Gov. Mike Huckabee, who successfully pushed for a statewide workplace smoking ban earlier this year, predicted Wednesday that cigarettes eventually won't be sold because of their health risks.
"I think the day will come when we probably won't" sell cigarettes, Huckabee said on his monthly call-in radio show. "If cigarettes were introduced to the marketplace today, they wouldn't be sold. They'd never make it because what we didn't know when they were first created, sold and marketed is just how deadly harmful they were."
Huckabee was responding to a caller's question of why cigarettes are allowed to be sold if they are so harmful. The governor fielded complaints from at least two callers about the state smoking ban, which went into effect July 21.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
ARKANSAS GOV PREDICTS CIG-FREE FUTURE
He's probably right. The Associated Press reports:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
The Nanny State: Protecting You, from Yourself, for Your Own Good.
Have a government-approved day!
They can pry them from my cold, dead, wrinkled, stained yet very thin hands.
Once you're in the death throes of lung cancer and/or emphysema, your ability to grip anything won't really be an issue.
the libertarian guy: Amen.
Life is a series of choices. You cannot legislate good health any more than you can morality.
This is America. Do you mind if we keep what we can free?
Freedom to smoke should be protected, but freedom of expression not?
What if smoke the American flag I want to, Newt, hmmmmmm?
So Lib guy and newty, based on your comments you must be wholly in favor of legalizing marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, and any other "controlled" substance, right?
And newty, you're in favor of abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and assisted suicide, correct?
Drug laws should be a state-level decision, not that of the Almighty FedGov.
OTOH, though you didn't direct it at me: I'm 99% pro-life. IMO, the only time a woman should have the option, is if she WILL die if she attempts to carry the child. But, again, it should be up to the states, not the Almighty FedGov.
Then again, most people assume that libertarians are pro-abortion anarchists who just want to smoke pot. Propaganda works wonders, don't it?
LibGuy, I don't understand...you're just against the FEDERAL government, not state? Not local? So you'd be perfectly fine if Missouri declared all controlled substances completely legal?
No, I'm against ALL excessive, Nanny-state/Daddy-state gov't. Not "against all government", just too much of any of it - state, Fed, or local.
So... if any state wanted what you list above, it should be up to them... not the Almighty Fed.
So how much government is excessive? I'm not trying to get into a spitting contest, just trying to understand the Libertarian.
Post a Comment