cant smoke in piblic places cant smoke in cars pretty soon we womt be able to smoke in our own homes how far will they go
2007-03-20 06:38:42 · 11 answers · asked by boss_24seven 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Just because you can't smoke in certain areas don't mean we have a goverment takeover. They aren't infringing on any of my rights so far.
2007-03-20 06:42:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, a marvelous type of persons mistakenly think of that. determination - beneficial, it will supply you yet another determination. of course it is going to eliminate each and each of the others. deepest coverage can not compete with a backed government application. Tax money would be used to subsidize the 'public determination' so as that Billy Bob can get his coverage for $50 which might value him $500 on the open marketplace. which ability somebody else has paid the better $a million,000 he isn't. Yeah, $a million,000 because of the fact what expenses $a million interior the deepest sector expenses $2 interior the well-known public sector as a results of inefficiency. it incredibly is such as you having a private plan with Aetna and being compelled to make a contribution as lots to Kaiser so as that they'd furnish their shoppers a discounted cost. How is that determination? Is that honest? No. And while this 'public determination' has pushed out all deepest coverage, all we would be left with is the 'public determination' which will value our financial equipment two times as lots. Freedom - If the government is determining to purchase it, the government owns it. it incredibly is how the government works. they'd tax 'habit' (alcohol, cigarettes?) and something they like to to punish you for no longer complying. they're doing it now, this might in basic terms supply them greater reason and reason. Precident has been set many circumstances. So, yeah, they are going to take over our lives. coverage firms can no longer do this, yet government can, will and does. Even now. replace: word how people who say 'No' and reference the 'ignorant plenty' furnish no longer something to assist their opinion. there's a clarification for that. they'd't. no longer logically, rationally, or factually. And yet a marvelous type of the solutions that say 'No' furnish that help. Now, extremely, who's ignorant?
2016-10-01 05:41:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The dividing line is public versus private locations.
The government is very limited in terms of what it can forbid you to do in the privacy of your home. But it (especially state govts) has broad authority to regulate conduct in public places.
As for cars, the issue is safety. Govts can ban cigarettes in cars for the same reason they can require seat belts, or ban cell phone usage while driving.
Whether we like it or not, the current standards allow the govt to pass a ridiculously broad range of laws, based on the notions of public safety and community well-being. I don't like it, and I think the govt should leave people alone. But that doesn't change what the govt is legally allowed to regulate.
2007-03-20 06:42:10 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and it's wrong. We need another American revolution to straighten things back out. We need to get rid of everyone in Washington D.C. and start over. Maybe that way, we can at least have freedom for another 200 years. The constitution needs to be re-written in plain english so the ACLU cannot tear it apart anymore.
2007-03-20 06:42:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
the government has always interfered with our freedom.i truly believe that we are know more freer then china,our government just don't display it as openly as china does.our own president is tapping our phones without permission and opening our mail now to.they track you through you phone call,your computer,and with special gps tracking systems.did you forget about whos up there in our white house as we speak. osama bi laden brother,george w bin laden.actions speak louder then words.sorry but thats my opion.
2007-03-20 06:49:32 · answer #5 · answered by scooterpie 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Local governments are trying to take over our lives. To that I say Zieg Hiel!
2007-03-20 08:22:26 · answer #6 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the goverment is not taking over our lives, at least not with smoking laws. They are protecting lives in this case, just not in your favour. I certainly don't want your cigarrette smoke in my child's lungs.
2007-03-20 06:57:29 · answer #7 · answered by Riannaa 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Big government and have them take over your life in every thing you do...that's the democrat and Liberal idea!
2007-03-20 06:41:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you look to the government for everything, they believe you owe them everything. Vigilence is necessary to keep your freedoms.
2007-03-21 14:31:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
its gotten pretty bad --when they start asking how many sheets of toilet paper do you use to wipe, im moving to canada
2007-03-20 06:43:01 · answer #10 · answered by pokerplayer16101 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋