Full Interview MSNBC's Tucker "WAIT UNTIL THEY COME FOR YOU"

[darkfro]

Fuck you Tucker!!! you miserable piece of shit!!!

[suckmelickme]

vote ron paul!!! you could smoke anything anywhere!!!

[calebcanaan999]

EVEN P.C.P???!!!

[tankertuff2002]

lol, I know a lot of skinny, fashionable, popular, and HOT chicks that smoke. That guy is a douche.

[ParapaDrifter]

give them freedom ... chip chip chip chip chip chip... I dont smoke either, but chip chip chip chip chip... their is many more things your are exposed to daily that are more hurtful than S-H-Smoke... I had cancer from radioactive waste. wheres my justice? chip chip chip chip

[UpBeforeSunrise]

The similarities between our smoking policies and the Naz|s are pretty alarming ,look it up.I am not a smoker but if you like history its pretty interesting.

[tankertuff2002]

also, look up how planned parenthood is based off of the same Darwinian philosophy Hitler based his breeding rules off of.

[Cyrus255]

We shouldn't be against town and even state laws on issues such as this. We should be against FEDERAL laws.

See freedom from FEDERAL laws = freedom. If that town passes a smoking law, you can MOVE to another town. If a state passes a smoking law, you can move to another state. The state/city will reconsider if the cost in citizens leaving is greater than the benefit.

However, if the FEDERAL government passes such a law, it's not so easy to become a citizen elsewhere.

[msanchez007]

You are right, but because it's a town it's easier to be against it and forcing our local goverment to not pass this law.

[starvingartist94]

Yes, we should be against local gov. passing these laws as well. i dont like tucker but he is right, the gov. should not infringe on our personal rights. (I am not a smoker but I think smoking/drugs, and other things should be legalized) it's unreasonable to say if you dont like the town law just move. that is expensive and time consuming. who is to say your new town wont change the law as well? Is it not easier and less expensive for you to leave the restaurant if there is a smoker in there?

[starvingartist94]

It's hypocritical in my opinion to legalize and heavily tax smoking so that we can benefit from the tax dollars, but then tell smokers where then can and cant smoke. It is a LEGAL product that they paid for and should be able to do it where ever they please. Otherwise make smoking ILLEGAL but do not live by a double standard of legalizing and taxing a product and then condemning and even refusing its use. It does not make sense to have it both ways. you can buy it but you cant smoke it? BS

[starvingartist94]

What I'm trying to say is we should be against any ruling that limits our rights. (as long as those rights are not directly harming another.) and I understand second hand smoke, but then like I said, either make smoking illegal or deal with the second hand smoke. But I have to call Shenanigans on the double standard

[killerfurball]

Yes we should. Town and State governments should have no right to infringe on what you do in private on your own property. I shouldn't have to move to another state because the gestapo tells me I can't do something in my own house, a domain they have no right to pass legislation in. Using your logic the Federal government can be exempt from this because I can just move to another country. Doesn't matter with ease of citizenship, it's faulty logic and unconstitutional behavior.

[hesh2]

MMMMM

Sexual Chocolate

[perrrfection]

Damb straight!

[judydeneal]

Duh, gee Tucker. That's what we tried to tell y'all about imbibing with Marijuana. You may not approve and think it's okay to tell me what I can or cannot put into my body in my own home. But now they're coming for the rest of y'all and picking on YOUR favorite vices. Like fascism much, you little despot?

[paulfor08]

The federal government has no right to legislate about drugs. The federal government only has authority over issues that cross state or federal borders. Health, welfare and morals are left up to the state.

[martidags]

I'm not sure of his stand on marijuana, but Tucker's logic here is for the most part sound.

He's arguing that if a private owner wants to ban smoking in his apartment complex, or in his bar, it is his right.

However, what he's against is governments that pass laws restricting personal habits, overriding the property rights of the owners.

He's a little weak on allowing the 2nd hand smoke thing to be legislated, but for the most part solid.