In your opinion, should the Federal Government regulate tobacco companies?

[The_Orlonater]

Just asking. Please provide a detailed response of your opinion.

[Matt Collins]

Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution followed by the 10th Amendment. Then get back to me.

[ihsv]

Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution followed by the 10th Amendment. Then get back to me.

:D Hahah!!!!

[The_Orlonater]

Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution followed by the 10th Amendment. Then get back to me.

So much for detailed. I don't support the feds regulating our commerce. The only regulations that should be put forth are the ones for fraud, if there are any. How about we actually have a discussion instead of directing me to read something.
Do you do that in real life too? You tell people to go read something in the middle of your debate and you postpone it, charming. :D

[The_Orlonater]

Still being noncommittal here, but what if the said companies put in dangerous pesticides and those were found to give people a strong virus or disease, and if they lied about it.

What would you guys do?

[brandon]

Still being noncommittal here, but what if the said companies put in dangerous pesticides and those were found to give people a strong virus or disease, and if they lied about it.

What would you guys do?

If someone is poisoning you on purpose without your consent, then they are guilty of assault/attempted murder/murder.

States usually handle the prosecution of violent crimes.

[Deborah K]

The federal gov't has amply proven that it is incapable of regulating anything. It is the most inept, corrupt institution I've ever seen.

[Maverick]

State's usually handle the prosecution of violent crimes.

Yeah, I was going to go with this. If anything, states should handle it. Definitely not the feds.

[robertwerden]

Again State issue.

[Matt Collins]

but what if the said companies put in dangerous pesticides and those were found to give people a strong virus or disease, and if they lied about it. Lawsuit, restitution and /or jailtime..... At the State level.

[Matt Collins]

How about we actually have a discussion instead of directing me to read something.
Do you do that in real life too? You tell people to go read something in the middle of your debate and you postpone it, charming. :DYes, because in order to debate both sides should be educated on the subject. The fact that you even asked the original question tells me either you have not read or do not have an understanding of Art1 Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment. Myself and probably a thousand others on here would be happy to explain it to you.... after you have read it of course.

It kind of tollows the old saying of "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish". I could explain it outright but if you went and looked it up and figured it out on your own then it would be more beneficial to you.

[Zippyjuan]

You mean the part about Congress having the power to regulate commerce?

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

Should a company be allowed to manufacture/ produce a product which is harmful when used as intended? Babies have died from tainted baby formula in China. Should say an American company be allowed to produce melamine tainted baby formula for sale in this country? Or should it be up to the states to decide if they want to allow the tainted formula to still be sold in their state?

[Matt Collins]

You mean the part about Congress having the power to regulate commerce? Except that doesn't mean Congress can regulate commerce. It means that Congress is to make commerce regular. BIG DIFFERENCE. Language now isn't exactly the same as language then.

[FunkBuddha]

My brother is a suit for a MAJOR cigarette manufacturer. He told me that they love regulations because smaller companies can't afford to comply with them so they can't compete. I would imagine most industries are like this.

[sratiug]

Except that doesn't mean Congress can regulate commerce. It means that Congress is to make commerce regular. BIG DIFFERENCE. Language now isn't exactly the same as language then.

Even if it really means regulate in today's sense, it makes no difference. Even the courts have agreed that just saying rape affects interstate commerce doesn't make it so. Murder or attempted murder is still not commerce. Any state has the right to ban any out of state corporation or revoke charters of their own corporations. Or they can just let them operate and then charge them with murder or whatever.

[Truth Warrior]

Yep, ALL companies have a HUGE vested interest in killing off their customers. :rolleyes:

[sratiug]

Yep, ALL companies have a HUGE vested interest in killing off their customers. :rolleyes:

The Nazis fed concentration camp laborers just enough to get the maximum labor from them before they starved in order to maximize profit. They made more money letting them live awhile than starving them immediately. Tobacco companies are just as moral. Corporations will get away with what they can.

[Original_Intent]

The government should neither regulate nor subsidize tobacco or any other crop.

[Matt Collins]

My brother is a suit for a MAJOR cigarette manufacturer. He told me that they love regulations because smaller companies can't afford to comply with them so they can't compete. I would imagine most industries are like this.Exactly.


Everyone repeat after me...


"Big business LIKES big government because big government can regulate and legislate in favor of big business."

[pcosmar]

Wow
Every time you tune in here someone else has some petty issue on "why the Government has to protect us"
Should they do this, should they regulate that??
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop running to the Nanny.


BTW, it is always a petty issue until the Govt. gets ahold of it.

[Truth Warrior]

The Nazis fed concentration camp laborers just enough to get the maximum labor from them before they starved in order to maximize profit. They made more money letting them live awhile than starving them immediately. Tobacco companies are just as moral. Corporations will get away with what they can. BTW, Hitler was a vehement and hostile non smoker also. HINT!!! :rolleyes:

[The_Orlonater]

Lawsuit, restitution and /or jailtime..... At the State level.

Fair enough.

I shouldn't of put the "federal" governent in the title. Shame on me.

[The_Orlonater]

Yep, ALL companies have a HUGE vested interest in killing off their customers. :rolleyes:

It's not a purposeful act.(using the pesticides to hurt someone)

[The_Orlonater]

Yes, because in order to debate both sides should be educated on the subject. The fact that you even asked the original question tells me either you have not read or do not have an understanding of Art1 Sec 8 and the 10th Amendment. Myself and probably a thousand others on here would be happy to explain it to you.... after you have read it of course.

It kind of tollows the old saying of "give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish". I could explain it outright but if you went and looked it up and figured it out on your own then it would be more beneficial to you.

I have read it, now back to the discussion.
Now, let's take the feds out of this because the tenth amendment leaves the power to the states.

[The_Orlonater]

My brother is a suit for a MAJOR cigarette manufacturer. He told me that they love regulations because smaller companies can't afford to comply with them so they can't compete. I would imagine most industries are like this.

Interesting.

I'm not really pro excessive regulations. I made this thread because of my readings on the cigarettes we smoke here. I was talking about regulations about not putting extremely dangerous pesticides in the cigarrettes.

I'm not going to take a side yet.

[The_Orlonater]

Wow
Every time you tune in here someone else has some petty issue on "why the Government has to protect us"
Should they do this, should they regulate that??
People need to take responsibility for themselves, and stop running to the Nanny.


BTW, it is always a petty issue until the Govt. gets ahold of it.

No one has ever said that here.

[Matt Collins]

I have read it (the Constitution) , now back to the discussion.
Now, let's take the feds out of this because the tenth amendment leaves the power to the states.
Yes the States have the power to do so (assuming their own Constitutions allow for this). But they should NOT do so. Why? Because government regulation is inefficient. It restricts freedom. It eliminates choice. It violates freedom to contract.

As long as no one is perpetuating fraud or infringing on the rights of others then the government should not step in because it'll just make the problem worse.

[The_Orlonater]

Yes the States have the power to do so (assuming their own Constitutions allow for this). But they should NOT do so. Why? Because government regulation is inefficient. It restricts freedom. It eliminates choice. It violates freedom to contract.

As long as no one is perpetuating fraud or infringing on the rights of others then the government should not step in because it'll just make the problem worse.

I've always been agreeing with this. I just brough this thread up because I read about how american cigarettes have a lot of pesticides and that might be the reason for cancer.

[krazy kaju]

Nobody should regulate the tobacco companies. The sale and purchase of tobacco products and tobacco-related products are all voluntary exchanges between producer and consumer. There is nothing wrong with this relationship that needs to be regulated.

[LibertyEagle]

If the federal government is dying to regulate something, how about regulating the goods coming from China that STILL have melamine in them? Who here thinks we would still be trading with China if they didn't already own our backsides, because of all our government's debt?

[LibertyEagle]

Read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution followed by the 10th Amendment. Then get back to me.

Ooooh. That was good. :D

[The_Orlonater]

I think everybody misinterpreted what I meant.

Read this: http://home.ktc.com/bdrake/pest.html

It talks about the dangerous things in our cigarettes. Should it be illegal to put this stuff in the cigarettes?

[The_Orlonater]

Ooooh. That was good. :D

No it wasn't. What the difference between tyrannical laws in the state and tyrannical laws in the federal government, when they're the same laws and restrictions.

[LibertyEagle]

No it wasn't. What the difference between tyrannical laws in the state and tyrannical laws in the federal government, when they're the same laws and restrictions.

The issue is states' rights. The closer government is kept to us, the more influence we have over it.

[The_Orlonater]

The issue is states' rights. The closer government is kept to us, the more influence we have over it.

The closer the state government in your world. I don't like the State or the Fed.

[The_Orlonater]

I worded the point I was trying to make(title is major part) wrong.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Ok ..Ron Paul said that the CASINOs are lobbying Washington to regulate online gambling. So, big pharma lobby's government to regulate drugs, I agree with whoever said the big corporations are the ones who call for regulations to squeeze out others..but..

Not all states have cigarette manufacturers ...how is it left to the states and to the people if there are no cigarette manufacturers in that state? If cigarettes are sold to everyone...is it a good thing that they put poison in the cigarette without the consumer's knowledge? Who regulates that? Do we let it go...and depend on the morality of the mogels in the tobacco industry? let's just carry that over to food. Should the federal government force regulation on corporations who process food? Everyone eats food. If food processors decide they can cut corners by putting something harmful to people in the food, which could kill them, is that moral? Is that legislating morality? This goes back to my argument on moral societies. If greedy people would be willing to poison food so they can make more money thereby killing people...then the Federal government MUST regulate it. How is the consumer to make an informed decision if the consumer doesn't know the poison is in the food? There must be some Federal regulation, or the greedy evil people will kill off the population for money. TONES

[georgiaboy]

Ok ..Ron Paul said that the CASINOs are lobbying Washington to regulate online gambling. So, big pharma lobby's government to regulate drugs, I agree with whoever said the big corporations are the ones who call for regulations to squeeze out others..but..

Not all states have cigarette manufacturers ...how is it left to the states and to the people if there are no cigarette manufacturers in that state? If cigarettes are sold to everyone...is it a good thing that they put poison in the cigarette without the consumer's knowledge? Who regulates that? Do we let it go...and depend on the morality of the mogels in the tobacco industry? let's just carry that over to food. Should the federal government force regulation on corporations who process food? Everyone eats food. If food processors decide they can cut corners by putting something harmful to people in the food, which could kill them, is that moral? Is that legislating morality? This goes back to my argument on moral societies. If greedy people would be willing to poison food so they can make more money thereby killing people...then the Federal government MUST regulate it. How is the consumer to make an informed decision if the consumer doesn't know the poison is in the food? There must be some Federal regulation, or the greedy evil people will kill off the population for money. TONES

Ever heard of Consumer Reports? Last I heard, they were a non-governmental entity.

If gov't wasn't regulating corporations, the market would. Much better solution overall.

If it was proven that corporations put poison in their products, they'd get sued to heaven and back. Think class action, tort.

Part of my recent re-programming has been to see that us everyday folk do not need "protection" from evil businesses by the government, we can figure out the right balance of price, quality, etc., just fine on our own without some "nanny" agency looking out for us. And by the way, if you research the FDA's history, you'll see that they've made quite a mess out of ensuring our "safety", while at the same time increasing costs across the food & drug industries enormously.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Oh..so we wait until half the population is poisoned and dead...then the remnent sues the corporation? No common sense. tones

[georgiaboy]

To the OP, I say get the regulation of business such as poisons in tobacco out of the fed's hands, out of the state's hands, and let the market work.

Poison harms people and harming people is already illegal. No need for add'l laws. Done.

[The_Orlonater]

Ever heard of Consumer Reports? Last I heard, they were a non-governmental entity.

If gov't wasn't regulating corporations, the market would. Much better solution overall.

If it was proven that corporations put poison in their products, they'd get sued to heaven and back. Think class action, tort.

Part of my recent re-programming has been to see that us everyday folk do not need "protection" from evil businesses by the government, we can figure out the right balance of price, quality, etc., just fine on our own without some "nanny" agency looking out for us. And by the way, if you research the FDA's history, you'll see that they've made quite a mess out of ensuring our "safety", while at the same time increasing costs across the food & drug industries enormously.

Finally, a response that I like to here.