|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 29, 2010 12:02:28 GMT -5
Um, Some of the online smoke shops my friends visit are far less inspecting. All they require is a birthdate with no means to verify.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 29, 2010 12:04:19 GMT -5
I buy shisha for hookahs. The site I use never required any of that from me. But then again, I'm not buying cigarettes.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 29, 2010 12:20:42 GMT -5
And cigarettes are evil, of course, according to the new popular wisdom. Not so booze and MJ. One is regulated, so it's OK. The other is outlawed, so we've done our job.
I guess.
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Apr 29, 2010 12:21:37 GMT -5
Mail order proof of age - you are kidding right? How is that even possible?
I've known 12 year olds with checking accounts.
We don't allow mail order sales of hand guns, why we allow sales of something more deadly?
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 29, 2010 12:34:13 GMT -5
Cigarette sales should have been controlled long ago. I started smoking at 15, buying my daily pack of luckies from a machine at a laundromat for 35 cents.
I smoked for 44 years and was seriously addicted to the "drug". I am sure that even though I have not smoked in three or four years, it will probably be a major contributing factor to my death.
I used to love the very smell of a burning cigarette and would light one before my feet even hit the floor in the morning. Now I am impressed with how much better even a bowling alley can smell since outlawing smoking in public places here in Tennessee and Virginia. I never thought that I would be "one of those people" that held their breath while walking past smokers gathered outside to feed the habit. The smell simply chokes me now.
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Apr 29, 2010 12:59:58 GMT -5
Mail order proof of age - you are kidding right? How is that even possible? I've known 12 year olds with checking accounts. We don't allow mail order sales of hand guns, why we allow sales of something more deadly? It's possible because the mail orders I've death with ask for a copy of ones birth certificate which has to match ones checking account info. I'm talking about the Indian's mail orders. Not going to discuss the issue of smoking but to compare cigarette mail orders to gun regulations is a bit over the top. Many more restrictions for a person to own a gun then for one to smoke. Remember as there are some people who are against smoking there are just as many that feel that strongly against people owning guns. Personally, I would rather face a person on the street smoking a cigarette then someone carrying a gun.
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Apr 29, 2010 15:35:10 GMT -5
Give almost any kid a scanner, access to a birth cirtificate & a graphics program and you'll have a passible birth certificate in a few minutes. They may ask for one because the law requires it but I don't see it as any real obstruction.
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Apr 29, 2010 17:16:53 GMT -5
CB, seriously don't think a kid will go through the trouble to get mail ordered cigarettes when he can just give a friend of legal age the money to buy them in the stores. Much more easier then the mail orders and the kid's parents finding out when the package comes in the mail. If I were a kid I sure as hell wouldn't go through all that trouble or take a chance on my parents finding out. Don't kid yourself, the Governor didn't sign the bill against mail- orders for that reason. He's not the least bit worried about kids buying them. It's all about the money, and the taxes on the cigarettes he wants to put in his pockets.
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Apr 29, 2010 18:43:38 GMT -5
I agree it's about the money & people willing to sell addiction & death. I just don't think they are particular about to whom they sell it.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 30, 2010 11:56:35 GMT -5
Damn. Why would ANYONE scan a birth certificate and send a copy to anyone over a computer. Why not just put together a package of ALL your pertinent personal info and fax it to 1-800-Identity Thief so ALL those cyber crooks can use it.
It looks like this thread went full circle, and ended up right back at the beginning. The governor wants the money, and people that smoke those stinking things are defending the right to buy them tax free.
About the only thing I can think of that is riskier than long term smoking would be sex with an intravenous drug using prostitute without a condom.
I smoked for 44 years and I feel the effects every time I walk more than 50 yards or exert myself. Face it. The damn things are poisonous and as a "recovered nicotine addict" I sympathize with those of you that smoke, but think for the good of those of us that have to breath the same air you do, that smoking should outlawed.
(Oh dear, what have I said? I better run and hide for a day or two, hahaha)
As for gun ownership, I keep a gun handy to shoot anyone that tries to smoke in my truck. LOL I don't recall reading anywhere in the constitution that "people reserve the right to bear cigarettes."
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Apr 30, 2010 12:30:56 GMT -5
Damn. Why would ANYONE scan a birth certificate and send a copy to anyone over a computer. Why not just put together a package of ALL your pertinent personal info and fax it to 1-800-Identity Thief so ALL those cyber crooks can use it. It looks like this thread went full circle, and ended up right back at the beginning. The governor wants the money, and people that smoke those stinking things are defending the right to buy them tax free. About the only thing I can think of that is riskier than long term smoking would be sex with an intravenous drug using prostitute without a condom. I smoked for 44 years and I feel the effects every time I walk more than 50 yards or exert myself. Face it. The damn things are poisonous and as a "recovered nicotine addict" I sympathize with those of you that smoke, but think for the good of those of us that have to breath the same air you do, that smoking should outlawed. (Oh dear, what have I said? I better run and hide for a day or two, hahaha) As for gun ownership, I keep a gun handy to shoot anyone that tries to smoke in my truck. LOL I don't recall reading anywhere in the constitution that "people reserve the right to bear cigarettes." Hahahaha! I'll have to remember that one. There should be a bumper sticker about that. Gun On Board To Shoot Smokers! I couldn't have said it better. I know what it's like. I smoked for about as long. Still, I agree with Bz when she all but says people should be able to kill themselves without interference from the damned do-gooding gummimint. But not in my truck!
|
|
|
Post by bobbbiez on Apr 30, 2010 13:30:32 GMT -5
Now, now boys, ya can't argue one should be able to bear arms siting the constitution and not state the same for those who want to have a choice to smoke. Since it's not illegal to smoke I guess when referring to the constitution "choice" would pretty much cover that. Kind of similar to the abortion issue when they argue it is the woman's body and should be her choice. There are many things the constitution covers when it comes to choices. We may not like it or agree with it but we all have to agree on one thing very strongly..........everyone has the right to make that choice.........whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Apr 30, 2010 14:26:30 GMT -5
Point of clarification. Abortion rights are a subset of rights dealing with privacy rights. Not something the constitution explicitly covers under a literal reading. Substantive due process is considered a means of achieving that which would never survive in legislature. It is the biggest criticism of the courts, where they "make law". Depending on the issue and your political viewpoints, this is either good or bad. The classic example is pro-choice versus pro-capital punishment.
Anyway, it all started when CT had a law criminalizing a married couple seeking medical advice about birth control from their doctor. The Supreme Court declared it an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Eventually, that expanded to allowing unwed couples to do the same. Soon singles could inquire about birth control options. Then came Roe v Wade, which was the most liberal state of abortion rights for a long time. It decriminalized abortions and did a good job of attempting to placate both sides to the debate. But none of it is covered by the constitution. The Courts don't rely on the 9th amendment, other than the cost of the paper and ink the words were contrived, it's about as valuable as our right to choose healthcare will be in 2014. Anywhooo, I think I fell off track, but suffice to say that the abortion issue and its progeny falls under a privacy right, rather than an explicit right to choose. The media and politicians seem to cloud that issue.
However, the second amendment expressly reserves the right for citizens to keep and bear arms. It also preserves a state's right to organize and arm a militia. Kinda sad that an explicit right is so demonized and restricted, but a known poison is not. The government outlawed mail order weapons in response to bonnie and clyde, thinking it would cut down on gun crimes. Ha! We see how successful that was.
|
|
|
Post by kit on May 1, 2010 6:54:57 GMT -5
Imagine you're a clerk in a convenience store. It's late at night. In walks a guy wearing a ski mask. He comes up to the counter and says, "Give me all your money or I'll light up a cigarette!" Pretty scary, huh?
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on May 1, 2010 12:10:34 GMT -5
Everything is cool as long as they don't outlaw aromatic pipe tobacco. Love the smell of Captain Black, although it is just one more form of the carcinogenic smoke.
I still like to smell the aroma of a good pipe tobacco when I walk by a pipe smoker. Somebody PLEASE let Prince Albert out of the can.
|
|