New Zealand set to ban smoking

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would you attempt to make this about children?

Simple. End of the argument.


"It's for the children!" is the oldest form of pressure used to push some sort of authoritarian agenda.

I like how he (dude-Xena) argued about what is a right on paper and what isn't.

Guess he doesn't have the right to eat as he pleases, government-approved foodstuffs only, you get no choices anymore. be grateful you ate at all. he doesn't need his favored tube of tooth paste, either, or his favored shower soap. Or his favored anything, government knows what's best, Rainman here just needs to do what he's told & shut up. He does not know best, not even for himself, and has no enshrined right to think otherwise.

Edit: The Maude Flanders angle is not going to absolve the above.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Crowfoot
It's a parliament...

Parliaments are also a lovely ass-flavored menthol cigarette.

Who knew you were an "ass-flavored" aficionado?
Thanks!

a reply to: Nyiah

He does not know best, not even for himself, and has no enshrined right to think otherwise.

Well posted!

a reply to: shooterbrody

It reminds me of your posts.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I have heard menthol referred to as a "black" cigarette when someone wasn't aware I was listening. What's funny and or strange about that? Is the best menthol in cigarettes comes from Asia.

originally posted by: CrazyFox
Or as many scholars have pointed out in the past Vax during pandemic will make it worse.

They are scholars?

They leak

Other vaccines have breakthrough cases, so they are 'leaky' (is that even a thing?) too.

and are only a vax by the new definition that was changed less than 3 years ago.

So, you won't consider a medicine that has a proven effectiveness, based upon a change in a dictionary definition?

I hope you don't die of a misprint.

Give it a rest.
The only person who appears to be enjoying authoritarianism currently running rampart in our world.

a reply to: chr0naut

So, you are for getting children addicted to cigarettes?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

I thought that we were supposed to be leftist here?

Yeah so did Mussolini.

What will your government outlaw next?
Smiling?
Sending mail?

So, you approve of getting children addicted to cigarette smoking?

I mean, look at the few extra dollars to be made for every human life!

Lol children?
Can children legally purchase tobacco in hobbiton today?

Yes. It was mentioned in the article linked in the OP.

Why would you attempt to make this about children?

You didn't even read the article.

LOL

This appears to be aimed at adults, more specifically attempting to remove their liberty starting at a random date.
You lot are real life logans run prequel.

Next they will make the color blue illegal.

You clearly have no idea what the legislation is.

Here's the article:

New Zealand to ban smoking for next generation in bid to outlaw habit by 2025
Legislation will mean people currently aged 14 and under will never be able to legally purchase tobacco - The Guardian

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why would you attempt to make this about children?

Simple. End of the argument.

"It's for the children!" is the oldest form of pressure used to push some sort of authoritarian agenda.

Another who didn't read the linked article.

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
Please NEVER again atrempt to convince me you understand or respect individual freedom in any way.

You and your chosen fascist nation are a pox on the ass of the planet.

I thought that we were supposed to be leftist here?

Now you are saying that they are far right-wing?

Fascism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*sigh* Wikipedia. People still use this as a source? When I was in school getting my degrees, if I had used this as a source, my papers would have been failed.

Wikipedia was founded in 2002, when I was at university getting my degrees, it did not exist.

None the less, if you doubt Wikipedia as an authoritative source (which is fair enough) then do some research of your own to verify its content. Wikipedia is still useful as a starting point for research.

Here are some other sources that you may find more palatable:

Fascism - Encyclopedia.com

FASCISM - Holocaust Encyclopedia

Fascism - New World Encyclopedia

Fascism - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Fascism - Oxford Reference

Fascism and the Radical Right - The International Encyclopedia of the First World War

Common characteristics of fascist movements - Brittanica

I could go on, but I doubt you would read any of these.

Nearly every reference mentions that fascism is right-wing and anti-communist/Marxist/liberalist/democratic.

Do you not understand that far right wing is actually left wing? The further right one goes, they are actually left. And most here on this thread that you attribute to being far right wing are not far right wing at all. In fact, it is you on the left who invented the term far right wing which is hilarious because its just a shoot of of YOUR side. And your side are the actual fascists.

Left and right wing in political terminology comes from the seating arrangement of French National Assembly during the French Revolution of 1789.

What to Know About the Origins of 'Left' and 'Right' in Politics, From the French Revolution to the 2020 Presidential Race - Time Magazine

Fascists are anti-Communist. Communists are anti-Fascists.

Fascism is a right wing ideology, incorporating capitalism, militarism, and nationalism, usually under a strong dictatorial leader, and with allocation of blame (usually on racial, ethnic or cultural divisions) for everything that they feel is wrong in the world. Fascists cannot admit to being culpable in anything, and so the blame and propagandizing that has historically been seen under fascist governments are usually an indicator of the leaning of that government. Fascism opposes liberalism, communism and democracy.

Communism is a left wing ideology, it is against capitalism, instead it tries to apportion all resources evenly to all citizens. This means that the government becomes the source of essential goods and services, and all manufacturing works for the government. It contains none of the self-balancing that underpins capitalism, and so it amplifies corruption and incompetence at a government level.

Both are extremists, so they are similar in that way, but their ideologies are very significantly different. For someone on the far-right, everyone else appears to be left-wing. For someone on the far left, everyone else appears to be right-wing.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

Yeah, because this has worked so well when drugs were banned.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

It reminds me of your posts.

Cool
You being the expert and all.
Lol

a reply to: chr0naut
Children can purchase cigarettes in hobbiton?
You people are savages.

As to the rest of your fascist cheering drivel, I read the article describing an unacceptable government attempting to remove the rights of the people.
It is despicable.
Those supporting this type of behavior are also despicable.

a reply to: chr0naut

Know what they share?

Authoritarianism. They same views you've publicly supported.

To the previous comment to me; claiming "its for the children" equally apply to the OP and to your capitulation to the same stance

originally posted by: shaemac

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

So, everyone should have a right to do, or say, whatever they damn well like to you? That's liberty?

How does that jibe with your 'security of person' bit?

So you don't understand liberty. Fair enough.

Seems like the further you abstract this "liberty" definition, the worse you come off?

Again, your failure to understand what liberty is, is not my problem. I gave you the literal definition, nothing abstract about it.

You gave a definition of liberty. But once not too long ago, someone who had liberty was someone who was not imprisoned or in forced servitude.

The USA, which has the highest number of incarcerated citizens, both in absolute numbers and per capita, of any country in the world, must have the least liberty (in an actual and measurable sense) of any country in the world.

Anyone who is forced to follow a political line, or social convention, and cannot be allowed to have a dissenting opinion is not at liberty. I.e: following a party line, and decrying those that don't, is not liberty.

A few points here.
Yes, our criminal justice system here needs a MAJOR overhaul. Most on both sides would agree to this. But not agree to how it should be done. People who do bad things to other people should be incarcerated and a lot of that is happening from the elite to the nobodies.

And yes, there are a lot of people locked up that probably should not be. There are also a LOT who are not locked up that should be. It goes both ways.

But lets get something corrected.......nobody has been FORCED to follow a party line until recently.

Until recently, people were NOT being incarcerated for political reasons. It was only on Jan 6th that people were locked up for political reasons. There is a ware on conservatives right now. People were not being locked up because they were Obama or Hillary supporters.

Until recently, there were not American political prisoners on US soil.

Recently, there was a movie about the Jazz singer Billie Holliday. She was imprisoned several times, mainly because she spoke out (sang out?) against the lynching of black people.

On the other hand, what would you call those convicted and imprisoned for the Watergate break-ins? They weren't stealing, they were planting bugs and looking for incriminating documents. They would be political prisoners. So would people serving time for spying or treason.

There is a lobby group called the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) They exist as a legal defense organization because civil liberties in the USA are constantly being violated. Some of that involves false accusation and imprisonment.

But for most political prisoners of the USA, they try and keep that information from the public. None the less, there are, and have been, political prisoners in the USA:

Political Prisoners in the USA - Alliance for Global Justice

What is a political prisoner and does the U.S. have them? - Street Sheet

Prisoners - The Jericho Movement

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah, execrable is how I'd describe them.

originally posted by: ratcals

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: thebtheb

As a NZ resident, who has had children, and where many of their friends are now addicted to cigarettes, I applaud this.

Yeah, because this has worked so well when drugs were banned.

Yes but previous efforts have concentrated on trying to prosecute the drug taker. The New Zealand legislation aims to curtail the sales of cigarettes to minors.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: chr0naut

SO smoking shouldn't be an individual choice, it should be determined by government.

How. . . . authoritarian.

Smoking reduces the quality of life of significant numbers of people. It is also absolutely unnecessary.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an internationally agreed list of things which should be considered Human Rights.

You get on a rather slippery slope if you abandon real rights for some loop-de-loop crazy thing which you then try and portray as a right.

There is no such thing as right to choose to smoke.

A safety protocol, enforced in law, as so many other laws are, is not authoritarian.

I'm sorry, but your post is so full of # that I could no longer ignore your absolute propaganda.

But instead of showing you, I'll ask you this.

What right do you have to Ban someone from choosing an unhealthy habbit?

Is fast food healthy? Fast food and unhealthy food is BY FAR the worst. Obesity and all factors kill more people in 1 year than smoking kills in 10.

So are we going to ban Milkshakes? By your definition, you applaud the Government for taking away your right to eat then. Only eat what they say you can eat.

Smoking isn't the real killer, your body can easily clean itself up from smoking. It's all the other things you do that inhibit your body from cleaning itself. Like alcohol (which is Poison), like fast food (which is poison), like mountain climbing (which is deadly), like riding a bicycle (which can get you killed).

I'm not defending smoking or saying it's healthy. But I smoke. It's my vice, I ENJOY smoking. EVERY OTHER factor of my life is healthy. I eat Keto, I exercise, I'm a mailman, I walk 20 km a day, 100 km a week, weighed down with parcels and mail. I do this in every kind of weather. I outrun non-smokers, my doctor just gave me a positively clean bill of health. I've been smoking for 20+ years. I'm healthy AF.

So with your logic, we should what? All live in sterilized globes with feeding paste based, intake based off our body mass and protein requirement? That's exactly what you're saying if you don't support ones right to chose. You're either for or against, there is no grey area. In this argument, grey area = hypocrisy. "It's OK for this, but not for this" doesn't exist. You chose. Up or Down.

So either your a hypocrite, an authoritarian or a libertarian.

Make your choice.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Know what they share?

Authoritarianism. They same views you've publicly supported.

To the previous comment to me; claiming "its for the children" equally apply to the OP and to your capitulation to the same stance

Despite the spin of the OP and the headline of the article, the legislation aims to curtail the sales of an addictive drug, that causes life threatening medical conditions, to minors.

You have no moral high ground to stand on.

At most, you read the post and perhaps the headline of the article, neither of which made mention that this legislation only applies to minors, and you went off full of bluster and outrage.

a reply to: chr0naut

For people that have swallowed the anti-smoking push. It is the same over manipulation of thought patterns going on with the get vaccinated push. This means most of the brainwashed will be staying that way.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: chr0naut

Know what they share?

Authoritarianism. They same views you've publicly supported.

To the previous comment to me; claiming "its for the children" equally apply to the OP and to your capitulation to the same stance

Despite the spin of the OP and the headline of the article, the legislation aims to curtail the sales of an addictive drug, that causes life threatening medical conditions, to minors.

You have no moral high ground to stand on.

At most, you read the post and perhaps the headline of the article, neither of which made mention that this legislation only applies to minors, and you went off full of bluster and outrage.

Nice try but we can simply go back to the beginning and demolish your gaslighting attempt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...