Posted on 07/23/2002 5:05:10 AM PDT by Clive
I'm so glad to see hockey great Wayne Gretzky is unabashedly a cigar aficionado and movie star Russell Crowe refuses to be cowed from smoking his Marlboro cigarettes.
It's said fanatics are individuals who have forgotten their real aims but have redoubled their efforts. This has to apply to the frenzied anti-smoking brigade -- whose members have now become so fanatical about socially engineering society they would merit a chapter in George Orwell's frightening novel 1984.
Apparently, it's not enough Ottawa should try and tax the tobacco industry out of existence or put hypocritical messages on packages of cigarettes --for now it's considering portraying industry executives as "manipulative and scheming" and spreading "lies" to sell its products.
Yup, Health Canada is pondering a proposal to try and further undermine the tobacco industry and attack smokers with an campaign of "denormalization."
"Denormalization" -- now that's a heavy word.
Somewhat sinister and reminiscent of the "re-education" camps to which dissidents were sent in Communist countries to have their minds revamped.
The idea of "denormalization" campaigns comes from the U.S. where some anti-smoking zealots decided governments shouldn't simply warn people of the health dangers allegedly associated with smoking -- the thrust had to be to turn people off the cigarette companies themselves by portraying them as part of an "illegitimate" industry staffed by individuals using deceitful tactics to get people hooked on cigarettes.
Health Canada -- once the fiefdom of the sanctimonious Allan Rock, but now under the guidance of the more rational Anne McLellan -- is now studying a 78-page report prepared by University of Regina associate professor Anne Lavack which urges Ottawa to follow the lead of these zealots in the U.S. and start a "denormalization" campaign against the industry in Canada.
Suggests Lavack: "The objective of these tobacco denormalization campaigns is to point out negative traits of the tobacco industry, including the opportunistic, manipulative, mendacious and unethical activities in which the industry engages."
Please ponder those words: "Opportunistic. Manipulative. Mendacious. Unethical."
Remember that Lavack is aiming them at a perfectly legal industry run by business executives who have never been convicted of a criminal offence.
They also likely have families, are good neighbours, and probably likely community workers.
Just like the rest of us.
But under Lavack's "denormalization" campaign they would be portrayed as extremely unsavoury characters.
Now, we all know Rock and his Lib-Left adherents would like to socially engineer Canadians in many, many ways to produce a docile, grey society of government-controlled serfs.
Yet if I were on the board of directors of a tobacco company and were described -- even if somewhat indirectly -- of being manipulative and mendacious, I'd be taking legal advice with an aim to launch a million-dollar lawsuit.
Lavack actually talks about the campaign focusing on the "lies" put out by the tobacco industry's personnel -- and uses other words of that ilk such as "scheming."
Again, her words, and again heavy words.
Well, since the Jean Chretien's government has already earmarked almost $400 million of the taxpayers' money to be spent on anti-smoking campaigns if the "denormalization" approach gets the green light, we can expect a barrage of advertising designed to denigrate, dehumanize and demonize the industry and the people working in it.
The word from McLellan's office is while she and her officials are indeed looking at the idea of a "denormalization" campaign, McLellan -- being more cautious than her predecessor -- is somewhat worried about the legal ramifications of it all. Our libel laws are far tougher than those south of the border -- you can't go trashing people without solid evidence.
Yet even if you don't smoke -- and don't even feel particularly sympathetic to the tobacco industry -- what should frighten you is the very idea of a campaign of this kind, because, after these people have dealt with the tobacco executives, as well as their families and staff, who will be next on the list for a "denormalization" process?
It truly is Orwellian.
That's why we should all shudder.
I refuse to shudder. I think I'll just become more obnoxious.
I know, I know...
He went into a bout of depression eventually causing his father to quit smoking.
Read that again: He went into a bout of depression eventually causing his father to quit smoking.
Orwellian indeed.
--
One day, walking home from the neighborhood store, while I was opening a pack of cigarettes a young man hanging out with a group of his friends called out to me:
"Smoking is bad for you you know."
This was not friendly advice, it was like the mocking of a leper, it contained all the animosity, ridicule and ostrification (sp?) of the term "druggie".
It was an interesting experience for me, being the first time I've been exposed to such a blatent condemnation. I paused to wonder how many others held such opinions but were not as brazen as this young man.
I felt as though I might as well be a "chronic masturbator" or a "eater of bugs" -- I was a legitimate "target for hate" thanks to political correctness. Interesting. Mildly annoying, but OK...
... being in a good mood I replied: "I know, it says so right here" pointing to the pack and implying he was either an idiot or a spiteful little punk in need of an attitude adjustment because his do-gooder mask wasn't fooling anyone.
No, I'm not particularly aggrieved by peoples PC-validated prejudices, but I am forced to be... why? because I am getting FED UP with the sin taxes I pay, sin taxes that only grow in this type of PC environment.
I cannot over-emphasize how FED UP I am. GET OFF MY BACK!
If I go to a store and steal a candy bar enough times, I will end up in jail. This tax steals from me every day. It does so without compassion, without appreciation.
It is immoral, and the whole PC environment surrounding it is a cancer on the dignity of man, a rot on the principles of liberty.
You poke a dog with a stick enough times and he is going to rip your testicles off.
This dog has been poked every day via the sin tax, and is now looking forward to every encounter he has with these Nazis.
No longer on the defense. Not one moment longer.
I will slam you, crack your pathetic little mind like a nut and expose the bile of your Nazism to the world and let them be the judge of where evil lies.
I will slam you, crack your pathetic little mind like a nut and expose the bile of your Nazism to the world and let them be the judge of where evil lies.
EXCELLANT! Another on the front lines.
I think the ANTI's are almost convinced that if the world was smokefree, there would be no more starvation, no more illness, no more war and no more natural disasters.
In that case, they deserve to loose customers to the net.
Wealth expenditure taxes strike me as fair while taxes on wealth creation are not. It's very straightforward to avoid some or even all taxes in a system with just wealth expenditure taxes like sales taxes and sin taxes. Taxes on wealth creation are theft. Why should someone who earns more money pay more taxes if they choose to save it rather than spend it? In an IDEAL world the government would have only taxes on wealth expenditure and no taxes on wealth creation.
This is far too simplistic, something akin to: Red fruit good, non-red fruit bad. You are using superficial attributes and deeming the resultant system sensible.
Here is how I view taxes- quick version:
1) [Our] government[s] is/are the franchise of the individual, created to serve his solitary interests foremost. The individual underwrites this 'mutual defense co-op' with his very life. He is both King and soldier.
2) Tax on 'wealth creation', individual income tax, under this system is an abberation, it is in direct conflict with the idea of individual rights. An individual has the right to conduct economic activity (exchange his labor for the means to live, and exchange goods) in order to pursue happiness (life) -- to provide for himself.
Because the individual HAS the RIGHT to conduct business this way, it is improper logic to assume a tax on a this activity -- it would be a FEE to exercise a right. No can do without entering lawyer-world-logic.
3) Ok, so where do the taxes come from? Remember, the GOV is the franchise of individuals, it is like thier 'business' and can offer benefits or services to people or entities that wish to use them, voluntarily, under terms stated.
One type of benefit set is offered via the legal vehicle 'corporation' -- owners are shielded from liabilities, a marketplace is maintained and policed, a whole legal system is sustained to allow this 'unnatural person' to conduct business.
Another legit source of revenue is import tariffs, the 'mutual defense co-op' is a protector of territory as well as markets, therefore it has the right to charge admission or access to its market. Tariffs need to be non-specific however. [This is why sin tax is wrong- tax to manipulate is wrong and leads to worse]
Once you see that there is, by neccessity, need to have seperate legal realms for the individual and legal entities, it becomes clear who is to serve whom, who depends on whom, and what 'privileges' really are.
Privilege is a legal mechanism that the people offer through thier government that serves the interests of those interested in the privilege, and those offering it.
It is a voluntary contract.
Rights are a thing that belong to individuals, and can be boiled down to common law, or the statement:
An individual has the right to do as he pleases, short of harming another. If his actions 'endanger' another, we have provided civil courts to remedy this. At no time however, may 'the people', use the state to witness/prosecute civil endangerment, the 'written complaint' of the fourth amendment must be that of a citizen, not an official.
Until I read your post I thought the biggest bunch of whiners
I can understand that, I used to 'think like you' and would have thought the same thing: That raising a fuss over a such 'little thing' as a sin tax would be laughable.
That is why I included the shoplifting example. Theft is theft. By smoking I am exercising my freedom, and the tax is stealing from me when I exercise my freedom-- it is irrelevent as to the fact I could "avoid" the sin tax by not smoking -- in the very same way a tax on 'having a baby' could be avoided -- you are INFRINGING on my freedom, you are STEALING from me.
You have lost part of your ethical compass once you accept that 'wrongs can be outweighed by other factors' or that 'the result of an overall policy justifies its pinpoint injustices'.
Justice cannot be aggregated, not 'summed', it is a discrete entity applied to a particular person at a particular moment.
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.