HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bill proposed in Oregon w...

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:01 PM

Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

Source: KPTV

If you're a regular smoker, you may want to keep an eye on a new bill in the Oregon Legislature.

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor's prescription.

Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both.

Other drugs and substances that are considered Schedule III controlled substances are ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.

Read more: http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20662618/bill-proposed-in-oregon-would-make-cigarettes-prescription-only-drugs

111 replies, 10836 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs (Original post)
Freddie Stubbs Jan 2013 OP
onehandle Jan 2013 #1
Coyotl Jan 2013 #73
judesedit Jan 2013 #2
NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #3
Ashgrey77 Jan 2013 #4
Politicalboi Jan 2013 #27
roguevalley Jan 2013 #44
rug Jan 2013 #40
Jeevus Jan 2013 #51
Coyotl Jan 2013 #74
Jeevus Jan 2013 #93
Coyotl Jan 2013 #94
McCamy Taylor Jan 2013 #5
onehandle Jan 2013 #7
Liberal Veteran Jan 2013 #8
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #16
Liberal Veteran Jan 2013 #22
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #39
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #11
OKNancy Jan 2013 #6
Speck Tater Jan 2013 #9
Coyotl Jan 2013 #75
SoapBox Jan 2013 #10
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #12
roguevalley Jan 2013 #45
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #18
LeftofObama Jan 2013 #19
Xithras Jan 2013 #24
LeftofObama Jan 2013 #25
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #30
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #79
LeftofObama Jan 2013 #84
dmallind Jan 2013 #109
DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav Jan 2013 #110
davidpdx Jan 2013 #97
mokawanis Jan 2013 #23
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #31
former9thward Jan 2013 #36
OneMoreDemocrat Jan 2013 #76
beevul Jan 2013 #13
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #32
former9thward Jan 2013 #37
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #88
former9thward Jan 2013 #89
Swede Atlanta Jan 2013 #14
neffernin Jan 2013 #20
Travis_0004 Jan 2013 #33
former9thward Jan 2013 #38
roguevalley Jan 2013 #48
former9thward Jan 2013 #50
roguevalley Jan 2013 #57
neffernin Jan 2013 #61
former9thward Jan 2013 #69
christx30 Jan 2013 #66
former9thward Jan 2013 #70
christx30 Jan 2013 #82
roguevalley Jan 2013 #47
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #15
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #34
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #53
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #87
RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #17
Bibliovore Jan 2013 #21
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #67
BainsBane Jan 2013 #26
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #28
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #35
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #41
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #86
pmorlan1 Jan 2013 #58
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #29
LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #42
bayareaboy Jan 2013 #43
fascisthunter Jan 2013 #46
Scruffy Rumbler Jan 2013 #49
Jeevus Jan 2013 #52
arcane1 Jan 2013 #54
snooper2 Jan 2013 #55
Sissyk Jan 2013 #56
lewisjaa Jan 2013 #59
AmyDeLune Jan 2013 #60
samplegirl Jan 2013 #103
20score Jan 2013 #62
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #68
20score Jan 2013 #77
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #78
fujiyama Jan 2013 #63
Liberty Belle Jan 2013 #64
Coyotl Jan 2013 #95
zabet Jan 2013 #65
pmorlan1 Jan 2013 #71
lynne Jan 2013 #72
olddad56 Jan 2013 #83
hughee99 Jan 2013 #80
Throd Jan 2013 #81
Yavin4 Jan 2013 #85
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #90
MrScorpio Jan 2013 #91
Mosby Jan 2013 #92
Midwestern Democrat Jan 2013 #96
davidpdx Jan 2013 #98
FleetwoodMac Jan 2013 #99
sylvi Jan 2013 #100
actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #105
fredamae Jan 2013 #101
Permanut Jan 2013 #102
samplegirl Jan 2013 #104
Odin2005 Jan 2013 #106
samsingh Jan 2013 #107
lib2DaBone Jan 2013 #108
mokawanis Jan 2013 #111

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:13 PM

1. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine and heroin. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:09 AM

73. Which will make this more difficult to enforce than pot laws, to be sure, but good idea anyway

because it will take tobacco out of the marketplace and into a regulated place where addictive, harmful drugs belong.

But, this is not as important as protecting children (and all citizens) from second-hand smoke.
Children especially need their health rights protected from smoking parents because they are trapped in the environment of their care providers.
How about adding a punishment for exposing a child or other person without self-determination to tobacco smoke?

We need a more evolved perspective on the health consequences of all our actions, especially pollution harming health.
This level of recognition of the harm of tobacco needs to extend to the 575,000 hazardous chemicals in the American workplace.

IS YOUR JOB KILLING YOU?
http://jqjacobs.net/writing/osha.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:15 PM

2. They are getting a little carried away.Unless, it's leading to tobacco equality.Let's deal w/the NRA

right now. No diversions. Get this assault weapons ban, magazine ban, insurance required going. There are so many other more important things the taxpayers would rather be paying for the time for. Wake up Senator. Get with the program. What doctor will prescribe cigarettes. They are deadly...unlike marijuana, especially when vaporized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:16 PM

3. Meet Mitch. Mitch doesn't have a smoking problem. Mitch has other problems.

Mitch has a keep out of my fucking business problem.

And maybe another problem or two.



I don't smoke, but I don't like smoke Nazi's, either.

Not that he's one, no, wouldn't suggest that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:54 PM

4. LMAO n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:38 PM

27. Looks like old Mitch needs

A prescription for diet pills. Then maybe he'll take up smoking when he tweaks. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:53 PM

44. stick to the topic without demonizing him personally. that is what the other guys do

if you have a problem with his content, stick to that. Punching around his body shape is surrender.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:07 PM

40. He needs a prescription for donuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:25 PM

51. Yes.

What a douchebag. Fuck his bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeevus (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:16 AM

74. Ad hominem is not cool. Please supply some photos of yourself so we can comment on you too

You know, to help you with your empathy skills

(Please wait. You cannot send a new alert until the alert you just sent a moment ago is resolved. You will receive a notification by DU Mail when jurors finish voting on your previous alert (probably within the next 15 minutes), and you may send a new alert at that time.) I couldn't wait!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #74)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:53 PM

93. You're right.

The logical arguments against this bill are numerous, and I was reacting mainly from disappointment in the fact that this person represents the same political party I represent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeevus (Reply #93)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:17 PM

94. Welcome to DU

and good luck telling a lot of folks here what I told you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:54 PM

5. Can they do that? I thought the feds established the controlled drug list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:23 PM

7. The feds were getting close to doing this themselves years ago.

Until the tobacco lobby and the GOP stopped them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:27 PM

8. Yes, they can. They did that with psuedoephedrine.

In some states, Soma is a controlled substance, but it is not federally scheduled as a controlled drug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:12 PM

16. There's pseudoephedrine in Soma? Who knew? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitchkitty (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:16 PM

22. Um, I don't think I implied that.

I gave two examples of states making a legend drug controlled even though the feds do not consider them controlled substances.

In the title I mentioned psuedoephedrine and Soma in the body, but the relationship between the sentences is that they are both examples of drugs that states have more stringent controls on than the feds.

Perhaps next time I can put an "also" or "too" in order to be more clear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberal Veteran (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:04 PM

39. My mistake.

I have taken Soma, many years ago, and it didn't feel speedy at all, so was confused. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:54 PM

11. Each state also has a controlled substances list. There are minor variations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:55 PM

6. That would make me think twice about visiting my daughter

in Portland. I sure did see a lot of other smokers there last time I went.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:39 PM

9. I quit smoking 5 or 6 years ago, but I'd make a fortune running cigarettes across the border

 

from Washington or California.

That's a prescription of increased crime.
Why stop there? Why not criminalize everything and put everyone in jail so the corporations can have a ready supply of slave labor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Speck Tater (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:17 AM

75. Unless, of course, you were serving time for your offenses.

Us smoke Nazis would smell you out in no time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:45 PM

10. I say bravo.

I've never smoked...I HATE the stench of cigarette smoke...I HATE having to walk through a cloud
of smoke, even on a sidewalk in front of a building...I HATE the stench on people's breath and on their clothing, not
to mention stepping foot in the home of a smoker (which I won't).

You may, as a smoker want to kill yourself but you have no right to kill me with your "leftover" smoke (as well as
pollute my water with your nasty tossed away butts...AND...you have no right to potentially burn down my "home", be
it an apartment or condo.)

Whether they can or cannot enact this, I love it and say press forward. Maybe someday it can become Federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:56 PM

12. It's good for authoritarians to self-identify. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:59 PM

45. so, if someone has an opposing opinion to smokers, they are full of shit?

I LOATHE SMOKING! I WISH IT WOULD DIE! But then seven members of my family died of cancer from smoking right in front of my eyes and that matters to me. It is the basis of my HATRED for smoking. That and the fact that I grew up when people smoked in the super marker and everywhere else. I was a minority then, ignored and ridiculed for not smoking and asking people to stop around me. Now the smokers who have had their way for FIVE HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS have become the minority and are whining?! Really?!

People have the right to support this bill and say so without attack. People have the right to express their hatred of smoking. Don't agree but don't kick them around. Some of us have a fucking good reason to hate smoking. I don't have grandparents, a father, uncles and cousins because of this FILTHY disgusting killer habit. I earned my right to feel this way and I have the right to speak it without attack. Don't agree with me if that makes you happy. Block me. But don't tell me I can't speak out and don't call me a fucking nazi.

No matter what side of this argument you are on, if you smoke you are an addict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:15 PM

18. Oh, lighten up Soapie.

That said, I wish cigarettes were less available. I am an ex smoker who smokes around people who smoke. I'm fine by myself, I have an ecig that does me just fine, until I see (or smell) someone else smoking.

I wish I had more willpower. I do for everything else! What I eat, exercise, everything - but nicotine has me by the boobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:16 PM

19. I would say bravo to banning soda and any other carbonated beverage.

I've never like the taste of soda or carbonated beverages...I HATE the stench of flatulence that comes from drinking carbonated beverages...I HATE having to walk through a cloud of carbonated flatulence even on a sidewalk in front of a building...I HATE the stench of a soda burp on people's breath and their clothing when they pass gas, not to mention stepping foot in the home of a soda drinker (which I won't).

You may, as a carbonated beverage drinker want to kill yourself with the toxins they put in that crap but you have no right to annoy me with your flatulence (as well as pollute my water with the nasty chemicals in that stuff...AND...you have no right to stink up my "home", be it an apartment or condo.)

Whether they can or cannot enact something like that, I love it and say press forward. Maybe someday it can become Federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:22 PM

24. And meat. And frying oil.

Ugh. Those meat eaters and fried food eaters have no right to pollute our environment with all of that oil smoke and farm runoff. That stuff should all be banned too. And the horrible stench from my neighbor bbq'ing...that should be illegal.

Steamed veggies and water for everyone!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:34 PM

25. LOL!

Rock on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:25 PM

30. Carbonated beverages are not addictive.

I don't imagine it will be that hard to get a prescription for nicotine should this bill by some strange chance pass.

But this bill would keep cigarettes out of the hands of kids and others who don't need to get addicted.

If you smoke, you just don't realize that you are an addict.

And the nicotine addiction is really hard to break. Addiction is compulsion.

Some people like being addicted and just get themselves addicted to all sorts of stuff, but we like to protect our children from addiction and that is what this law would simplify.

People would not be likely to leave cigarettes around or share them with younger people if they knew that their sharing or carelessness would mean they had to get another prescription.

Doctors see the damage smoking does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #19)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:19 PM

79. I fought for years for a womans right to an abortion because it's HER body - not mine! Some

 

woman have died during abortions. There are risks. Smokers don't always get cancer - its a risk. If a woman has the right to do with her body as she see's fit - Why can't a smoker? Many of us believe we should have the right to die if our quality of life is affected, because it's OUR body - Why can't a smoker have the right to their own body? I see how this works.

We have hundreds of thousands of laws. We don't need new ones to dictate what someone does on their own property with their own body. I don't smoke anymore but I'm getting sick of intrusive people basing laws on what another person does with their own body. Maybe we should ban all alcoholic beverages because someone might drink and drive and kill themselves or someone else.

I see how this works. Hypocrites at their finest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #79)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:50 PM

84. Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DogPawsBiscuitsNGrav (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:32 PM

109. Except for the 55000 a year who didn't choose to smoke, but died from others' choices.

And Christ another one parrotting that absurdly false drink-driving "analogy". Let's remind ourselves of the fallacies here.

Drinking without driving is easy and common. Smoking without exhaling? Not so much on either front.

67% of adults drink. Even if you believe laughable MADD propaganda that includes 50% who were never tested for BAC, passengers, pedestrians and people with error-detection levels, let alone actually assess blame on the "drunk" "driver", there are about 17000 alcohol-related fatalities in the US a year. 70% are the driver themselves.

21% smoke, and a rather more reputable CDC assigned the 55,000 NON smokers (plus 400k or so smokers)

So 3 times as many people drink, yet they kill a third as many people. only a third of whom are not those choosing to drive drunk. So three times as many kill a ninth as many innocent victims, and only do that when they choose to do something else as well as drink, unlike smokers who must exhale poison by necessity.

So yeah that's a comparable risk, in a fucking dream world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #109)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:00 PM

110. The point is that people do choose to get drunk and drive. This kills people. my uncle didn't

 

drink yet he was killed by a drunk driver. He didn't get a choice. It's the same thing. I'm not asking that they tax or regulate alcohol like they've done smoking. You don't think emissions from cars and poisons from pesticides don't cause more cancer than second hand smoke?

I don't use pesticides for killing weeds. Maybe I should advocate more taxes and regulations on my neighbors who do since their decision to use the stuff spreads their poison to my garden and my air. It also stinks.

I would never actually do those things because i don't believe in taxing and regulating things other people use or enjoy, based on the fact I don't like it. But there are a lot of you who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:19 AM

97. Remind me to invite myself over to your house

*burp* *fart*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoapBox (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:20 PM

23. Oh for fucks sake

Do you also hate breathing exhaust from cars? Smokers are gonna smoke and your bitching about it won't stop them. You really support putting people in prison for smoking cigarettes? Do you have any friends or loved ones who smoke? Do they deserve to be in prison because of their addiction?

I understand putting limitations on where people can smoke, but advocating that smokers be put in prison is asinine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mokawanis (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:25 PM

31. I do hate breathing exhaust from cars. In California, we have strict emissions control laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:46 PM

36. Breathe directly from an exhaust pipe of one of those "strict emissions control" cars.

See how many minutes you live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:36 AM

76. Funny...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:56 PM

13. Rumor has it they're going to try to go after E-cigs as well.

As a heavy 26 year former smoker thats previously tried every way he can to quit and failed misreably, and has now been off analogues successfully for close to a month with none of the problems that happened with the other methods, that pisses me off.



And I can breath and sleep better, and food tastes really good again, thanks to E-ciggs. They work folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:27 PM

32. But if you are an addict, you shouldn't have any problem getting a prescription.

This bill would make it more difficult for kids to get a hold of cigarettes and become addicted. I doubt that it will pass, but I don't think it will stop addicts from satisfying their addictions. It will insure that people who smoke have to see doctors regularly. That's a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:49 PM

37. No doctor in his right mind would give a prescription.

His malpractice insurance would go to the moon. He would be sued and accused of prescribing something which he knew was going to hurt or kill his patients. As far as the kids go keeping mj illegal really has worked keeping it out of their hands. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #37)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:18 PM

88. If cigarettes are known "to hurt or kill," why are they legal at all?

Cars are known to hurt and kill, but you have to get a license to drive them plus a registration for the car.

Of course, doctors would prescribe this medication. Doctors prescribe things they know can hurt or kill their patients all the time including addictive substances. The dose makes the poison. That's precisely why a doctor should be involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #88)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:51 PM

89. No, we have been told NO smoking level is safe.

Now I don't believe that but that is what the Cancer Society and the Surgeon General has said. So the dose makes the poison defense would go down in flames. As far as why it is legal it is because it makes money for all levels of government. Many government agencies would go broke if people stopped smoking tomorrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:57 PM

14. I applaud the effort to raise awareness of how harmful the substances in cigarettes are....

 

but I don't want them to be RX-material only. I do want good, effective health education and public awareness campaigns that drive home the dangers and long-term effects of smoking not only on the smoker but those around them.

My mother was in nurses training during WWII. She began to gain weight as the diet consisted overwhelmingly of starches (potatoes, rice, etc.) and few healthy vegetables, fruits and lean protein. She went to her doctor and he recommended she START SMOKING to help with her weight.

She became a chain smoker. I suffered the years of my childhood and adolescence with a house, car, clothes and my person smelling of cigarettes. Every couple of years we would wash the walls of the house and you would see the yellow nicotine run down the walls.

Once I got out on my own and she came to visit I kindly told her she would not be able to smoke in my apartment but must step outside. The rest of the family thought I was a bit harsh but I certainly did not. She was in my home (I recall the old statement - "as long as you are in my house you will follow my rules"). Neither myself nor my roommate smoked. We didn't want our furniture, walls, clothing and persons permeated with smoke. I was respectful but firm.

Interesting I worked for Northwest Airlines when they were the first airline to ban smoking on domestic flights (international took much longer since they served the Asian market which had many many smokers). We received calls from passengers telling us we would go out of business, that they would never fly us again, etc. Of course that is now the policy of almost all world airlines of any significance. Something else I found interesting was the policy raised concerns among the line maintenance staff. They had for years used visual evidence of nicotine on the fuselage as an indication of a possible problem with a rivet or other structural element. They had literally looked for the yellow stains on the outside of the airplane to find structural cracks. etc. Now of course they use x-rays and other methods but it was ironic.

I don't mind smokers as long as they are courteous. My biggest problem is not so much with smokers that smoke where they shouldn't. There are always a few times when you smell the smoke as you enter your office building, etc. because someone is too close to the door or you can smell it on the clothing of someone in the elevator. My biggest issues are the public health costs and the arrogance of smokers that continue to flick their ashes everywhere and dump not only their cigarette butts on streets, sidewalks, yards, etc. but even their lighters and cigarette packages. For those offenses I want the immediate death penalty (sarcasm). But seriously it is a real problem where I live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:35 PM

20. Nothing is better

than a smoker who defends their "right to smoke" to the death but seems to not comprehend the argument that I should have the right to not have my air poisoned any more than it damn well needs to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neffernin (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:31 PM

33. Oregon as well as most states have a smoking ban?

How does smoke effect you? There is no smoking in restaurants, bars etc, so you can breathe clean air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:55 PM

38. Non smokers are crusaders who live to be outraged.

If they see someone smoking a block away they think they are dying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:04 PM

48. you have your way for 500 years and we had to put up with it. Now you are a minority

and you are having a fit. Have a cigarette. You'll feel better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:23 PM

50. Thanks, but I don't smoke, never have.

But I do believe in freedom and tolerance --you know liberal values -- or maybe you don't know about those. BTW I live in a large college city and smokers may be in the minority someplaces but not here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:34 PM

57. oh for god sakes. Because I have real reasons for hating cigarettes I am now not a

liberal and hate freedom and tolerance. JEZUS.

So what? I suppose you don't have a problem with meth either but it kills too. I have said my point like anyone else on this list some of which made fun of the physical body of the man proposing this. Tolerance anyone? You don't have to agree but to attack my cred as a liberal for having a differing opinion than you is fucking sad. You don't know my life. Let me give you just some of the highlights:

Liberal, not a progressive. Liberal.
OSPIRG from the beginning
State secretary of my union, local president, vice president and secretary of my union local for eleven years
member of a state labor council for eleven years
rights person of my union for 25 years
Democrat with a capital D all my damned life from a family who were dems or the equivalent since Jefferson
Remembers my grandfather when he was blackballed trying to organize railroad unions. Remembered him being a socialist activist all his life
Remembers when our entire household was repossessed because my dad wouldn't cross a picket line. Remember when I didn't either.
Remembers when dems had balls
Remembers playing monopoly with a white haired man that got called from my grandma's house in Portland, Oregon where we were to fly to Washington, D. C. to advise President Kennedy on the Cuban Missile Crisis. We called him Mr. White.
uncles who would tell me stories about life with Hubert Humphrey and other real dems, not the wimps we have now.
A dem from the days of Harry Truman who was raised in an FDR family

My family has lost seven members to lung cancer from smoking. I can say whatever the hell I want about smoking because I have the right. This is a forum where opinions are allowed. Challenge the content of them. Casting condescending remarks about me is cheap. Being allowed to have an opinion without getting slammed is freedom and tolerance too which I didn't get from you in your reply.

Smokers are addicts. Addictions are slavery. I have the right to say what I feel about it without being slagged. You have the right to disagree without being condescending or snotty. That is all the two of us are allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:05 AM

61. Some people just live to hate

and villify things. I lost both of my parents to smoking. So many in my family smoke, and most who do can barely afford it. When you are spending $200-300 a month on cigarettes and can't afford to buy food 15 days into the cycle....

I see big tobacco as the oldest and most established big business in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roguevalley (Reply #57)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:47 AM

69. You spent a lot of time building a strawman you could tear down.

Who the hell is trying to stop you from giving your opinion? I don't share your views but no one is stopping you from posting anything you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #38)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:03 AM

66. My roommate smokes

I have to keep the door to my room closed so I don't have to smell the stench of her orange pall malls. I've asked her not to smoke in the house and she looks at me like I'm an asshole. Ordinarily, I'm a pro-freedom kind of person. But when I'm dumping her cigarette butts, and I'm fighting a wave of nausea from the smell, I seriously want to have them banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #66)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:50 AM

70. My solution to that is to move.

I doubt he/she is the only possible living arrangement you have in your life. Most people before they move in with each other know a little about the other persons' habits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #70)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 03:55 PM

82. It's my house,

So she would move. And she only makes minimum wage plus commission (selling wigs to cancer patients), so I'm helping her out. I'd hate to just kick her out or give her an ultimatum. She'd be totally screwed. So I'll deal with it. It just makes me go from passive non-smoker to absolutely hating smoking and smokers. I stay in my room all the time when she's at home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neffernin (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:03 PM

47. its amazing isn't it? Addicts however don't have perspective on their issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:00 PM

15. The War on Drugs has been so successful that expanding it is the most logical course of action.

Besides, we need to fill those empty prisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:31 PM

34. The upside of the law is preventing new nicotine addictions -- or at least making it more

difficult for people to get a hold of their first cigarettes. Plus it will require smokers to see doctors fairly regularly. Since they face health risks the rest of us don't face, that could improve the quality of their lives, even lengthen their lives, and maybe save very expensive healthcare costs for serious diseases.

Also, Oregon would develop an anonymous and large database of smokers that could be studied without invading the privacy of people. That way we could really determine what the effects of smoking are on health. That has been a topic of controversy for a long, long time.

This law could further scientific study.

No one is suggesting outlawing smoking. They just want cigarette purchases to be by a doctor's prescription. Why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:51 PM

53. The data base wouldn't be an avantage.

We won't gain any useful information from it. There is not a lot controversy over whether or not smoking is unhealthy.

The law will be great advantage to prison owners. I imagine most doctors won't prescribe a recreational drug to their patients, so smokers will be buying them from neighboring states, and many of them will get caught. Are we really better off with more prisoners? This law would basically make smokes illegal. If you disagree, just spend a few seconds actually thinking about it.

The gangs in inner Oregon will have an instant, highly dedicated clientele for their drug dealing. I've lived in Oregon, the gunshots are lame enough now.

Bumming a smoke to a buddy will be a punishable offence. That is pretty ridiculous. The cops could hang out in front of bars and otherwise "good" college students will be arrested and get a record for selling someone a smoke for a quarter.

The War on Drugs has been a complete failure for everyone except prison owners. It doesn't have the desired effect, it just helps us to be #1 in most people locked behind bars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:15 PM

87. Apparently, people in California get marijuana prescriptions.

And people get operations for frivolous reasons like enlarging or reducing parts of their bodies that they think are ugly.

Of course, doctors would prescribe nicotine to the nicotine addicts. Might check their weight, lungs, etc. while at it. This could help a lot of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:12 PM

17. The war on certain odors continues!

Most people that complain about cigarettes only care about the smell. They don't give a damn if it kills you.


6 months cigarette free
4 months nicotine free

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandiFan1290 (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:08 PM

21. Congratulations on having quit!

I care about the health benefits. I was very glad when my father quit when I was 15; I'm glad you've quit now, and I wish you the best of luck in remaining quit and the best of health now and in your future. Good for you!!

I don't like the odor, but my personal, immediate problem with cigarette smoke is that it triggers migraines for me. (I didn't know that until some time after my father quit. It does explain why I had fairly frequent migraines as a kid.) I leave the vicinity of smokers and hold my breath when I have to walk near them outside, not to try to insult them or their addiction but to save myself a round of misery and vomiting. I try not to be too obvious about it, but I've gotten some glares.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandiFan1290 (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:09 AM

67. Agree. Now we need to expand

to a War on Perfumes.

A little is fine.

A lot is a WMD. (allergies)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:37 PM

26. as much as I hate cigarettes

This is not a good idea. It will only create a black market like under Prohibition. Besides, what doctor is going to write a prescription for cigarettes? Imagine the lawsuits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:45 PM

28. Idiocy.

 

This is that nanny state the right bitches about so often. And in this case they're right. Let's go ahead and create some more criminals.

Stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:36 PM

35. This does not ban smoking. It merely insures that smokers are checked by their

doctors. It also makes it more difficult for kids to get cigarettes.

Further, it would enable a huge scientific study of Oregon's smokers to get solid data on the health effects of smoking.

I doubt that it will pass, but I think it is a great idea.

I don't know how it is now, but when the birth control pill came out, you had to get a prescription for it. That allowed for the medical profession to get really good data on the effects of birth control pills. So many people were afraid of them.

Right now, smokers self-report their smoking history -- how much they smoke, etc.

This prescription idea would serve some good purposes. It doesn't outlaw smoking. It outlaws smoking if you don't visit a doctor and get a prescription. Hopefully, when you are getting your prescription, you will also get a bit of a check-up -- say of your lungs, your weight, your blood pressure. This bill could help lots of smokers live longer. There is no guarantee, but it isn't such a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:36 PM

41. Smokers might be less willing to share their cigs with others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:12 PM

86. Which would be great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:57 PM

58. Unbelievable

I won't say what I really think about your post because my post would then end up being removed. All I can say is that my jaw dropped when I read how you so casually decided for your fellow citizens that it would be ok to force them to go to a doctor and participate in a scientific study against their will under the pretense that you care so much about them and their health. My skin is crawling just thinking about how anyone could think that this is ok much less desirable. Ugh. Unbelievable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:53 PM

29. Yeah really bad idea

I hate cigarette smoke, I hate seeing cigarette butts on the sidewalk, some people have asthma and that's a problem. But, making cigarettes illegal is not the answer by a long shot. We definitely should encourage things like insurance companies picking up some cost for treating cigarette addiction. We should have more smoke outs. And we should emphasize prevention. Smoking just isn't cool. But, if it's made legal, suddenly it is going to be the cool thing to do, lots of people are intrigued by forbidden fruit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:41 PM

42. I'm wondering what illness the prescription will be prescribed?

If there isn't a legitimate illness why would there be a need to see a doctor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:51 PM

43. Residents of Oregon...


keep a few bucks in the pocket for buying a carton when you go out to the Indian Casino!

This is how it's been in Washington for quite some time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:02 PM

46. haha... good to see what pisses off Freddie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:21 PM

49. Oh Good!

Will it be covered under health insurance? Will the co-pay be less then a pack costs now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:33 PM

52. This guy gives Democrats a bad name.

The Right already complains about having too many liberties stripped away by the Left. This gives them fodder. And when they complain about this breach of personal liberty they'll be right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:04 PM

54. If cops spot someone with a Newport, do they demand a prescription? And what of alcohol?

It's absurdly easy for teens to score alcohol. Plus, the only people who drink less responsibly than teenagers are the homeless winos who pass out on the sidewalk.

Besides, what doctor would prescribe either?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:10 PM

55. this thread is greatness!

please continue!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:32 PM

56. You tickle the crap outa me.

Actually, you make me LOL almost every time I read a post of yourrs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:59 PM

59. this wouldn't help if it did pass

Even if they where to pass this do they really think it would work. Its more of the same drug war shit. It will increase the jail population. It will increase juvinials doing harder drugs. Why do you think mj is a gateway drug. I have to go to a dealer to get it who offeres me more things. If I could go to the store and buy it I wouldn't be offered other things and would be much less likely to take them. This is a stupid idea. You may hate cigs but making it a crime is not the solution. Banning ppl who can't get to the doctor all the time is not going to solve the problem. This will cause more problems than it will fix. I will gladly run cigs to them though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:25 PM

60. Another bill to penalize the poor...

First off, I don't smoke, never have. My father smoked cheap, nasty cigarettes all throughout my childhood and I had no desire to take up the habit myself. I hate the smell, I hate the pollution from cartons, butts, and lighters. I hate the way that the smell seeps into everything it comes into contact with. That said, I think this bill is a terrible idea.

I was really pissed off when they did the same thing to pseudoephedrine; it cost about $5.00 for a box of 100 pills over the counter. Suddenly, to get a $5.00 box of pills, I have to take time off work or lose a chunk of my day off, schedule an appointment with a doctor (that'll be about $80.00 just to walk into the office), and then add the cost of the prescription; my $5.00 box of pills is now in excess of $100.00. I make do with phenylephrine, which is the OTC replacement for pseudoephedrine, but it really doesn't work as well.

Many of the smokers I know either have little or no health insurance, they don't have a doctor to go to. I see a lot of homeless smokers, where would they get a prescription for cigarettes?

Why not make every legally available addictive or potentially addictive/harmful substance prescription only?

Alcohol?

Sugar?

Carbohydrate laden foods?

Deep fried foods?

Butter?

Bacon?

What doctor would give a prescription for any of those (proven to be bad for your health) substances? Where would it end?

I would love it if everyone could easily quit smoking or switch to e-cigs, but most "tabacco" (I use that term loosely as so many things have been added to it as to make it virtually unrecognizable to it's original plant component) is deliberately so addictive that people can't just quit.

How about if Corporate Tobacco had to pay for every prescription? How about if buying a pack of cigarettes gave the purchaser access to "smokers insurance" where every smoking related office or hospital visit was covered by said insurance?

I live in Portland and I think I can say with certainty that if this bill passed there would be riots in the streets. Or at least an unbearable amount of whining from the hipsters. For a city that's full of bicyclists and touts itself for being green, I can't walk down the street without passing someone puffing away on a cigarette (sometimes while they are riding a bicycle).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AmyDeLune (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:50 PM

103. It is all a big joke...

they want all of us to chose a healthier lifestyle but do nothing to help protect people from all the junk they continue to put into our food. So I agree. Still pleanty of people die each year from cancer related deaths that never smoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:33 AM

62. If enacted, I would start smoking again, quit my job, and become a multi-millionaire

by smuggling cigarettes into Oregon.

So, there would be a silver lining to this government over-reach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:11 AM

68. You would be competing with organized crime

You're gonna need a bigger gun.

But, yeah, there would be profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:43 PM

77. I've watched every episode of Boardwalk Empire and all three Godfather movies.

Not to mention Goodfellas, more than once. Im hoping that will be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 20score (Reply #77)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:49 PM

78. Then you know: leave the gun, take the cannoli

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:50 AM

63. Fuck that and fuck the prescription-only pseueohedrine. The other stuff isn't nearly as effective.

Prescription only cigarettes? Yeah, good luck with that buddy. Talk about wasting time. If he were really concerned about smoking and its health effects, he's be advocating more effective public health measures like early education, expanded coverage, preventive care, smoking-cessation programs, whatever.

Not stupid, grandstanding crap like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:15 AM

64. This would stop a lot of people from starting up smoking

and make it hard for kids to get hooked. I support the idea of letting those already addicted get their fix, but stop the next generation from doing so. Granted there would be some accessing cigarettes on the black market, but far fewer would probably be smokers in the future.

It also might provide one more incentive for some to kick the habit.

There is no safe level of smoking, unlike drinking. Smokers run up everyone's tax bills treating the diseases that smoking causes. I become very ill when I am around cigarette smoke - wheezing -- and also just hate the stench. Secondhand smoke kills.

We should do everything possible to stop others from smarting this deadly and nasty habit in my view.

That said, the prescriptions should be easy to get for those already hooked who find these disgusting things enjoyable, but use the law to restrict future generations from getting hooked. There also should be provisions for low-income folks, smoking should not be a privilege for the rich only....hmmm....on second thought maybe the 1% would die off faster that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Liberty Belle (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:20 PM

95. Indeed. Protect our youth and future health care costs too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:16 AM

65. The attempt to

make cigarettes/nicotine available by prescription only.......if it succeeds, will only serve to put money in the pockets of the big pharma companies. I say this because no doctor would write a prescription for cigarettes for ones nicotine addiction.......can you say prescription only transdermal patches?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:08 AM

71. Shameful

For all of those people who pretend to be so concerned about the health of smokers check this out.

Penalty could keep smokers out of health care overhaul

WASHINGTON Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

The Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" to its detractors allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.



For smokers, this bill is not the Affordable Health Care Act it's a death sentence. A lot of them (unless they're rich) won't be able to have health insurance so any illness they get whether it's related to smoking or not will not be treated. So I for one don't want to hear any more smug comments that pretend to care about smokers. Sadly, far too many non-smokers have decided that these people just don't count. And what's really scary is that smokers are just the first group to be singled out. It won't stop with smokers. This is so shameful. To think in America we would pass legislation that targets our fellow citizens to be singled out to not have health insurance just because they choose to live their lives differently from others. It's just really creepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 10:14 AM

72. My BFF in Washington always has me bring her a few cartons -

- when I visit as they're much cheaper where I live. No doubt people will cross state lines, have friends bring them, or simply find a way to ship them.

The Black Market will thrive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #72)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:48 PM

83. Wait, you can't classify this dangerous drug with other less harmful, illegal drugs...

what about the tobacco industry, it needs the nicotine addicts to keep the stockholders happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 01:38 PM

80. "Without a doctor's prescription"? Yeah, because you'll ever see one of those.

A rule of thumb would be, if your doctor would give you a prescription for cigarettes, it's time to find a new doctor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:48 PM

81. I hate authoritarian nannies more than I hate smokers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:58 PM

85. Why not ban cars and trucks that run on fossil fuels?

They pollute. They cause accidents and contribute to global warming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 05:59 PM

90. so will people...

...go to a "smokeasy" instead of a "speakeasy?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:11 PM

91. I hate cigarettes and I think that this is the most idiotic idea ever

What is this Greenlick guy smoking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:30 PM

92. I like the idea. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:48 AM

96. Bottom line for me: I would never vote for this Nanny Stater.

If I lived in this man's district, I'd vote for any challenger to him in the primary, and if that failed, I'd vote for any Republican who ran against him in the general - even if Democratic control of the chamber rested on this seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:27 AM

98. Two things

One I'm from Oregon and even as a non-smoker this will never pass as a ballot initiative. In fact I'd wager it wouldn't even get 40%. So all the people bellyaching be quite.

Second, as someone else said enforcing the existing laws especially someone smoking in areas they should be would be a much better idea. Go after those who litter too. I have no problem with people smoking, just don't push your habit in other's faces.

Here in Korea they just passed legislation that is close to what they have in Oregon, yet it is poorly enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:47 AM

99. Seeing that cigarettes have practically no redeeming features, no doctor would prescribe it

That said, cigarettes are one of the five things that brings color to my life. If the law passes, then Oregon is dead to me.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:21 PM

100. Edgar Friendly

 

"I'm the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, 'Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?' I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing 'I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener'. "


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sylvi (Reply #100)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:50 PM

105. demolition man

Great movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:38 PM

101. This guy not only is an Idiot

he has little regard for Rights-And he has little to zero understanding of the WoD's.
If this passes he will have successfully created a New market For Black Market Dealers-thus Supporting and Encouraging crime.

Harm Reduction Education has been working well over the past several decades as fewer and fewer people take up the habit or even kids who choose to Never even try it once.
It taught and still teaches the Truth of the consequences of using Nicotine. Parents are never around when their kids are pressured by their peers to try anything, the antidote is to tell them the truth and empower Them to make responsible, safe and highly informed decisions. It's working, tobacco use is rapidly falling...so WHY do we need the govt to Nanny-Sit us into compliance? Money. Follow the money. Is this, perhaps a replacement for a very profitable yet waning Cannabis Prohibition? Theres some big-bucks there.
This bill, if it becomes law will dilute the Success of the Anti-Smoking Campaign--Anytime you prohibit something it is human to want it---where-as now-it's in the open and those who don't use it now--likely never will, because we know the truth.
Its a Bullshit drain on the States budget to pay for enforcement, sentencing is up to 1 year @ $3000.00 per month per person. In Oregon it costs $10k to educate and $30,000k to incarcerate, per person per year. We Now unwisely invest/spend More on Laws, Jails than we do to educate our kids! Which would you rather have-an informed public making healthier decisions as a matter of personal responsibility or a prison full of non-violent prisoners draining our wallets for Nothing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:39 PM

102. Cigarette smoking has declined dramatically..


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx

Self reported smoking in 1954 was 45%; currently around 22%.

My take on this is that the drop is primarily due to education, not regulation. I would predict that cigarettes would still be freely available after passage of this bill, including to minors. Just would cost more, and the dealers would profit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:04 PM

104. I guess I really would not have a problem with this

if it kept the Rush Limbaughs of the world from lighting up cuban cigars and oxycodines going down the throats just because they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:15 PM

106. I hate smoking, but prohibition doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:34 PM

107. it is not a good drug

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:55 PM

108. Just wait until cigarette are illegal... Gang wars galore...

 

This will open up a whole new black market.. and turf wars between gangs.. (we aint seen nothin' yet) sic

And why stop there? Let's outlaw Coffee, all caffeine, salt, sugar and cayenne pepper.

And make it a felony to own or possess a glass of red wine.

After all.. we have to fill those 96,000 beds that Correction Corporation of America leases to the Federal Govt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie Stubbs (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:10 PM

111. A year in prison, and some here support this???

Great idea, let's lock up millions of people for smoking. Then the people who support this bullshit can stop complaining about the war on drugs and acknowledge their support of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread