Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:06

Nanny State Passes Ban on Selling Cigarettes in Pharmacies

Tagged with: , ,
Posted by ep on Tuesday, September 30, 2008, 12:43
This news item was posted in News, Politics category and has 4 Comments so far.

I don’t smoke cigs, or as a friend likes to call them “coffin nails” but even as a non-smoker banning the ability to sell them is just ridiculous.  The argument is people might think they aren’t bad for you because they are being sold in a pharmacy.  If that is the case, the person is so dumb they have more problems things to worry about than just being a smoker.

I am completely against legislating morality / behavior if it isn’t affecting other people.  Second hand smoking and drunken driving laws I get because that can affect somebody else.  Fundamentally that is why I am against legislation targeting gay’s, trying to impose Christianity on Middle East countries, banning drugs and ‘dangerous’ activities like cliff jumping.

More details: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/BAC7121IRV.DTL

Bookmark and Share
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Nanny State Passes Ban on Selling Cigarettes in Pharmacies”

  1. Antigrammatik
    30 September, 2008, 13:17

    Yeah, second hand smoking laws totally make sense. Because people go to bars for their health. So of course we should ban smoking in all bars instead of leaving it up to the bar to decide if they’re going to be a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar. Certainly, second hand smoke is the silent killer. You never notice when you’re inhaling second hand smoke…

  2. 30 September, 2008, 14:02

    Or even public playgrounds, in the stands at the old NASCAR race, or the elementary school.

    Since second hand smoke is worse for you than first hand I guess we all should just light up ourselves for health reasons.

    Bars I can go either way on.

  3. Antigrammatik
    30 September, 2008, 16:25

    I’m okay with legislation that governs public land or locations, like parks, schools, municipal buildings, etc since that is government property and so they should be free to do as they please. But private businesses and private land? That should be up to the owners of the property, yes that includes the NASCAR race.

    If the business wants to exclude the persons who do not wish to be around smokers then they should be able to allow that activity. If the business decides that it is in their best interest to not allow smoking, then that should be their option as well.

  4. LaterSkater
    1 October, 2008, 9:54

    hmm… I believe in that in principal, but in practice, I’m not sure where you draw the line. What about people who want to pay not to be around gays, blacks, or women? When do the rights of the minority need to be protected from the voice of the majority?

Leave a Reply