Trying my main position is the retention of rights and second to try and maybe unite . The second may not come without stepping on a few toes. It may not come at all, but at least I am voicing an opinion with one core issue as the focus. The use of the label dividers is a bland term to illustrate that to achieve ones goal at the expense of others will divide. Dividers focus on a group or subject to be left out or marked because they are not in the mainstream or do something that others do not like. The dividers do not like when they are pointed out and I use the term to illustrate what they are doing, which is creating a division.

Do I divide people on issues? No more division has been made by my comment than when I entered a forum. There is an evident division in this discussion. The people who disagree with me usually disagree with me on most topics anyway. I just add my angle to the mire. I look at the issue and see what is the fundamental result and see if a legal right is under attack or a singling out of a group who really has done nothing illegal and voice my comments. I have also had some questionable remarks made to me, but I think I can live with them. Thank goodness for Amendment 1.

I have by no means run out of material to discuss. I see a heated discussion and enter my talking points from my angle. The topics that I bring up in the various circles that I roam has brought about as heated debates as these and they do what they are designed to do. I attempt to have you think outside your normal box of safety. I push the issues and angles that make you pour out what you are inside and sometimes make you see and myself see inside another level that hasn't been touched before. This encourages me to not settle with the normal daily feeding from the master's bowl, but to hunt out what I want and see if it exists in only me or in others too.

This smoking issue for example. I do not smoke, but I really have no problem with those who do. I do think that it is wrong to single them out for something that is supposed to be legal and also addictive. Now they are addicted, state leaders want to keep it legal and tax the life out of them. Now some non-smokers paint them as dirty lower class citizens who should be punished by higher taxes. That is fundamentally wrong and I do not see that as being at the end of any rope of discussion. That is the pointing out of who only sees what they want at the expense of others or dividers. Sorry if you don't like the term, but it applies.

Dividers do divide the nation. It doesn't matter if it is right, left or independent. We all have and will do it. Which presidential candidate isn't dividing the country right now> My intention is not to offend you, but to point out that it is divisive. To unify would require us to meet in the middle on issues and that is something we all have decided not to do because we only see our side. Your side is your right to avoid this smoking habit and mine is that smokers have rights too and maybe they are getting the short end of the stick because they are now a minority who is hooked on something the government allows, but now will be fine excessively because the government cannot refrain from overspending and needs a quick financial fix. Both sides are valid, but which is more valid? And that is how we have in some cases come to hurt feelings. For that I am sorry, because I want to meet in the middle and leave the divisive issues to worked out on a case-by-case basis between each other and leave the elected officials to fixing roads and reseeding the parks. That should be all they are allowed to do.

fish, if you run out of arguments, you should not label people who disagree with you as the 'great dividers of the nation.' You did that under the gun nuts article and now here (although in the context of needing to find a common ground). Just because somebody doesn't agree with you and you have not found arguments to persuade this person or this person has not found arguments to move you from your positon, doesn't mean that we are going to start an all out war over a subject like this. See, a statement like that might first make somebody think if they are really heading that way (nobody wants to be responsible for a civil war, LOL), and it might have worked for you in the past in other discussions. But in the long run people will just know that you are at the end of your rope. Think about it like this, if you don't move from your position (and I have not seen you waver), you are essentially a 'divider', too. You may have your opinion, but that does not mean you are right. Same for me, LOL. But you might end up offending people, who otherwise might have had a nice chat with you.

Alas, I would like to politely ask you from refraining to use that phrase in a discussion or argument.

I just tell it like it is. I have nothing to hide. The only thing that I have to remember is not everyone has the same experiences, likes/dislikes, wants, needs or opinions. We must approach each issue as though we could loose a valued right for ourselves or someone else. I have lost too many friends in the military to not give them that.

We have to come to the table of compromise or we are letting the dividers of this nation win. And not all dividers are American haters. They have just lost their way. Lets get back to the middle and fix problems and not become political polar enemies. We have more in common than not.

I second...or third...whatever. Well said.

nautilusfish, I agree, this kind of forum is a good way to see the different opinions. I think it's easier for some to express their opinions here than outright in a public face-to-face setting. The anonymity helps a lot and it is easy to participate. Though we do get out of hand sometimes when our opinions differ;)

Did you notice that a lot of the 'hot' discussion topics get turned into an 'opinion' piece by a SJ writer? At least somebody is paying attention...

Thank you Shrew. We should meet in the middle and creat a solution and not just single out groups to "fine" tax into compliance with the mainstream of society. If tobacco is this awful product that will bring down Kentucky then outlaw it. Even though tobacco helped build Kentucky the times have changed.

We must work together on this and every issue, but forums such as this does allow for different views to be experienced. Even if we don't agree. It is an environment to hear different circles that most would not encounter and gain different perspectives.

"If smoking is crushing the economy and killing all these innocent people then make it illegal. This will never happen because it is about the money generated by this product and not their or your health."

I agree with you, there. I find it fascinating that Kentucky's well-known industries: tobacco, bourbon, and horse racing (gambling), are all vice-driven. It sort of puts our economy at cross-purposes with our mental/physical health. Yes, I'm aware that these habits can be practiced in moderation; however, it's the addictions that end up costing all taxpayers much more, through the funding of rehabilitation programs or heightened health insurance premiums.

Although I agree with the fish about curbing spending, I don't see how we can address this behavior, for each time we elect someone (R or D) their promises amount to nothing.

No, I still think that it is wrong to make a tax to alter human behavior. No, I don't like to smell tobacco smoke, but I do not go to war if I do. I just avoid it if possible or deal with it. The smokers have rights too. Outside, in their homes and in their cars is all they have left. Give them some latitude.

If smoking is crushing the economy and killing all these innocent people then make it illegal. This will never happen because it is about the money generated by this product and not their or your health. I am ok with making tobacco illegal, but to keep it as a legal product and then seperate the ones who use it by making them appear as lower class dirty citizens and hitting them with increases in taxes when they know it is an addiction and they are hooked on this product is criminal. It scares me you guys cannot see that.

As far as smokers at the front door, all you see is poor me and these people are hurting me, but this has become a kangaroo court of citizens who are laying in wait to pounce on the next social group of outcasts when they should be looking for a solution like ban tobacco instead of making an example of the users. I am sure that you get more carbondioxide in traffic then at your employers front door. Sit behind one of those older cars or trucks and really experience a bad smell that gets into your hair and cloths.

To complain about smokers hanging around in groups by the doors and creating this toxic environment is a product of those who complained in the first place. This community, city and state government has pushed the smokers out into the open and claim that they are now shocked that they see and smell them now. Do we have lead pipes for drinking water in this community. You shouldn't target these people but be a part of the solution. If you want a real solution, then push to outlaw tobacco and offer quit smoking programs to the ones who are hooked or will that give you nothing to complain about. God help us all.

To answer someones comment about me being against taxes, well yes I am. If my taxes hadn't been wasted year after year and some good actually came from them and the over spending on pork wasn't the norm then I would be ok with certain taxes. But even with all the taxes that is collected we still have pot holes, decaying buildings, unfunded retirement, increases in out of pocket insurance costs, higher state fees and the list goes on and on and on. The elected officials cannot be trusted with our money and that is why more taxes dosn't help and that is why I disagree with you and am against higer taxes. Make the legislature have a budget and no more. That is what everyone else has to do and so should they. We will just have to disagree on that topic.

Those cigarette smokers don't seem to mind that the taxpayers shelled out $1.1 Billion (with a B) last year to cover the health care costs of sick smokers. I have no problem at all taxing a product that costs people who don't even use it much more than it generates in revenue. We also know that the higher the cigarette tax, the fewer young people start smoking. A very high cig tax is a win-win for everyone - including the smokers who must want to help pay their own health care costs.

"It's tough, if you don't like it, but the government wouldn't do it, if the majority of people wouldn't have wanted them to do it in the first place."

Talk about do your research! Maybe you should do yours before making such statements as the one above. (i.e. the 2000 Presidential Election, just to name one)