Post
by Professor Smooth » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:49 am
I am against "Big Brother" telling me what poisons I can or can not put in my own body. This might sound strange coming from a guy who doesn't even drink coffee because it has too much caffeine in it, but it is where I stand. If heroin, cocaine, LSD, or plain ol' alcohol are your choice leisure activities, then so be it. You know what they do to you and you make your choice. As long as you don't do something stupid like go for a nice long drive while you are incapacitated, there's really nobody in a position to complain. Legislating against them is kind of like making suicide illegal. It is a waste of time, energy, money, and manpower. Let people do what they want to themselves as long as they are not hurting other people. Yeah, some people rob people for drug money, but having known people who do the same for FOOD money, I don't see it as such a big deal. If people think that the benefits are worth the risks, then who can argue. Why not legislate against bungee jumping or sky diving while we're talking about outlawing risky (yet fun) activities?
That said, I do not mind (as much) the government telling me what poisons I can not put into other people's bodies. My problems with cigarettes are mostly their effects on NON-smokers.
I do not like having to shell out for dry-cleaning any time I spend more than five minutes in a bar. I do not like having a nice meal ruined by smoke drifting over from the table next to me. I do not like the mental image of children growing up in homes full of smoke. Smoking, for me, is not an issue of personal safety, it's an issue of public safety. If not, it is at least a public nuisance.
If we simply can NOT ban smoking entirely for whatever reason (and it looks like we can't), then how about outlawing it damn-near everwhere? No smoking in your home, outside (the US does not allow drinking in public), or in businesses. Instead, we set up places that exist only for smoking. No food or booze served, nothing that would make the place appeal to anyone but smokers. Charge people 5 bucks to walk in the door. We could call it the Smokatorium. And, once again, Judge Dredd can be way ahead of us.
As for the Marvel smoking-ban, I was against it until Quesada explained it perfectly. The tobacco companies make their products more harmful ON PURPOSE to keep their customers from quitting. They know that they are killing their customers and they do not care. The only reason Marvel characters smoked was to show that they were cool. Smoking is NOT cool. The only reason people THINK its cool is because it has been portrayed as such in the media. Having Marvel characters smoke is basically an advertisement for the big tobacco companies.
After reading that, I agree. Marvel characters are not all role models, but what other purpose does having them smoke serve other than to make them cool? Nick Fury and Wolverine do not need cigarettes or cigars to be cool. They're Nick Fury and Wolverine. There is nothing lost by removing the element of smoking from their characters.
snarl wrote:Just... really... what the **** have [IDW] been taking for the last 2 years?
Brendocon wrote:Yaya's money.
