Progressives & Vaping
Pretty fun read in the National Review on the progressive attack on e-cigarettes:
"The state public-health department says that this [the attack on e-cigs] is justified by the presence of certain carcinogens — benzene, formaldehyde, nickel, and lead—in e-cigarette vapor. But by California’s own account, all of those chemicals are present in marijuana smoke, too, along with 29 other carcinogens."
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:26 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
The article wasnt even about ecigs. It was about how bad "progressive" people are in general. Very bad writing. The whole point was "real amuricans" don't question things. Only commie loving people question things.
Do you actually know anyone who vapes? I know tons of people who do. They tend to be progressive types. Free thinkers. The conservative types tend to chew tobacco and smoke real cigs.
Fact is, it's progressives fighting for legalizing pot. It's progressives calling for drugs, prostitution and vaping to be legal.
Since it is and always has beem CONSERBATIVES calling for government beaurocrats having the power to search in my medicine cabinet, my truck and my person to see what drugs I like to do.
It is ironic to hear conservatives blaming progressives for wanting to give big brother more power when it's them who favor funding a police state.
"Fact is, it's progressives fighting for legalizing pot. It's progressives calling for drugs, prostitution and vaping to be legal."
I don't think so at all. With the exception of pot, progressives are the ones supporting whatever bans you can think of. I have pointed out here before, though, the irony of how many of them advocate legalizing pot, then in the next breath promoting defacto- if not outright- prohibition of tobacco products.
BTW; one of the latest bills introduced in California is one raising the age to buy cigarettes to 21. Sponsored by a "progressive" Democrat.
Fred, how much money do you blow a month on cigs?
Name 3 things progressives have banned that you can't buy today....
I'm a Progressive and I Vape.
I think this and the world wide reaction to "vaping" is just a part of anti-tobacco fanaticism. The "juice" contains nicotine, therefore it is evil.
I even see them use the "gateway drug" argument.
I don't know who they are and don't care... they are nit wits.
I do think it would be nice if the purity and safety of the juice were to be looked into and regulated... but there seems to be no way to do this without the extremists running amok.
It's difficult to have a sane debate with zealots... no matter the subject.
Not sure who is talking about extending bans, but I'm trying hard to be one progressive to chennel social conservatives on weed. Legalize? Fine, but have the cost reflect the actual cost, cradle-to-grave, and it's going to be as costly (if not more) than tobacco. Tax, regulate, enforce. This way we don't burden future generations from our inability to capture all the actual costs of a product's production, manufacture, and disposal.
Three letters that might make Fred throw up a little?... V.A.T. baby! Seriously, it's the way to go.
11:49, I agree, with such a clear generalization,seems like this should be an easy task.
Okay Jon, so I guess we'd better get on with getting those same kind of cradle-to-grave societal costs worked into special taxes on everything else where overuse may have health conequences -- potato chips, beef, sofas, TVs, etc., etc., etc... Unless of course you're just singling out cannabis because of your local political obsessions / resentments. And surely that couldn't be the case. ;)
Mola wrote,"I'm a Progressive and I Vape.".
Yep, and while you probably don't want it banned, I feel it safe to assume you regularly vote for those that are putting the hammer to vaping now. I call that functional authoritariansm. I've met any number of so- called progressives that might not personally have the ban fever (at least on one issue), but they regularly support politics, politicians and candidates that do.
"how much money do you blow a month on cigs?"
Maybe $20.00 (special source) but I don't see how that should be any of your business.
"so I guess we'd better get on with getting those same kind of cradle-to-grave societal costs worked into special taxes on everything else where overuse may have health conequences -- potato chips, beef, sofas, TVs, etc., etc., etc.."
Yep, and that's exactly where this is all going. We've got progressives trying to come up with reasons to ban or reduce consumption of just about anything. Other progressives might not think much about one ban or another, but they'll agree with the others. In the end, they attack them all with taxes, more restrictive regulations or outright ban proposals.
Some bans or proposed bans that come to mind are guns (proposed), rat poisons, metal baseball bats and plastic shopping bags. I'm sure I can come up with more.
Name 3 things that progressives have banned...
Hypocrates are not in short order these days.
Conservatives have ACTUALLY banned at one time or another: alcohol, abortions, contraception, prostitution, marijuana, herion, lsd, poppy plants, certain books, boobs on tv, gay marriage, interracial marriage, pornagraphy, song lyrics, movies, topless sunbathing, certain tshirts in schools. That was off the top of my head. I'm sure a google search would remind me of more...
I'm still not happy about having to pay Fred's medical insurance subsidy
Fred:
Perhaps you are right about "my guys" going against my interests on this issue.
But then again... I've never met anyone who agrees with me 100% on anything; so I do the best I can and vote the best I can.
In other words, I go for the greater good as I see it and hold my noes on those making decisions on particular issues that don't suit my tastes.
"... and hold my NOSE."
Damn, I should have spotted that; it was just under my noes.
"Conservatives have ACTUALLY banned at one time or another:".
Yep, although many of those have more to do with authoritariansm vs libertariansm, and still does to this day.
Right. Conservatives tend to be authoritarian and progressives tend to be more easy going on social matters. As a general stereotype, a person who loves sex, drugs and rock and roll is going to be labeled progressive liberal, while a person who values keeping sex , drugs and "unpure" thoughts to a minimum is more often than not labeled a conservative.
Conservatives tend to be easy going and progressives tend to be authoritarian when the environment or the social structure is at risk.
You seem to be confused about what each side brings to the table or you want to keep this conversation as simple as "conservatives good, progressives bad". Thinking in black and white is easier than actually thinking about the issue, but come on...
It is black and white, metaphorically (and extremely tragically, literally) We color this red and blue for convenience for those who want to involve themselves in civics.
Just look at the arch "I'm not a conservative"'s (fred's) voting patterns. It overlaps almost exactly with team red's voting endorsements in 2013 and 2914.
This statist's overlaps almost completely with team blue.
This whole libertarian nonesense is political Utopianism looking for a reality. If we want to, we can keep this all very simple. But we don't want to b/c then we'd have to confront some difficult truths.
Like, for example, sometimes a majority of the people and their three branches of government might agree that something like heroin, or alcohol, or weed, or guns, or bullet proof vests, or speach* should be controlled in some way.
Ahhhh! Freedom is melting!
* assuming money is defined as speech.
Also, thank MOLA 42 for the laugh-out loud line. 'Noes."
Post a Comment
<< Home