They're Coming After You

Worldnetdaily/Creators Syndicate, Inc. | 3-6-02 | Walter Williams

[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.

[slimer]

I don't smoke, don't abuse alcohol, don't use drugs, wear my seatbelt, and wear my helmet while riding my motorcycle.

I don't smoke, drink alcohol or cuss.

$h!t! I left my damned cigarettes at the bar last night.

[Gabz]

Some of us -- even this non-smoker who hates the smell of cigarette smoke -- think the mere suggestion of anything resembling any sort of "right" to a smoke-free restaurant dining experience is absolutely ludicrous, bordering on nanny-state insanity.

Very well put.

I've got no problem with the owner of an establishment choosing to go non-smoking. I'll just choose not to go there. But since he has the right to make that choice, why isn't the smoker, who owns a restaurant, allowed to make the same type of choice as to permit smoking?

Smokers and non-smokers (such as yourself) agree on this point. It is only the anti-smokers who expect the nany government do it for them. The only time they have a "right" to a smoke free restaurant is if they either open one up, or choose to patronize only those that prohibit the activity. It's really simple.

[HELLRAISER II]

I agree that you should have the right to sit where you want without the smoke effecting your asthma, however that is what they have designated non-smoking sections for people like you. Don't get me wrong, i'm not a big time smoker. But occasionally I like to smoke a nice Cigar & I don't think the Govt. or you should be able to take my right to smoke away from me or tax me into oblivion. There is room to make both of us happy.

[Gabz]

I do, however believe smoking should be prohibited in such obvious places as stores, doctors offices and theatres.

I also have no problem with smoking prohibited in places where every one "has" to go at some point, i.e. - government offices, Motor Vehicle; courts, etc.

[newgeezer]

I do, however believe smoking should be prohibited in such obvious places as stores, doctors offices and theatres.

By the government? No. Let the store owners, doctors, and theater owners set their own rules. If I don't like their rules, I'll take my business to a store/doctor/theater whose rules I like more.

In the unlikely event that none of them is to my liking, I can always open a store of my own, if I think the market will support it (and, if not, too bad).

[HELLRAISER II]

Like him or hate him, you must admit that El Rushbo forsee's and understands these Big Wig Politcal Knuckleheads better than anybody in the Business.

[HELLRAISER II]

Ah, that is the key "We also have rights" but they do not wish to acknowledge that fact. We are simply rude in their opinion & that is entirely incorrect, because first off I wouldn't even smoke in a room full of people. But then again I think about their rights before I light up, but mutual respect is not reciprocated to us smokers.

[HELLRAISER II]

Man that's not fair, that should have been my number.

[Gabz]

What invariably happens though, when forced to prevent smoking in their establishments, is their business suffers through no fault of their own, simply because between 25 and 40%, of their customers, depending on locality, cease patronizing said business,

But didn't you know - smoking bans NEVER hurt business - the antis tell us that all the time!

Seriously, that is what they say when they are promoting them in individual towns and cities. As soon as they get them enacted in some areas and businesses start feeling the bite, the antis can then get those same businesses to side with bans throughout an entire region or state - in order to level the "playing field."

If a ban does not hurt business, why didn't all resturants, etc. just do it voluntarily years ago. Because the truth of the matter is - bans do hurt business.

[RogueIsland]

Let me know when the mandatory minimums for cigarettes and cheeseburgers kick in.

The value of a pre-ban Quarter Pounder with Cheese will skyrocket...

[HELLRAISER II]

I agree especially if their serving Alcohol, ask any smoker if they can drink a 6 pack of beer without lighting up. The answer I gurantee will be no.

[MEGoody]

Did you inform the guy that you have asthma and ask him to put his cigarette out? As a smoker, I would have gladly complied. But he had no way of knowing it was a problem for you, and he WAS in the smoking section.

[Age of Reason]

The real reason for the attack on smokers is that many people are offended by the tobacco odor.

As I've been saying, the denser the population, the more people lose freedom.

When people are crowded, they step on each other's toes, get in each other's way, and call on the government to mediate and police a compromise.

If you want to remain free, we must reduce the number of people allowed to immigrate here to a fraction of the current numbers.

Right now they're running out of water in New Jersey--the most densely populated state in America. If there weren't so many people in New Jersey, they wouldn't need to ration water. Yet the immigrants keep coming.