S.F. Chronicle Defending Smokers?
I was surprised to see the San Francisco Chronicle publish an editorial in defense, well...kind of in defense, of smokers. Actually, I guess it's not so much a defense of smokers but a criticism of increasing legislative attacks, by all levels of government, on smokers.
I wonder if this is any indication of the position they'll take on Prop 86, the upcoming ballot initiative to add $2.69 to every pack of cigarettes sold in the state?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:42 AM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Let's face it smokers suck, period.
With all the education in schools, TV, media, etc why whould anyone take it up? Many have quit, and good for them.
Smokers act like they are soooooo mistreated. snivel snivel. Smokers have rights, blah blah blah.
Well non smokers have rights too. Like the right not to inhale 2nd hand smoke ! The right not to smell like a dank cigarette butt just because they had to walk by or had a smoker walk by them.
Screw smokers. I enjoy seeing them standing outside in the rain by themselves smoking. $40 bucks a pack is fine with me.
For their own health smokers should quit !
While I agree that micro-managing laws don't serve anyone, and don't work, I get upset when I see people smoking in cars with children. It's selfish and abusive.
The editorial says we should "leave the smokers alone with their nasty habit." That would be fine except that "nasty habit" violates the rights of others to be left alone to breath fresh air rather than someone else's carcinogenic addiction.
Oh no Heraldo is siding with the nasty government ? Holy Cow.
Well, that's how I feel about seatbelt laws. An adult individual should have the right to risk his or her own life, but his or her children should have some protection from the stupidity.
"For their own health smokers should quit!" "It's for the chiiiildren."
Sieg Heil!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home