Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Maybe i misread what you were saying, but it seems like you express a huge dislike of big government. Then you agree with me that big government is a boogeyman. You agree that everyone hates it until it helps them.
|
Nope, I didn't agree to that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
This seems to imply that you yourself quite enjoy big government if it suits your purposes. Forgive me for labelling you as inconsistent when you criticise others' support for something that you also support (big government when it suits you.)
|
Wow, that's a classy way of calling me a liar.
Once again, I feel I have been very consistent with my views on big gov't. I don't support any increase to the size or scope of our gov't in almost any way that comes to my mind. That is not to say I won't ever support something, the possibility is always there. However, on the whole, I do not support it.
How many times do you want to go rounds on this? I have denied your accusation several times and your only response is to repeat the same accusation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
On big government: banning smoking in public places makes for a cheaper and more efficient government than allowing smoking in public places. The medical costs of second hand smoke are staggering and local governments pay a big chunk of those costs.
It's much more efficient and cheaper to handle the problem with the legislative and executive branches than the judiciary. Every city that ever enacted a ban first commissioned an economic cost-benefit analysis and found that the economic benefits are enormous. In fact the only certain economic costs are to the tobacco companies.
So if you're in favor of a cheaper and more efficient government, then it's a no-brainer. You should be in favor of smoking bans in public places.
|
That is actually a very good point, and I admit that I didn't think of it this way. I am so against expanding the gov't that I react quickly, maybe too quickly, to anyone's suggesting of expanding it.
I would mention on this point, however, that this argument only works if people actually stop smoking because of the bans.
I would guess that if any do, it is a very small percentage, thus making the potential cost savings practically negligible. But, once again, that is just a guess.
I would also note the story mentioned in this thread about the guy that got sick 12 years after quiting. That tells me that not every smoker that quits is going to save the gov't or the taxpayers any money.
So, it almost seems six-to-one-half-dozen-to-the-other on this.