Posted on 03/06/2002 5:21:26 AM PST by farmall
They're coming after you
Posted: March 6, 2002 by: Walter Willaims
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Most Americans were pleased with the legislative attack on cigarette smokers, not to mention confiscatory tobacco taxes. We reveled in the Environmental Protection Agency's dishonest study concluding that second-hand smoke causes cancer. And, by the way, I'd like to hear whether the Food and Drug Administration would sanction pharmaceutical companies employing EPA's research methods to test drug safety – and if not, why not?
The real reason for the attack on smokers is that many people are offended by the tobacco odor. Unfortunately, in their quest to eliminate tobacco fumes, Americans are willing to trade away constitutional principles and rule of law.
Tyrants are never satisfied. They've lined up new victims. Surgeon General David Satcher has provided them with ammunition by describing obesity as America's No. 1 killer, costing 300,000 lives annually. As a result of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and other obesity-related illnesses, it's costing us billions upon billions of health dollars. That means, according to John Banzhaf of George Washington University School of Law and other tyrants, America's food industry is to blame and liable. New York University Professor Marion Nestle agrees, saying that the food industry "can't behave like cigarette companies. ... Yet there's a lot of people who benefit from people being fat and sick, and the whole setup is designed to make people eat more. So the response to the food industry should be very similar to what happened with the tobacco companies."
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is one of the Washington lobbies that wants to control what we eat. These tyrants not only propose taxes on what they deem as non-nutritious foods, they've also proposed a 5 percent tax on new television sets and video equipment, and a $65 tax on each new car or an extra penny per gallon of gas. You might ask why tax these items? CSPI Nazis see watching television and videos, and riding instead of walking, as contributing to obesity. And, as they see it, just as tobacco companies were responsible for people smoking, television manufacturers are responsible for people being couch potatoes, automobile companies are responsible for people riding instead of walking and the food industry is responsible for people eating too much.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has joined these tyrants. No reasonable person advocates drunk driving, but MADD has another agenda. It wishes to outlaw driving even after having one drink. It has successfully pushed Congress to lower the blood/alcohol level for a drunk-driving arrest to .08 percent. But its true agenda was revealed by Steve Simon, chairman of the Minnesota State DUI Task Force, when he said: "If .08 percent is good, .05 percent is better. That's where we're headed. It doesn't mean that we should get there all at once. But ultimately it should be .02 percent."
That's the way Nazis work – incrementally. If they had demanded Congress make the blood/alcohol .02, they wouldn't have gotten anything – not even .08 percent. I wouldn't be surprised if their ultimate agenda is alcohol prohibition.
The Center for Consumer Freedom keeps up-to-date information on these and other tyrants. You might say, "What's the fuss, Williams? These people will never get away with controlling what we eat and drink!" Think again. In the '60s, when the anti-smoking zealots were simply asking for smoking and non-smoking sections on airplanes, no one would have ever anticipated today's tobacco taxes, laws and regulations.
Most evil done in the world is done in the name of promoting this or that good. By turning away from rule of law and constitutional government, Americans are following in the footsteps of the decent Germans, who during the 1920s and '30s built the Trojan Horse that enabled Hitler to take over. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WorldNetDaily contributor Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Yes.
Or.... am..... I???
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
You are right - the government does have the right to determine how much you can drink and then drive. But your reasons are wrong.
The government has the right to set limits on alcohol and driving because driving on public roads is a privelege, not a right. You must earn the privelege to drive. And to retain the privelege you must abide by certain rules.
However, if I own a couple thousand acres and choose to get rip roaring drunk and drive on that land - the government has no say in the matter. It's my private property. If in doing so I injure someone - there are laws involving assault to deal with that. There are also laws dealing with trespass. If I didn't invite you on my land and you get hurt you have no one to blame but yourself for being somewhere you shouldn't be.
By entering a restaurant you are entering into a contract with the proprietor of your own free will.
Food handling in the kitchen has absolutely nothing to do with smoking. That argument does not hold water. Nor does your comment on exclusion by race.
Your avocation of government control of the atmosphere of a private place of business totally befuddles me. If you don't like the smoking policy, talk to the owner, not the government.
I smoke, drink like a freepin' swine, smoke weed like thre's no tomorrow, never wear a GD seatbelt, don't ride anymore (no time; I'm always drunk or high). My idea of excersise is going down to the fridge to get another libation, eat red meat three times a day, slathering it all with as much salt as I can. I make these choices for my own good (What works for my 95 year old father works for me). I don't need some government pinhead legislating common sense to me.
How come if you and I, coming from the opposite side of the spectrum, can see it, so many are blind?
I'm seriously wondering why some of these people are posting on FR - what about you????
I'm sueing. Stay right there til my lawyer gets here.
In my world, it's to protect private property rights.
That way, when someone owns a restaurant and snivelers such as yourself enter, he would be free to ask you to leave so that other patrons could enjoy a whine-free dining-out experience.
That seems fair to me.
Not to mention that Miss Manners would be horrified at such boorish behavior.
I see where you are coming from - but smokers are a minority. And we are not asking to "smoke everywhere." We just want the proprietors of private establishments to make their own determination whether they will accomodate smoking or not.
I notice reflecting has been responding very much---------------HMMMMMMMMMM
They tried it in Montgomery County, Maryland.
I like the way you think.
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.