Skip to main content

View Diary: Can Democrats Really Afford To Forfeit The Votes of 46 Million Smokers? (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, but if you're threatening to not vote (7+ / 0-)

    for Democrats over this relatively unimportant single issue, your progressive credentials need some polishing, big time.

    "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

    by gustynpip on Sun May 12, 2013 at 12:06:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Marks' point is that were over-regulating (4+ / 0-)

      people's life styles. In NYC you can no longer smoke at the beach or in a public park--where there is no second hand smoke issue.  It's enough.

      •  Who says (0+ / 0-)

        there's no second hand smoke issue in parks and beaches? Of course there is.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Sun May 12, 2013 at 05:49:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To The Same Extent There Are Carcinogen Issues.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          .....related to the boats and jet-skis on beaches, yes, there are "secondhand smoke issues" there as well.  But only the most craven busybodies would argue that secondhand smoke exposure on beaches or parks is a public health hazard to anyone.  If you don't like it, guess can take three steps away from it and you don't notice it anymore.

    •  It's Only "Relatively Unimportant"...... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Eyesbright

      .....if you can tolerate the extraction of thousands of dollars per year from some of our most vulnerable citizens....and the children of some of our most vulnerable citizens.  I held my nose and tolerated it for years now, but I can tolerate it no longer.

      •  children being around cigarette smoke (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        allergywoman, FG, terrybuck, ER Doc

        is far worse for them than their parents paying a higher price for fucking cigarettes. and if higher price per pack induces their parents to quit, then so much the better, for their family budgets and their health.

        this is incredibly cynical, to be crying crocodile tears for the children.

        •  You're Assuming A Lot..... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          .....including that the parents are smoking in the presence of their children, which at this point I suspect the overwhelming majority do not.  But even if you're right, it's a pretty sad testimonial that you believe children living in poverty are better off than children exposed to cigarette smoke.  Are you kidding me?  For most of the last century, entire generations of children grew up in the presence of secondhand smoke and the species managed to not only survive, but grow its life expectancy at historic rates.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site