tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7018073541417646773.post4729866656037329428..comments2024-03-27T19:00:02.499-04:00Comments on UNDERNEWS: The hidden factor in the Garner slayingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7018073541417646773.post-79166920326241504502014-12-31T13:59:06.414-05:002014-12-31T13:59:06.414-05:00The last commenter is perplexed. What to do, he/sh...The last commenter is perplexed. What to do, he/she asks. This question stems from the notion that "somebody" (i.e. government) needs to intervene if/when a substance, like tobacco, can be harmful. Why? Because it's "right" to do so? I challenge that position. I think it's "right" for the government to keep its nose out of private affairs, such as what substances people care to ingest or use. Reduction of use and demand, if warranted, should be achieved through education, not laws. And if some people don't want such help, well, then, that's their right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7018073541417646773.post-83435602619980680042014-12-30T14:31:20.120-05:002014-12-30T14:31:20.120-05:00Removing Cigarette taxes would create an ugly catc...Removing Cigarette taxes would create an ugly catch 22. Youth smoking goes down when cigarette prices are high, but this also causes smuggling. In many ways I don't want to see high taxes removed from cigarettes, but the police should not be killing people who smuggle and distribute. That is a "crime" that should at most get a ticket. Age limits on cigarettes also decrease youth smoking, while black market sellers don't card. I don't know what to do, but what is currently going on is a catch 22.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com