Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

Prison for possession of cigarettes without a prescription? And how would you get one of those from a physician?

“Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill that makes cigarettes a Schedule III controlled substance, meaning it would be illegal to possess or distribute cigarettes without a doctor’s prescription.” Under the proposal, offenders would face maximum punishments of one year in prison, a $6,250 fine or both. [FOX-12]

About these ads

13 responses to “Bill proposed in Oregon would make cigarettes prescription-only drugs

  1. Hey, I’m a smoker and I say, “Go for it!” Obamacare would have to pay for my prescription because It’s a “pre-existing condition.” I’ll get 2 cartons a week for a $5 co-pay instead of the $100 that costs now. Kiss that sin-tax revenue goodbye. Thanks, you imbecilic nanny-state socialists.

  2. Those with Health Savings Accounts could also use that money (tax free) to pay for their cigarettes. And I’m sure some unethical doctors would be more than happy to write you a prescription for cigarettes, just like they do for un-needed antibiotics or pain killers. Plus the cigarette prescription is all upside! Any law they pass saying that doctors can’t prescribe potentially harmful substances basically outlaws all pharmaceuticals, so their stuck! Lost tax revenue, obamacare paying for cigs – it’s a win, win, win!

  3. First the nannies came for *mandatory* seat belt use, Joe Camel, DDT, and the 100-watt light bulb …. and then we stopped thinkig for ourselves altogether. It’s all about the control and we’re getting really used to it.

    On the plus side , there’s no better way to bring out the plus side of a substance than to make it illegal. My prediction is that they will eventually avoid legislation and use federally provided healthcare to discriminate against a whole host of nanny disapproved behaviors like transfats, soda , smoking, meat, non-organic vegetables, drinking bottled water from plastic, failure to get two preventive check-ups a year or to follow federally prescribed procedure, etc. Exempting of course progressive causes like mercury exposure from CFLs, marijuana, prescription drugs, promiscuity, (and probably some sexually progressive causes like polygamy, pederasty, incestuous marriage and animal brothels and all the permutations thereof due to become mainstream with the progressive attack on morality). I’m afraid alcohol (long past it’s days of progressive enamor and prohibition), however, falls on the wrong side of the progressive nanny dividing line and is due to be treated like smoking. It’s just too mainstream to be considered progressive.

    About that morality point, it’s not just my take on morality. The nanny state needs to be the ultimate source of “morality” and that means it has to displace morality for the same reason that Karl Marx saw religion as an obstacle to the state. There is a morality grind going on here about saving just one imaginary life and the precautionary principle , whether it be from particulate matter or global warming.

    • “First the nannies came for *mandatory* seat belt use, Joe Camel, DDT, and the 100-watt light bulb ….”

      Yup, it’s all about Control.

      Speaking of which, you missed another Biggie test run for their Climate Control motherlode Crusade – the infamous “serious public health issue” that could only be remedied with more Gun Control, which of course they won!

      Who could forget this “Canadian Moment”, recorded as follows? (many Canadians have archived “keeper” copies of the actual Health Canada “Chronic Diseases in Canada” webpage from 2002 where this was displayed as well)

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9550732

      http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2009/aspc-phac/H12-27-19-1E.pdf#page=27

      Note this telltale hint of “public health” Crusade backing for Gun Control: ” the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Commission recently passed a resolution encouraging all countries who have not done so to strengthen their domestic gun controls since weak controls in one country can affect security in others”

  4. The black marketeers are salavating in the wings.

  5. Doesn’t this violate the Hippocratic oath?

  6. Seat belts in Australia have saved tens of thousands of lives, and prevented life-time crippling of the same number. Has anybody noticed what happens if you are NOT wearing one? Have they? Don’t you have family and friends? Ever had to assist a quadriplegic who can’t feed themselves because of a 30MPH “minor” car accident without a belt on? Would I fly without a parachute? No way.

  7. Actually, I consider the problem here not to be bad or irresponsible behaviour, but the fact that everyone else pays for it. I don’t care if you wear a seat belt, smoke, etc. However, YOU have to pay for any consequences. Not wearing a seatbeatl? YOU pay for the hospital (not insurance), you pay for your nursing care, etc. Once you start using other people’s money to pay for your care, you become ruled by their wishes, too. Want to the government and everyone to leave you alone? Advocate for everyone paying their own way and for their own mistakes. Get the government out of school, medicine, and social welfare. Otherwise, be prepared for a nanny state.

    • Sorry, Check. That’s a false dichotomy.

      • I don’t see that this is a false dichotomy. Either everyone pays for their own care or everyone pools together and shares cost. Perhaps my “nanny state” term was too totalitarian in nature. Allow me to rephrase: Otherwise, be prepared to compromise and support bad behaviour in others. The extent of the compromise and support can be debated separately.
        Is that better?

    • Yes it’s a false dichotomy, but it’s well-said. Hyperbole and the slippery slope have their places for dramatic effect.

      Now, the basic idea, that not wearing seat belts costs all, is true. The problem is the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors are sworn to treat these patients, and laws are in place to require hospitals to care for them to preserve this oath (ok, so I’m a wide-eyed idealist on this matter). Mandating that seat belts be worn is little different than forbidding running red lights. There is a direct and well-proven cause that seat belts benefit the public at no harm to individual.

      Now cigarettes are more complicated. The cause and effect are separated. Also, the shortening of life has caused some to show that there is a public benefit (in the reduction of long term health care) despite the personal harm. This is why they are restricted to adults. However, due the more complicated matter of harm, they are not banned. This bill is a silly work-around to avoid a complete ban, which is the only third logical conclusion (aside from freedom and restriction to adults).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s