Yet another example of government attempting to dictate how people live their lives. Government has thrown out the principle of personal responsibility by placing blame on things. Cigarettes do not kill people, misusing them does. Twenty ounce sodas do not make people any fatter than twenty ounce lattes but misusing them does. Government has also maligned the fast food industry which is a useful, lawful enterprise because some people over indulge and become obese, that is the responsibility of people who eat too much not the responsibility of fast food. Lastly, we hear "Guns kill people!" Guns do not kill people, people kill people. Left to themselves all guns can do is slowly rust away.
What we need is for government to get the hell out of our lives and leave us alone!
Bud
Australian Court OKs Cigarette Logo Ban: Should Your Country Do the Same?
mrosen814
2012/08/16 22:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
474 votes
|
|
43% | |||
|
632 votes
|
|
57% | |||
Starting this December, branding and logos from cigarette companies cannot be displayed anywhere on cigarette packages in Australia. According to CBS News, "the packs will instead come in a uniformly drab shade of olive and feature graphic health warnings and images of cancer-riddled mouths, blinded eyeballs and sickly children." The government hopes the new packs will make smoking as unglamorous as possible.
CBSNEWS.COM reports:
CBSNEWS.COM reports:
Cigarette packs in Australia on track to be stripped of corporate logos, despite tobacco lobbying
Read More: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57493362/austr...
Top Opinion
-
Bud 2012/08/17 14:35:50
I don't smoke, I hate them but that's just me. (And no doubt millions others.)
Also, when people choose to smoke, it's not just an individual choice. Their choice affects everyone else. As taxpayers, we are paying millions if not billions every year to pay for older patients on Medicare hospitalized with emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and other ailments that resulted from their choice to smoke. Smokers get these diseases 10 times more often than non-smokers. And, in their own families, smokers' children have tons more asthma and allergies, a result of second hand smoke exposure. My point is, other people pay the price for a smoker's decision to smoke, not just the smoker.
Besides, regardless of someone else's choice to smoke, who are you to deny them the right to be treated at the hospital? My grandfather developed lung cancer due to the time he spent smoking, even though he had quit almost 20 years prior. Did he not deserve the same treatment as anyone else simply because he had smoked?
While I don't condone smoking, I find it very insensitive to have such an opinion of smokers, especially in regards to their medical care. It's not like they don't pay taxes. They pay more, even.
For your information, perhaps you should screen your pictures before you post them. While I cannot be certain as I didn't do the Google search I'm sure you did, the first looks like a stillborn or miscarriage that was 21 weeks premature and not fully developed, not an abortion. the second is a black and white photo (presumably) of premies in a trash bag. You have no verification to prove what the pictures are of or where they are from, or whether or not they are photoshopped, how old they are, or any kind of legitimate argument. It's ok to disagree with abortion, you don't have to get one should you ever get pregnant. But if you could please let everyone in your village know that they have no right to make decisions for someone else, and that Planned Parenthood is not a monstrous organization that is out to kill babies, but a place that has actually saved my friend's life, I would really appreciate it.
Abortions still happened when they were illegal in the US, but they were in back alleys and makeshift places and often killed the mo...
For your information, perhaps you should screen your pictures before you post them. While I cannot be certain as I didn't do the Google search I'm sure you did, the first looks like a stillborn or miscarriage that was 21 weeks premature and not fully developed, not an abortion. the second is a black and white photo (presumably) of premies in a trash bag. You have no verification to prove what the pictures are of or where they are from, or whether or not they are photoshopped, how old they are, or any kind of legitimate argument. It's ok to disagree with abortion, you don't have to get one should you ever get pregnant. But if you could please let everyone in your village know that they have no right to make decisions for someone else, and that Planned Parenthood is not a monstrous organization that is out to kill babies, but a place that has actually saved my friend's life, I would really appreciate it.
Abortions still happened when they were illegal in the US, but they were in back alleys and makeshift places and often killed the mother in the process. There was no legitimate help for victims of rape or incest. So, even if I wouldn't get an abortion should I get pregnant, I would rather there be a safe place they can be performed than go back to the alternative.
I'm not sure what village you're referring to, but obviously, your commune doesn't respect life and regards their own flesh & blood as yesterday's trash. Perhaps it's a good thing that you aren't multiplying.
For every 1 life PP 'saves' they destroy 1,000's, not to mention the mental trauma one must carry for the rest of their lives for making an ill-informed decision.
Why is it, that if they're so concerned with saving lives, they've thwarted every effort for adequate counseling and education prior to someone having the 'procedure'? Yeah, .... it makes it sound like getting a tooth pulled that way,... 'eh?
Pregnancies from rape & incest are extremely rare as there is a relatively small window for that to happen and about 10 other variables that reduce the odds.
But, by all means, cherry-pick and justify all you want, you're the only one who has to live with your conscience, and of course, the life that never was, by CHOICE.
While the pro-abortion crowd was sleeping, many people have been convicted of double murder involving the Mother and unborn child.
Even the Librul state of California gave Scott Peterson the death penalty after finding him guilty of murdering Lacy and unborn, Conner.
These cases will be HUGE when Roe v Wade is revisited by the SCOTUS on the 40th anniversary in 2013. Evidence has been revealed since then that the court was supplied with falsified data which was used when formulating their opinions.
It's not really "pro-abortion" though. It's "pro-choice." That means that they are for the right to choose what happens, no matter what that choice is. It's allowing the freedom of choice in what is a difficult and life altering decision no matter what you do. I can understand and respect your opinion on this issue, I simply don't feel the same way. I think that allowing that choice is better for everyone. I think that it does allow women to feel like they aren't backed into a corner. I'm sure some women choose to keep a pregnancy (whether they raise the child themselves, or put it up for adoption afterwards) rather than have an abortion because they don't feel pressured or forced into the decision. There are those who abuse the system, who use abortions as a birth control method, and I don't agree with that.
I have no problem with people using every possible means of birth control including the 'morning after pill'.
Although an egg may be fertilized, it doesn't become attached and begin its journey for 48-72 hours which is plenty of time for one to make 'double-sure' they didn't become pregnant through the irresponsibility of both involved.
That's like me telling a cop I slammed on my brakes, put the car in reverse and tried to swerve out of the way but somehow I magically broadsided him on a red light.
Believe me, if someone seriously had gone through all that, followed all instructions properly, and still got pregnant,.... the LAST thing she should do is abort because that must be some special baby on the way.
Anyone with that severe of a condition should be smart enough to handle it properly, including total abstinence as a last resort.
Doesn't matter though because the SCOTUS will be revisiting Roe v Wade next year for the 40th anniversary and determine, once and for all,.... the question of when life begins.
The court was fed bogus manipulated data in the 70's and never would have made that decision, had the factual data been available.
Many things have changed since then, as I mentioned above and selective abortion will be a thing of the past.