On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:42:25 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:02:18 -0600, Jim Yanik
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral.
They are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.

IT is not immoral, as you claimed it was. There is a *big*
difference.

To you perhaps it is immoral. It obviously isn't against society's
morays.

It's poison,and not just for the users.

Lots of things are dangerous. Unless you propose to ban them all,
you're nothing better than the leftists you hate so much.

Another false presumption;
that if one bans anything,then they must ban everything.

First they came for the Jews...

It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)

Bull****. No more than *many* other things that I'm sure you find
perfectly acceptable. The *fact* is that you're no better than those
on the left you hate.

It even affects wildlife.

Hogwash.

Ah,denial.(just -more- denial,actually)

Bull****.

You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

Illegal "above board"

then in your view,anything that is "legal" is thus not immoral.
screwy. (that would make YOU "pro-choice" and pro-GLBT)

Morality is personal. SOme morality, when it's universal is codified. You
propose that smoking is universally immoral, which is asinine.


Get out of the leftists gutter.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for
them, yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live shorter
lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Ah, so you *DO* support banning everything you deem to be "dangerous".
You *are* a statist.


Ooh,again,"statist,statist",I'm SO hurt.....

I can't help it if you *are* what you hate. That's the plain truth.