I can not disagree with the basic premise of the statement. Why should we bread out many children when replacing ourselves seems like a logical thing to do?
BRING IT ON! The object of my statement is to DRIVE people away from smiking and thus, improve their health and the health of any poor child stuck in a smoke filled enviroment!
Something has to be done with the tax. It will go to fund a program, good or bad (in this case, a horrible one). That tax funded program necessitates more smoking to keep the flow of money coming.
You would be amazed, if you don't already know, at the amount of money the government takes in from smoking. I think they are more hooked on the tax revenue than the smokers are on the actual product.
Worry abour yourself. No one needs you to alter their behavior, troll. Freedom is about people being able to do as they wish with little government intrusion. I guess gay sex could be considered a reason to tax gay folks more for dangerous aids evoking behavior. Are ya for that too?
WTF? You seem to have several uncommon viewpoints for someone on this forum. Are you sure you don't belong here? http://www.democraticunderground.com/Green adviser calls for a limit of two children
I can not disagree with the basic premise of the statement. Why should we bread out many children when replacing ourselves seems like a logical thing to do?
“The object of my statement is to DRIVE people away from smiking and thus, improve their health and the health of any poor child stuck in a smoke filled enviroment!”
In other words, you have an agenda to prevent people from using a legal product. What is consevative about taxing someone who uses a legal product? I think we should to the same for fatty foods, salt, sugar, alcohol consumption, any activity that people consider fun that might have risks and other activities.