Taken
Well-Known Member
No, you didn’t get it. I put liberty of one over an others dictatory whims.
Why should you or anyone else get to dictate what an other can or can not do?
New Zealand to ban smoking
- Thread starter Josho
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, you didn’t get it. I put liberty of one over an others dictatory whims.
Why should you or anyone else get to dictate what an other can or can not do?
oh boy…play chess with it for awhile. I think that part of you that thinks it’s a good idea will change its mind…
Set aside, for the moment, that prohibition in the USA lasted about…13 years and that, what? it should have been continued for a few generations to “take hold?” They just didn’t continue it long enough? That’s the problem? They just didn’t make being caught with alcohol uncomfortable enough for long enough?
Set that aside though.
Who decides what is healthy? Scientists? Fauci? AOC? So…if they decide again that eggs are unhealthy (because it’s constantly changing as they realize they were wrong) and it really IS bad cholesterol, kill all the chickens. Or maybe just sterilize them all. Make even having a chicken and a pack of cigarettes illegal. Methane gas, uh oh, it’s also illegal to have a cow. And those same people who decided all that is unhealthy and therefore illegal have ALSO decided the jabs are healthy, so of course it’s a criminal act to not get one. Hey, it might take a few generations to take hold but let’s do it!
I can push all the pieces around on the board a bit more but I think you can take it from there.
It is you who does not get it, but I understand, liberty seems like an idol to you, so much so that even if an action is wholly unhealthy, you cannot see it. It's like you cannot see the forest through the trees.
I am all for liberty when it's appropriate, however, sometimes the government must step in because an individual will not make the right choice themselves. Smoking is wholly unhealthy and should be banned. That is why the government should dictate what to do in this matter. Not all matters, but this matter is what I am speaking of.
This is my opinion, take it or leave it, I can already guess what you'll do.
Last edited:
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
Ok ye i know... I did say a part of me... Not all and not the big part either... If you look at my very first post to this thread it was just one word...
Totalitarianism
Im just not comfortable with the government allowing the sale of and making money from a known carcinogenic.
That's why it's not really comparable to alcohol, eggs or anything like that
Let's say I create a new material to make sofas from but it is a carcinogenic... Should I still be allowed to sell it? What if I put a warning saying that? Where does one draw the line.
If it's a known carcinogenic then that alone is a strong argument to pull it off the market
Last edited:
The government makes money off the sale of every item sold. One egg or bottle of alcohol sold nets them money. The steroids they give to chickens are either carcinogenic or create heart problems when eaten. Certain whiskeys can cause throat cancers. Yet the government makes money off eggs and alcohol. Does that make you uncomfortable?
We already know the government making money off the carcinogenic, heart destroying vaccine makes you uncomfortable, but…
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
I haven't heard about the chicken steroids or alcohol so I can't comment... But if they are what you say then it wouldn't sit well with me either...
There are 4 carcinogenic ratings
1 it's a carcinogenic
2 it's not a carcinogenic
3 it's possibly a carcinogenic
4 it's probably a carcinogenic
Tobacco is the first one... So then, is it moral to sell a carcinogenic? Shouldn't our government be moral... What about my sofas? Can I sell them?
But then I can see Fauci inventing a new tobacco that he claims is healthier. Removes all the other tobacco and forces his on the smokers.
This reminds me of prostitution. Is it right for the state to allow it and make money from it? I'm still in the middle about that as well...
Government making money from immorality...
Doesn't sit well with me. You know what I mean.
Plus it's a known carcinogenic.
Last edited:
You certainly aren’t going to make government be moral! Maybe think on this - No soldier on service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life; that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier.
And to add in some peace and trusting, maybe think on this too - He controls the course of world events; he removes kings and sets up other kings.
The government shouldn't have the right to enforce laws that prohibit the use of plants in personal use. God gave us this world to use as we see fit. Anything else is unrighteous control of the people. Although I like banning tobacco and think it might be healthy.
I'm sorry, but I disagree. God gave us this world to use as we see fit logic doesn't always fly. This is one of those cases. God also says that our bodies are a temple, should they be defiled with smoke?
Some plants are healthy, some aren't and tobacco falls into that realm of unhealthy and it is indisputable that it causes cancer.
Yeah, and incense too. That smoke is carcinogenic. You shouldn’t be allowed to burn it. It should be illegal to burn incense. What was God thinking…?? And I think if people insist on burning wood in fireplaces, their children need to be taken from them. It’s harming their lungs. They have no right to harm the lungs of their children. They can pay $500 a month for electric heat like everyone else! They can get a third job and stop being so lazy!
Food can give you cancer. Some foods more than others. Cancer is a problem that is beyond what you take in. It's part of life. And they know some genetics cause people cancer more than other people. There are many that have died using tobacco and never had cancer. So to say it's the tobacco is extreme and perhaps it's peoples genetics instead.
I can agree with part of this, but I also disagree with part of it as well.
So how about we agree to disagree?
People worry too much about their health now days because of doctors. It's sad. I read that smoked meats can increase your risk for stomach cancer. Who cares, I'm still eating my smoked meats.
So far in my family the side of the family that doesn't use tobacco all have cancer. Three of them. And the side that does use tobacco, no cancer yet. It runs in my family thru genetics only. And perhaps some genetics make us more likely to get cancer from tobacco. Then the doctors have a responsibility to find out which genetics that is instead of telling everyone (including people that will never get cancer) that tobacco can cause cancer. Because they're lying to us.
I'm into beef jerky and pepperoni sticks. Good stuff for snacks. And they last a long time as a natural preservative. Lots of sodium which I need since my body naturally runs low on sodium. But the doctors tell us sodium can be bad for us. But not for me.
At a certain point you have to throw up your hands and say, yeah, okay, the sky is falling every five seconds according to someone somewhere, uh huh. I’m just going to trust God. He knows exactly what I will eventually die of and the exact day it will happen. If it’s cancer, it’s cancer. If it’s a tree falling on me, it’s a tree.
It's not just cancer it causes to though. There is also COPD and Emphysema. My mom smoked for years before she quit and she now has COPD, my step-dad's mom has COPD and her husband died of Emphysema. My step-dad's dad died of COPD and he smoked as well. My step-dad smoked and he likely has COPD. He will get screened for that in the coming months.
I likely have asthma due to my mom smoking while pregnant with me.
Similar threads
