moonbattery logo

Jan 25 2013

Prescription Cigarettes

Once the liberal establishment has targeted a group for scapegoating, the abuse never stops. The latest attack on smokers:

Rep. Mitch Greenlick, from Portland, is sponsoring a bill [in the Oregon legislature] 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.

At this point, getting thrown in prison for a year for lighting a cigarette is easier to imagine than finding a doctor who would write such a prescription, knowing that virtually any future health problems would be blamed on smoking and come back as a lawsuit.

Coming soon: prescription soda pop.

On tips from The MaryHunter and Byron.

24 Responses to “Prescription Cigarettes”

  1. Wizard45 says:

    Holy crap! Could this moonbat’s name be any more indicative of his proclivities? GREENLICK? Are you serious?

  2. TED says:

    I’m sure what Rep GreenLICK smokes (not drugs) is much more hazardous to his health! BUT they want to promote that, in the schools.

  3. Mickey Shea says:

    Excellent article on how moonbattery in England is OFF THE CHARTS and how the 2nd Amendment is our defense against this kind of outrageous nonsense.

  4. Rotohammer says:

    This in a state that legalized pot.

  5. rex freeway says:

    Obama could easily get a prescription for cigarettes.The ultimate hypocrite. Dictates our health care, Admonishing everyones unhealthy lifestyles. Then doesn’t have the intelligence or the spine to quit. Then in 2016 hear that his lungs have fundamentally transformed into malignant tumors. And because of health care reform, there are no doctors left to treat him. Yes, that would make my decade. 😉

  6. Doug says:

    Can’t help it but that reminds me of this commercial.

  7. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    Greenlick’s views on pot
    Greenlick says he doesn’t see the logic in treating cannabis differently from tobacco or booze. “It doesn’t seem to me to make a hell of a lot of sense,” he says. “If we can get a serious discussion going, I think [legalization] is possible.”
    Health issues my foot

    This is about legislating in favor of what Rep GREENLICK wants, and eventually criminalizing what HE does not.

  8. Wizard45 says:

    MY favorite Jack-in-the-Box “commercial”

  9. Tax Slave says:

    If I get a prescription for tobacco, can I smoke at my desk instead of having to go outside?

  10. Cameraman says:

    This Guy”s smoked to much “Wacky Tabacky” he should be a scheduled Class III NUT!

  11. JustAl says:

    I’m an ex-smoker so I don’t think this is funny. Buy my inlaws who both smoke voted for Obama. . . and that I think makes this funny.

  12. dan says:

    …shakes head ,relights pipe and blows smoke-rings….
    Yah,that paper’l kill you, sure.

  13. Kevin R. says:

    I guess an appeal to the return of the Rule of Law, where a law has to address an actual provable harm caused by one party to another and all provable in a court of law with evidence, is a little late at this point in the collapse of civilization.

    The regulatory state is the rejection of Law and civil society.

  14. IslandLifer says:

    Too many politicians = too many people sitting around drumming up new ideas for laws. We have enough now go home and we will call you when you’re needed to report for duty. Only one term!!! Unpaid!!!

  15. Dr. 9 says:

    I must not have received the memo, but didn’t we once have something called, Freedom of Choice? I know that if i were a female that got knocked-up in the back of a Chevy, i would have the entire govt. fighting for (my) freedom to choose….. Now do you see how revolutions start?

  16. Kevin R. says:

    Freedom of Choice?

    Everything the Left professes to believe are just rationalizations for power and control of others. Don’t expect any consistency whatsoever when someone employs rationalizations. It’s all hypocrisy.

    And then there’s the woman’s right to privacy, which is supposed to the constitutional grounding for abortion. Any other legislation based on that understanding of privacy? I’d like to be able to invoke my right to privacy to keep my income to myself.

  17. A. Levy says:

    Why can Mark Levin smell the Statist stench inside the beltway from a distance, while the Republitards don’t smell a thing when it’s right under their noses?

  18. Jester says:

    Because at the end of the day, both “sides” are on exactly the same team.

  19. Mr. Rational says:

    This looks more like an attempt to keep adults from providing cigarettes to teenagers and getting them hooked than any serious attempt to ban tobacco. Making them harder to get would make smokers less likely to part with their supply.

  20. Tax Slave says:

    Freedom of choice
    is what you’ve got

    Freedom from choice
    is what you want


  21. Mr Evilwrench says:

    We do seem to have a whole generation of politicians who see their role as “creating legislation” rather than addressing problems. They’re out there prowling the streets looking for things that haven’t been adequately stifled by laws already, so they can do so.

  22. octa brigth says:

    From a purely fiscal point of view if this act was passed it would cost the state a huge amount of revenue due to cigarette taxes and the tobacco settlement which they won’t receive. By their desire for wild rivers and salmon they are choking off the clean energy that they claim to love. These people seem to be able to plan ahead or predict the consiquences of their acts.

  23. octa brigth says:

    These peoplr don’tseem to be able to plan ahead or predict the consiquences of their acts.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy