Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
possession of cigarettes without a written doctor's prescription
Well, the logical thinker in me sees a big problem here--doctors aren't supposed to do anything to harm a patient, so how could they prescribe something that kills?A new bill is being proposed by the idiots in Oregon that would make possession of cigarettes without a written doctor's prescription punishable by one year in prison and/or a $6300.00 fine.
I mean something whose only effects are harmful, unlike drugs that do good but may have harmful side effects.I can understand that, sort of, but it still doesn't make the logic of it all work, as physicians are supposed to "first, do no harm."Oregon wants to make cigarettes a schedule 3 drug.
Well, the logical thinker in me sees a big problem here--doctors aren't supposed to do anything to harm a patient, so how could they prescribe something that kills?I mean something whose only effects are harmful, unlike drugs that do good but may have harmful side effects.
I can understand that, sort of, but it still doesn't make the logic of it all work, as physicians are supposed to "first, do no harm."
But would they? I mean, any physician worth her/his salt should refuse outright to prescribe cigarettes! There isn't one single argument that can make cigarettes necessary or warranted for a patient. So how would this work?Smokes are legal and there is likely a way a doctor can prescribe should the law pass.

Oh...maybe that's how it'd work! Like those 'pain management' clinics where the doctor walks in, asks the 'patient' if they're in pain, the 'patient' says yes, and the doctor writes a prescription--which has to be filled on premises--for oxycodone or similar. And, of course, they don't accept health insurance...or checks...credit cards...just CASH.And I doubt it will. There will be likely a few in the Cig Prescription business just like the dopers have in those quasi-legal MJ states.

No kidding.The whole thing is a mess.
If this passes, which I doubt, I assume that because they will have "ended" smoking in their state that they will opt out of future payments from the tobacco lawsuit settlement fund.
If this passes, which I doubt, I assume that because they will have "ended" smoking in their state that they will opt out of future payments from the tobacco lawsuit settlement fund.
No, there is no such thing as a "bad rap" for people who insist on being reckless and rude in public.Idiots is right.. Even as a non-smoker (former, that is) I feel smokers are getting a bad rap and have to put up with a bunch of crap that they otherwise shouldn't have to.
No, there is no such thing as a "bad rap" for people who insist on being reckless and rude in public.
1. First of all, smoking isn't an inalienable right. The privilege of being able to inhale noxious fumes doesn't negate personal responsibility when it comes to not poisoning others.
2. The technology to keep your smoke to yourself exists. Pot smokers have been very clever about coming up with devices for this purpose. Smokers have no excuse for not using these tools to keep their smoke to themselves.
3. When it comes to selfish indulgences, the burden is always on those who indulge themselves, not the people who they harm with their selfishness. Asking people to leave the environment no worse than when they found it is hardly an unreasonable expectation.
I've seen enough militant smokers hanging around doorways and other places where others must pass, blowing their smoke on others on purpose. There is no excuse for this! Hurling poisons at people is a criminal act under most states' laws already. I say that they should step up and enforce those laws and put militant smokers in prison, where they can smoke to their hearts' content.

1.) Levels of toxic and/or malodorous substances that you're happy to belittle as being no big deal are unacceptable by many.
2. Not my problem, and it shouldn't be. I like to listen to loud music, and I make sacrifices so that I may indulge my pleasure without harming others. It's called being a responsible adult.
3.) Not my slippery slope.
The last time I checked, in the US it was mandatory for cars made since the late '60s, and catalytic converters since the late '70s. These standards are getting increasingly tough. If car owners can live with it, then so can tobacco smokers.
4.) There's smokeless tobacco, gum and patches for the addicts. You don't have to smoke to get your fix.
No, there is no such thing as a "bad rap" for people who insist on being reckless and rude in public.
1. First of all, smoking isn't an inalienable right. The privilege of being able to inhale noxious fumes doesn't negate personal responsibility when it comes to not poisoning others.
2. The technology to keep your smoke to yourself exists. Pot smokers have been very clever about coming up with devices for this purpose. Smokers have no excuse for not using these tools to keep their smoke to themselves.
3. When it comes to selfish indulgences, the burden is always on those who indulge themselves, not the people who they harm with their selfishness. Asking people to leave the environment no worse than when they found it is hardly an unreasonable expectation.
I've seen enough militant smokers hanging around doorways and other places where others must pass, blowing their smoke on others on purpose. There is no excuse for this! Hurling poisons at people is a criminal act under most states' laws already. I say that they should step up and enforce those laws and put militant smokers in prison, where they can smoke to their hearts' content.
Regardless, this bill won't go anywhere. Nothing to get bent out of shape about unless a politician craving publicity is actually surprising to anybody.
No, there is no such thing as a "bad rap" for people who insist on being reckless and rude in public.
1. First of all, smoking isn't an inalienable right. The privilege of being able to inhale noxious fumes doesn't negate personal responsibility when it comes to not poisoning others.
2. The technology to keep your smoke to yourself exists. Pot smokers have been very clever about coming up with devices for this purpose. Smokers have no excuse for not using these tools to keep their smoke to themselves.
3. When it comes to selfish indulgences, the burden is always on those who indulge themselves, not the people who they harm with their selfishness. Asking people to leave the environment no worse than when they found it is hardly an unreasonable expectation.
I've seen enough militant smokers hanging around doorways and other places where others must pass, blowing their smoke on others on purpose. There is no excuse for this! Hurling poisons at people is a criminal act under most states' laws already. I say that they should step up and enforce those laws and put militant smokers in prison, where they can smoke to their hearts' content.
I'm fine with that too.Nope, can't smoke in prison now. Have to go outside on your break, just like downtown, LOL.
