Hawaii considers ban on cigarette sales

[fascinating123 38]

10 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

I don't think anyone here ever said or implied they would use violence against you to prevent you from consuming a life-altering cancer causing product. If you want to damage your body in your own way you have a right to, unless you partake of the substance in a way that exposes others to those same dangers.

 

 

The topic here is cigarettes, which I don't smoke and are very unhealthy and disgusting (hence why I don't smoke them and never have). However, preventing two parties from engaging in freely agreed upon trade is in fact a violent act. Unless of course, you're suggesting that the punishment for illegally manufacturing, buying and/or selling cigarettes would be someone from the government going to your house and saying "tsk tsk". Fines, jail time, mandatory rehab, etc. all have the backing of force at the end of the day.

[fascinating123 38]

14 hours ago, OriZ said:

Huh, who said anything about physical force

(btw, the reason I asked is because some people consider some acts of government to be violent even though they don't include physical force).

 

I'd certainly like to know what acts of government don't involve physical force.

[yuna628 9,528]

1 minute ago, fascinating123 said:

 

The topic here is cigarettes, which I don't smoke and are very unhealthy and disgusting (hence why I don't smoke them and never have). However, preventing two parties from engaging in freely agreed upon trade is in fact a violent act. Unless of course, you're suggesting that the punishment for illegally manufacturing, buying and/or selling cigarettes would be someone from the government going to your house and saying "tsk tsk". Fines, jail time, mandatory rehab, etc. all have the backing of force at the end of the day.

No one here is saying that either. Doesn't really matter to me if it's cigars or cigarettes. Cigar smoking causes cancer and other life-altering disease. But if that's what you want to do, you have the right to do it - provided it doesn't involve anyone else unwillingly.

[fascinating123 38]

7 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

No one here is saying that either. Doesn't really matter to me if it's cigars or cigarettes. Cigar smoking causes cancer and other life-altering disease. But if that's what you want to do, you have the right to do it - provided it doesn't involve anyone else unwillingly.

 

If someone wanted to ban cigarettes, how would they accomplish it? Asking nicely? Begging and pleading? Looking at history, that's not how it has worked.

 

This isn't the place to debate cigars vs cigarettes, but I'd encourage anyone interested to look at the health literature on the topic. What makes cigarettes particularly dangerous is the volume and continuous exposure. No one outside of 75 year old retirees is smoking enough cigars to match the exposure levels of cigarettes. It's like saying a glass of wine with dinner will give you cirrhosis of the liver.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, fascinating123 said:

 

If someone wanted to ban cigarettes, how would they accomplish it? Asking nicely? Begging and pleading? Looking at history, that's not how it has worked.

 

This isn't the place to debate cigars vs cigarettes, but I'd encourage anyone interested to look at the health literature on the topic. What makes cigarettes particularly dangerous is the volume and continuous exposure. No one outside of 75 year old retirees is smoking enough cigars to match the exposure levels of cigarettes. It's like saying a glass of wine with dinner will give you cirrhosis of the liver.

 

      The discussion has only been regarding a legislated ban on sales. That is a relatively straight foreward concept. They have not said whether the actual use or possession of tobacco would be illegal, or what the penalties might be if it was. 

[fascinating123 38]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      The discussion has only been regarding a legislated ban on sales. That is a relatively straight foreward concept. They have not said whether the actual use or possession of tobacco would be illegal, or what the penalties might be if it was. 

Yes, and if I own a store and decide to sell cigarettes, what then?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, fascinating123 said:

Yes, and if I own a store and decide to sell cigarettes, what then?

 

    I'm not sure what the penalties are as the law doesn't exist yet. Even the way it's crafted is using an increasing age limit, so it doesn't mean a store can't have cigarettes on display. 

 

    I guess speculation would be if the law does go into effect as proposed, the charge would be selling cigarettes to someone who is under the legal age, so the penalties imposed may be in line with whatever the current penalties are for selling cigarettes to minors.

[fascinating123 38]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I'm not sure what the penalties are as the law doesn't exist yet. Even the way it's crafted is using an increasing age limit, so it doesn't mean a store can't have cigarettes on display. 

 

    I guess speculation would be if the law does go into effect as proposed, the charge would be selling cigarettes to someone who is under the legal age, so the penalties imposed may be in line with whatever the current penalties are for selling cigarettes to minors.

So, ultimately, were such a ban be put into place, there would be consequences for refusing to adhere to it.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

When I was young the adults all smoked around us. My mom and her 2 neighorhood buddies hung out in afternoons smoking away. All of them died of some form of cancer. The last of lung cancer last week.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

So, ultimately, were such a ban be put into place, there would be consequences for refusing to adhere to it.

 

   It's probably safe to assume that if there is a law, then yes there will have to be some sort of consequence for breaking that law. It wouldn't be very effective otherwise. 

[fascinating123 38]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's probably safe to assume that if there is a law, then yes there will have to be some sort of consequence for breaking that law. It wouldn't be very effective otherwise. 

Up to and including the use of physical force.

 

Personally, I'm against this and any vice laws. Outside of murder, assault, theft, and all of their offshoots and variations, there really shouldn't be any other kind of laws either. I appreciate the conversation with you though.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, fascinating123 said:

Up to and including the use of physical force.

 

Personally, I'm against this and any vice laws. Outside of murder, assault, theft, and all of their offshoots and variations, there really shouldn't be any other kind of laws either. I appreciate the conversation with you though.

 

  As do I.

 

  I think in general terms, violence is a possible outcome any time someone doesn't follow the law. We have seen even routine traffic stops where people get aggressive and ending up being pinned to the ground by law enforcement. What I would say is that violence is not the expected outcome. If the cigarette sales ban becomes law and people break the law, I don't expect the normal outcome of that to lead to a violent situation. I would expect something more like a monetary fine. However people being what they are, it certainly could escalate to violence.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

21 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's probably safe to assume that if there is a law, then yes there will have to be some sort of consequence for breaking that law. It wouldn't be very effective otherwise. 

You just summed up the Democratic Party Immigration policy nicely. Bingo

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

18 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

Up to and including the use of physical force.

 

Personally, I'm against this and any vice laws. Outside of murder, assault, theft, and all of their offshoots and variations, there really shouldn't be any other kind of laws either. I appreciate the conversation with you though.

It's quite simple.  Don't break the law, and face no repercussions (physical or otherwise).

 

Don't like the laws?  Move elsewhere, or work to get them changed.  

 

 

[fascinating123 38]

11 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

It's quite simple.  Don't break the law, and face no repercussions (physical or otherwise).

 

Don't like the laws?  Move elsewhere, or work to get them changed.  

 

 

In a free society, that's not how it works. Don't like it? Don't claim to be a free society.