You support the addiction of 95% smokers who start under the age of 21? Sorry I don’t.
>>You support the addiction of 95% smokers who start under the age of 21? Sorry I don’t.<<
Unlike you, I support their freedom to choose and the freedom of their parents to teach them properly (I also note you did not answer my questions).
Are you sure you are on the right site? DU and KOS are 2 clicks to the left.
There is no room for you Nanny Staters here at FREE Republic.
Is there anyone over the age of five who doesn’t know that tobacco is addictive and dangerous?
The freedom comes when you pick up the first cigarette. You make a non-addictive decision to do so.
Not only is it freedom, it comes with the individual responsibility for your action.
Those of you who want to government to protect you, can pay for it yourself.
Doing nothing does not support something. You need basic logic 101.
Your argument descends into ad hominem, and becomes a red herring. You can be opposed to smoking and not want to have higher cigarette taxes.
I oppose smoking, I don’t want people addicted to nicotine. I don’t want the government to cynically tax the addicted to make up for their budgeting problems. Education is the proper course here. They know that smokers are stuck, addicted and to try to ream them for another $300-$700 bucks a year (on top of gosh knows how much more they already kick in) is just downright punitive.