Nanny B: Hide the ciggies — Page 2

I say tax the ciggies all you want-they cause illness and those illnesses cost money, as Jordan points out. Hiding them seems stupid, though. People will still buy them.

Why not do the same with liquor? Or condoms? Or anything that can be huffed?

Updated On: 3/19/13 at 02:31 PM

To be clear, once again. Of course I know that sugar, tobacco, alcohol, etc. can be bad for one's health. Even deadly.

My issue is that people should make the decision of how much, if any, of those items they want to consume, without the government stepping in to make it harder or impossible for them to do that freely.

Now you're going to say that there are some people who don't have the knowledge and/or good judgment to make that decision on their own. Well, if there are some people like that, then the government should spend money on the educating of those people on the subject, not impinge on the rights of the rest of us.

---

some folks.

---

The thing is to keep the very idea of cigarettes away from youth...which to my mind is only going to make them cooler and more taboo.

I think cigarettes are disgusting and dangerous, but this is a ludicrous law and further proof that Bloomberg has too much time on his hands.

---

Yes, as Borstal says, forbidden fruit is the sweetest.

---

So why not outlaw cigarettes? All these laws and taxes charging people for smoking and vendors for selling something legal (and in many places, at an astronomical rate compared to any other substance deemed unhealthy and/or harmful), but try and pry a politician away from the tobacco industry itself and its lobbyists. Anyone think the mayor will hide the beer and wine? Or butter? Or cell phones?

---

I love it when that happens!

---