Posted on 07/23/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
July 23, 2006 - 06:47
Don't the press in general and the New York Times in particular take pride in portraying themselves as ever-the vigilant defenders of the First Amendment? But judging by an editorial in the paper this morning, the Times experiences a power loss worse than the one currently gripping Queens when it comes to defending the First Amendment rights of groups it disfavors, in this case the tobacco industry.
Entitled Take the Tobacco Pledge, the editorial urges ratification of The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, known colloquially as 'the tobacco treaty.' Here's how the Times describes its provisions:
"Countries that ratify the treaty promise to limit or ban tobacco advertising, promotion and event sponsorship; raise cigarette taxes; enlarge warning labels on cigarette packs; move toward ending smoking in public places; crack down on tobacco smuggling; and make it more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking."
Raising taxes is a no-brainer for the liberals of the Times. But limiting or banning advertising? Isn't that an infringement of First Amendment free speech rights? And making it "more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking" - isn't that a restriction of the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances?
How would the Times feel about a treaty that would restrict the ability of newspapers to advertize and make it more difficult for newspapers to influence legislation that concerns the press? What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others?
NY Times/NewsBusters hypocrisy-ping to Today show list.
Common Sense BTTT. I smoke, but I hope my children don't.
"What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others?"
I have several names for them - the press, Liberals, Democrats. All three groups only believe in free speech only if they are the ones behind the podium. If, on the other hand, the person behind the podium isn't one of their own, they firmly believe in the "right to protest."
I do, and I suspect that we all, curb our personal 1A. I seldom address or attend topics such as minorities or personal adornment or entertainment. It would be nice to be tyrant and demand the media address news only.
Interesting how they slipped that one in there. The World Health Organization is now concerning itself with "cracking down" on tobacco smuggling?
They're joining the national "progressive" revival of Prohibition, taking an emminently taxable legitimate industry and converting it into an underground one which costs taxdollars to suppress.
Love my home manufactured smokes and you will too!
Insightful take, IMHO!
Ah, did they forget public flogging and being put in stocks for those of us who indulge in this LEGAL activity?
As usual, the zealots and anit-tobacco Nazis, stop short of calling for a complete ban on tobacco products and making the cultivation, sale and use thereof, ILLEGAL!
Much as the hypocritical, zany, prejudicial, SpurGeon General, NO ONE dares suggest such a course of action.
God, I wish there was one Rep or Senator who had the cajones to introduce such legislation so we could all see the hypocrisy of these nanny-state, doo doo gooders, as they ran for cover and came up with every excuse in the book for avoiding any such proposed legislation.
If it is such an evil, "killer of all who even breathe an infinitesimal amount of second-hand smoke," then why NOT simply ban it. Period?
Of course, rhetorically, I submit, its because (a) Its a cash cow which is used to fill the coffers of both Fed and State guvmints and (b) we smokers are relegated to second class status due to our indulgence and NO ONE dares come to our defense.
Please, no dissertations on this nasty, smelly, obnoxious, expensive habits, as we smokers are only too well aware of all consequences of our actions.
Nevertheless, enough is enough.
Either make this product Illegal, or give us a break; some space and we will (as is usually the case in most instances) bend over backwards not to intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto.
Oh yes, and for those of you who cannot "feel our pain," yet enjoy indulging in the occasional Twinkie, crispy creme donut, big Mac & fries, super size coke, etc., just wait, it won't be long. Your turn is coming. Your are in "their" sights and it won't be long till you will know what it feels like.
It already is, this just gives them level field.
The real question is why did they need to publish this anyways. Bush's Surgeon General just came out with a scathing report on SHS which will be used as fuel for the fire for thje rapidly growing smoking bans and tax increases. Nothing in this proposal isn't being done right now.
If smokers did bend over backwards they populace would not be eager to join those who want to impose social engineering on smokers habits. The facts are that the social engineer's are a small but vocal minority who could not ban twinkee's with support of the larger majority. On the smoking issue they get this majority because most people have been subjected to smokers who "intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto."
If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.
As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.
Corrected version:
If smokers did bend over backwards the populace would not be eager to join those who want to impose social engineering on smokers habits. The facts are that the social engineer's are a small but vocal minority who could not ban twinkee's without the support of the larger majority.
On the smoking issue, they get this majority because most people have been subjected to smokers who "intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto."
If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.
As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.
I agree. It's a different feeling when the formerly virtuous become the goats. (And their time will come.)
Oh give me a break, pleeeeeeze!
If you really believe this spurious, nonsensical, diatribe you are espousing (that the reason for the attacks on smokers/second-hand smoke and the continual increase in taxes)is due to "our" INTENTIONAL abuses and complete disregard for the sensitivities of others (read: "we go around and blow smoke in people's faces") then you, my good man, need counseling and therapy, NOW!!!
As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.
So, when are you and others, going to cut your driving in half? Or don't you complain about the high cost of gas--which is mostly related to the high Fed and State Taxes?
Sure, we could cut our taxes COMPLETELY, by all of us quiting tomorrow and then I would gleefully like to see those like yourself, SQUEAL loudly as you were forced to make up the lost revenues by an increase in YOUR personal taxes.
As outlined in my Post, those like yourself are quick to criticize us and admonish us and suggest that we cut back or quit, but YOUSE guys/gals, NEVER come out for an outright ban on all tobacco products.
Why is that Ray, Mr. CPA?
First ping of the week.
Freon was banned by increasing the tax on it and limiting its use. Cigarettes are following the same path. As long as smokers keep paying it, the taxes will increase.
As for why these bans are taking place, you are in denial if you think its fear of being exposed to SHS or that 60 to 70% of the population supporting it want to control what you breathe or eat. The simple but unstated fact is they don't like the smell. They prefer to have dinner without smoke.
It would not have been an issue if smokers adopted the posture and politeness that is offered by pipe and cigar smokers. These smokers have traditionally been very polite in their smoking. On the other hand cig smokers could care less if the other person near them is bothered. In fact many smokers think the nonsmoker is just being a baby about the smoke and those who claim allergies are just pretending or psychologically disturbed.
Some smokers are so militant or addicted they subject their kids to smoke in close spaces. These folks go beyond rude and border on abuse. If they can't even have the decency to refrain from smoking around thier own children, who would expect they have the deceny to respect others without being forced ?
Absolutely
There are those "enlightened ones," like Ray, Mr. CPA, who discount even the possibility of the Nanny-State Doogooders taking up the next cause celebre in order to control our lives and micro manage our existence (all the while, trying to relegate the rest of us to the same baneful, miserable state of existence these useless excuses for human beings exists, under) by taxing and attacking food products "They" believe are unhealthy and "could" cause medical problems.
This is so, even though, this in fact, has been ongoing for some time, now, and the situation will only be exacerbated as long as no one resists.
Not to insult anyone, but just as us smokers are looked down upon and most of us are wont to complain because we are aware of our nasty habits, many of those who could be considered "PLUS SIZES" are also demeaned and they as well, are made to feel like second-class citizens and guilty as well for their conditions.
It is not so much about the nasty smoke or the extra lbs., people carry, its about "Power and Control," (the favorite pastimes of LIBS) over our lives, and if those like Mr. Ray cannot distinguish and accept that fact, then he probably is one himself.
Ranting and raving about us smokers, etc., etc., etc., yet again, in several par graphs, I DON'T SEE YOU COMING OUT AND SUPPORTING A COMPLETE BAN OF ALL TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
Why is that Mr. Ray?
Ill tell you why.
Its pure, unadulterated, Liberal-like, BS and major hypocrisy one your part, if you ask me.
I don't discount the possibility they want to. In fact they are trying right now. I discount the possibility they will get the kind of support they have gotten on the smoking issue. On this issue they garner huge majority support because every nonsmoker has been subjected to having to deal with SHS from an obnoxious or oblivious smoker.
On fatty foods, it would be pretty tough to garner the same support because most people are not made uncomfortable by the person at the next table eating a Big Mac.
Why should I? If you refrain from smoking in public, I would have no interest in banning this. Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
If they live with you they already do smoke.
Nanny State Ping.
From the NYSlimes this is not surprising in the least
"As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to."
WTF does this mean? It's OK to tax smokers inordinatly but how can they cut thier taxes in half if they are "addicted"?
Please expain!
BTW I wonder if anyone could open up a class action lawsuit against Hollywood for "glorifying" smoking and smokers that got me "addicted" when I was very young (about 35-40 years ago).
That would be the liberal solution if any out there still smoked, but, being a strong beleiver in personal responsibility, I would not go that route.
The vicious attack on smokers and smoking have only made it harder to quit something that deep down inside I know is not good for me, but,(there I go again) being fed up with someone trying to tell me what to do and how to live My life, I still smoke.
AND, I am very curtious when lighting up sitting next to someone in a smoking environment, I always ask if it would bother them if I smoked! I have yet to get a "yes" answer! I think if I did I fantisize about saying to them "Then GTF out of the area then!" No not really, I would move if I really wanted to smoke or refrain from lighting up.
JMHO
"Seasoned" rereading the post after the time it took to type this , Thanks, you put it much more elegantly and faster than I could.
And another thing, "Youse" is in the colloquial domain of people from the "World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers" so don't youse use youse if not entitled... Please
You are and always have been, the southern end of a north-bound horse.
Simply explaing the law of supply and demand. Want lower taxes, reduce consumption.
The vicious attack on smokers and smoking have only made it harder to quit something that deep down inside I know is not good for me, but,(there I go again) being fed up with someone trying to tell me what to do and how to live My life, I still smoke.
Spoken like a true addict. It is always someone else's fault they have to continue in their behavior.
I always ask if it would bother them if I smoked! I have yet to get a "yes" answer! I
Do you even ask people 20 feet away?
Yeah. Who'da thunk that the Treason Times were hand-in-hand with the tobaccophobes?
Makes me want to light up another.
I'm sorry about the "youse" comment. I don't know what I was thinking! It must have been to many smokes! "Yunz" is in the domain!
Thank you for making my argument.
What?
First, it was confining smokers to the backs of airplanes, then outright smoking bans. Then it was smoking sections in restaurants, then outright bans. In some places one cannot smoke on the beaches, or in parks. To a vigilante like yourself, every place is "public" there are no private places. You see smoking sections in bars and restaurants as hedonistic dens you are going to eliminate.
As a CPA I'm sure you've checked where the tobacco settlement money has gone, and it hasn't been to health care. The monies have been used as surety for roads, bridges and other public facilities. Woe be the states who are counting on this money coming in year after year after year. I sometimes wish cigarette sales would be banned, just to see how loudly the non-smokers scream as their taxes sky-rocket to pay for the facilities smokers are now funding. Our largess is funding many things but I'm confident that the nannies will be coming after something you enjoy soon. Expect no sympathy from us.
Where are you getting your information. Where did you come up with this elusive "huge majority support" nonsense? How was it measured and by whom?
On fatty foods, it would be pretty tough to garner the same support
You cannot be that naive. The smoke nazis did not have the alleged "support" when they began their campaign. The alleged "support" was garnered via a propaganda campaign over a few decades.
Watch carefully as the same type of propaganda campaign has begun in earnest regarding alleged fatty foods.
I suggest you curl up with a good book.
Any bets they support First Amendment rights when it comes to marijuana legalization?
 |
| What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others? Liberals |
The question is: Do you think the NY Times is hypocritical in their call for us to sign onto 'the tobacco treaty'?
You have a nice little point buried in here, seasoned. The goobermint has made the tax grab on tobacco, and even if tobacco disappeared from the planet tomorrow, the tobacco tax would continue on in some form or another - much like the phone tax from the Spanish American war.
What a way to start the week........thankfully I've already had my coffee. I think I'll just get out the popcorn and chuckle as the resident moonbats crawl out from their hideyholes to agree with the NYSlimes.
Excellent book!!!!! My copy is well worn....and I think it's tie to pull it off the shelf and reread it!
Have you read "Dissecting Antismokers Brains" by Michael McFadden? Excellently researched work by an infrequent poster, but fellow FReeper. I'll see if I can hunt up the website for you.
Freon isn't banned, DuPont's patent on R-19 expired and coincindentially the Gov't mandated a change to R134 for "environmental reasons".
Stioll ots and lots of freon out there, especially in larger chillers; R-19 was a consumer product. Nice try, though.
Dig up the names of the leaders of those, "Nonprofit," groups wanting $$$ from smokers. You might find that they're all, ALL democrat contributers.
Stephanie Steinberg, chairwoman of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado, for example:
STEINBERG, STEPHANIE M
DENVER, CO 80202
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER
STRICKLAND, THOMAS LEE
VIA STRICKLAND FOR COLORADO INC
10/19/2002 500.00 22020970584
STEINBERG, STEPHANIE M
DENVER, CO 80202
COLORADO SENATE 2002
03/06/2002 1000.00
STEINBERG, STEPHANIE M
DENVER, CO 80202
STRICKLAND, THOMAS LEE
VIA STRICKLAND FOR COLORADO INC
03/11/2002 1000.00
ALL democrat ALL the time.
"Bush's Surgeon General just came out with a scathing report on SHS which will be used as fuel for the fire for thje rapidly growing smoking bans and tax increases. Nothing in this proposal isn't being done right now."
Ah, the fabled man behind the curtain speaks.
We all know he the words he speaks are absolute truths.
Say it with me RAYMAN, I BEEEEEEEEELLLIIVEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Hey, post some cartoons for me. I have yet to have a good laugh today.
"Makes me want to light up another."
I just did.
"These folks go beyond rude and border on abuse"
You got that right! That description fits the IRS to tee!
"Freon was banned by increasing the tax on it and limiting its use"
Wow. Your car must have the world's first hypo-non-froenic-air-conditioner.
I haven't ran across one yet in the shop. I'm glad you mentioned it, as I can now get rid of all my AC equipment.
"On fatty foods, it would be pretty tough to garner the same support because most people are not made uncomfortable by the person at the next table eating a Big Mac."
Wow. You need to come out from under that large pile of schedule C's and read more on this forum.
The assualt on food is well under way.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648884/posts
And if you'd bother to look, ther's more.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.