puros_bran":0095ac2i said:
Morleysson, Don't go trying to confuse the issue with logic.
Yak, While I am a strong supporter of States Rights I don't like this law. But its Maines law, if the people re-elect the bozos that passed this instead of people that oppose it and seek to overturn it,they by default endorse it.
Stuff like this never goes to a popular vote, if it did I imagine it would fail. There are more smokers than 'anti-smokers', we just aren't vocal as a group.
Last things first. Antis currently outnumber smokers by a handy margin. Remember, only about 27% of the adult population smokes. Approximately 24% of that population are ex-smokers, who are, by and large, the most vocal and vehement of the anti-smokers. Then, there are those antis who either have never smoked, or claim to have never smoked. They're another big chunk. With kids being preached at about the evils of tobacco constantly, the anti's positilon will likely decline somewhat as these children reach the age of majority. It's the rebellion effect at work. But, for the time being, we're a minority, and the majority has a big mouth.
I strongly suspect that if this legislation were to go to popular vote, it would, in fact, pass. In fact, a great many smokers would vote for it, as they've been just as effectively brainwashed as the antis. Word.
Frankly, I don't advocate smoking around infants. When an organism is growing that rapidly, exposure to mutagens are much more likely to result in the expression of pathologies in later years. It just makes sense to minimize risk when we're dealing with our kids. However, I do feel that the states are going well outside of their legal rights by writing legislation like this. But, it's not the first time.
As for States Rights, I'm with you, in principle. In practice, there are serious issues that cannot be addressed by ideolgy, and Big Gummint knows this full well, and further knows how to exploit the system at every turn.
Hopefully we can find a study somewhere showing that tobacco is a viable treatment for some impossible to disprove illness. That way we can get the insurance company to pay for medicinal tobacciana when they finally pass prohibition III
An amusing notion. Interestingly, there is some evidence to support that exposure to tobacco smoke serves some slight prophylaxis against development of lung cancer. Exposure to small concentrations of radon apparently do also. Maybe we just need radioactive tobacco...There's a thought...