Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fourtyrulz
Surely you don't really believe that employees of a restaraunt should be at the mercy of their customers who smoke. 
On the issue of tobacco companies releasing a "study" showing that second smoke does not cause harmful effects: The tobacco corporations have billions of dollars invested in their crop, of course they will defend their livelyhood. On the other hand, what do scientists have in it for them to declare that smoking is in fact bad for you? Nothing. It would be a better move for them to just agree with the corporations rather than say otherwise, they could probably get a few million out of it. The bottom line comes down to who are you going to believe regarding negative effects of smoking, the multi billion dollar companies themselves or scientists probably on a small government or private grant. |
There is an all too consistant stance by those who want to limit government interference in the areas of progressive tax policy on iindividuals and business, environmental regulation, workplace health and safety, minimum wages, gun control, intrusion of religious influence by the majority, and for
managment of health care that avoids making hospital emergency rooms the physicians of last resort for medical treatment of mild complaints of those without health insurance, to:
Favoring government enactment and aggressive enforcement of a prohibition on most abortion, "dildo control" (sex toys are illegal to sell in Alabama and in Georgia) specific, constitutional prohibition of marriage for same sex couples,
a new government policy that includes default on special bond class issued to SSI on borrowing from private contributions paid into the fund by emplyees and employers to this "independent entity" (SSI status was changed from a government agency to an independent entity in the mid 90's) , in exchange for a legislated program that includes massive new fed. gov. borrowing to create "personal investment accounts" that no one expects will improve SSI overall projected future funding shortfall, and a tendency to unquestioningly support government funding of scientifically questionable projects, like "starwars" and "missle defense shields", while dismissing scientific consensus
on issues like "global warming" and the risks of inhaling "second hand" smoke,
by citing industry sponsered studies that attempt to refute universally accepted conclusions of independent studies. Also included is a predictable pattern of nearly unquestionable support of a president and an executive branch with at best, a dubious track record of competency and transparency
when it comes to key foreign, defense, energy, and environmental policy, and
for the acountability to the people for it's policy and decsion making.
I don't see any way to debate these "less government" except....... view holders, because I can't see much consistancy in their opinions, for the most part.