What kind of pretzel logic (in re the discussion at hand) refers to our founding fathers as being 'tobacco farmers', as if that had anything to do with their exploits in battle and in the realm of nation building and in many ways world, not merely local, politics?

(The weak connotation being that, since they were tobacco farmers and smoked and did great things, there's no warranted justification for regulation today of tobacco use by men far inferior to those giants, today's lawyers and other government bureaucrats?)

Those were men educated in law, history, politics, literature, etc., etc., and not merely "tobacco farmers" with pipes hanging from their jaws.

Is that supposed to stand as an argument that smoking shouldn't be regulated?

Should the fact that they owned slaves make arguments against slavery null and void?


[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 04-01-2004).]