how life use to be in the US )

    People wonder why other countries don't like us, mock us, laugh there @sses off at us (I own a home in the US & England, 3 of my 5 kids live & work in England).

    You people must be blind or you were bought into this scheme.
    The scheme being that 98% of the countries out there have more rights and freedom than the

    LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE

    I miss the 60's & 70's, our ancestors and founding fathers are rolling in their graves at what the fsck has happened to this country

    Home of the free & brave BULLSH!T

    I wonder how many people in my age group 61-70 agrees with any of this bulls!t that these young spoiled whippersnappers are trying to say is justified.

    The USA is one fsck up place to live now and is getting worse.

    It makes me sick to my stomach to see most of these responses and people trying to justify ......

    end of rant

  25. Re: Are you over 21? by kenh · · Score: 2

    As to abortion, you have no fucking idea, how bad it is when your baby might have to be aborted, and you're scrambling around to find money for the amniocentisis tests. What was my wife supposed to do if we couldn't afford the abortion? Carry it to term and let it die after birth? Fuck you, you selfish asshole.

    So we have to pay for everyone's elective abortions because your wife needed a medically-necessary abortion?

    Decent health insurance would have covered a doctor-prescribed abortion for medical reasons, even long before obama even ran for office, let alone implemented Obamacare.

    --
    Ken
  26. Re:Legal? by pi_rules · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure what the technicals are behind it all but age limits are enshrined right in the US Constitution. We put them on holding office.

  27. Re:Nanny state socialism by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    Lets just skip to the end, then, and force people to live out their lives in concrete boxes where every aspect is hypercontrolled for maximum efficiency and minimum impact on The People. One of the primary reasons people resist socialism is that it always results in some form of authoritarianism. Once something is publicly funded, that something can now be considered 'under threat' by the state, with any 'threatening' action it doesn't like conveniently deemed 'threatening' and 'curtailed,' usually with life-altering penalties. A cascade of power grabs then commences.

    As a lifelong non smoker who loathes any sort of smoke, I would never want to live in your smoke free dystopian hell. There'd be too many sacrifices of liberty in too many areas.

    Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.

    Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?

  28. Re:Raise It To 65 by ranton · · Score: 2

    The proportion who start between 18 and 21 is probably insubstantial.

    But the number of 17 year olds with 21 year old friends is much less than the number of 17 year olds with 18 year old friends. The goal is simply to make it less available.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  29. Re:Legal? by jroysdon · · Score: 2

    Founders recognized that people needed some years under their belts to get maturity before they should be running the country.

  30. Re:Nanny state socialism by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    What dystopian hell? Where people aren't subjected to second-hand smoke? Where tobacco companies, who have a long history of targeting kids, are loathed for doing so, and are not allowed to do that sort of shit any more?

    Awards for discrimination can go up to $50,000 or more, at a simple hearing where you don't even need a lawyer. People have an incentive to behave better.

    Ahh, of course you'd say something like this. When in doubt, use fear, amirite comrade?

    Violate my rights, I sure as hell have the right to put a bit of fear into you. Or make you pay for it. You clowns with your stupid libertarian arguments seem to think that rights only count when they're your rights being trampled on, and you should be free to do whatever the hell you want because "rules == socialism == communism". Go live in a social democracy for a while and you'll see there's a lot more freedom than people in the US enjoy.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.