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?
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!
ther's=there's.
But we all knew that, didn't we?
No, but if you are recommending it, I will certainly put it on my reading list!
I was just thinking it was a good afternoon to read. I agree...I think it is time to revisit For Your Own Good in anticipation of our upcoming assault. ;*)
I light up to cover up the smell of non-smokers.
There was a bit of a tussle outside Walter Reed Friday night. As the LEOs tried to calm everyone, one of the code pinko commies waved at the air and told the officer our guys were polluting their air space.
The officer looked at her and told her it is NOT against the law to smoke outside in DC. She was so angry!
Michael gets into a lot about the mind set of the antis, as well as the scientific reseach, but does it in laymen's terms. It's a good read.
It does seem to be a good afternoon to read, but I did that already this morning. As soon as I finish up with laundry, etc. (and the rain holds off) I'm going out to set netting on my blueberry and blackberry bushes to keep the birds off my fruit :) And then harvest and put up my basil.
OMG...........you're kidding? One of them actually had the nerve to say that....criminy.
Where did you come up with this elusive "huge majority support" nonsense? How was it measured and by whom?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.
As seen through that light, yes. As seen through the only lense they use, which is to bash conservatives in general and Bush specifically, no.
It is essentially banned by taxes .
You use R12?
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.