• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Reno & Cavanaugh Adds Two Attorneys to Its Affordable Housing Group | Main | Eleven D.C. Lawyers On Board As Obama Campaign Bundlers »

February 01, 2012



Mr. Wrede, it boggles my mind that anyone can claim that the public hasn't been beaten over the head with warnings about smoking. It's not only been adequate, it's been suffocating. Government (and you as a supporter) has every right to lobby Congress for the outlawing of tobacco, period. Anything short of that is an affront to the very cornerstones of our country's foundation. It's vile to call these cornerstones of our Constitution "hypertechnical." As is the healthcare cost argument that is not only debateable (as many economists find it's the longest living among us that ultimately cost the most) but steeped in socialism. At what price liberty? Go over a line in an otherwise legal lifestyle choice and your liberty is rescinded? Adults do not depend on being "allowed" anything legal by govt. We need not gain your permission or approval.


How about warning labels on cars, alcohol, cops, tooth paste with fluoride, the US government needs one too, "Warning, you can disappear indefinitely, be subject to torture, or be assassinated without a trial if the US doesn't like you". Or, here's one, "Warning, guns sold to Mexican drug cartels by the USDOJ may come back and kill you, have a nice day".

Robert K. Wrede

The fact that the government continues to permit the marketing and widespread use of an undeniably lethal product without warnings that adequately convey the potentially hideous results of that use boggles the mind. As does the notion that regulating purely commercial speech to help reduce the impostion of huge healthcare costs for users on nonusers renders the hypertechnical sophistry of the lawyers attacking those efforts. I've seen too many dear friends die because they have been allowed to engage in this potentially suididal practice.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad