Smoke Nazis Strike Again: "Insider" Jeffrey Wigand Continues His Assault on Individual Liberty

The Boston Globe ^ | July 5, 2003 | Jennifer Graham

[suspects]

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- Jeffrey Wigand, not surprisingly, confiscates cigarettes.

The famed tobacco whistle-blower detects a whiff of smoke on a visiting photographer and holds out his hand. He gets them, a pack of Salems. They are ''a donation,'' destined for the trash can in Wigand's oceanfront condominium.

[miss marmelstein]

How 'bout privately-owned institutions, like here in NYC?

[Freedom4US]

I think it's a baby-boomer thing. They figure if they eat tofu, quit smoking, drinking, work out, and vote for hard-core leftys and socialists, they'll never die. I'm only half kidding.

[PistolPaknMama]

What's important, Wigand said, is ''what you do with what you know inflicting your belief on everybody else.

''I have a unique knowledge set I know more than most anybody else, and with that knowledge comes duty,'' he said. ''I know I've lived my life with integrity smoking without government interference, but now that I hate tobacco, everyone else should be just like me. I think history will treat me right.'' [Yea whatever, Bill Clinton said the same thing. It a famous last line for liberals who are full of themselves.]

Y'all aren't gonna believe this, but I look up "arrogrance" in the dictionary and it said see also: Wigand, Jeffrey.

[qam1]

I think it's a baby-boomer thing. They figure if they eat tofu, quit smoking, drinking, work out, and vote for hard-core leftys and socialists, they'll never die. I'm only half kidding.

Yeah it's a baby boomer thing, These were the same people who tuned in, turned on and dropped out.

But Now - They are to old to have any fun. So of course they must make sure everybody else doesn't have any.

I am only 1/10th kidding.

[Old Professer]

''He's right: You smoke, you die. That's pretty simple,'' Todd said. ''He doesn't see anything in gray; he sees everything in black and white. If this thing passes, he will totally be the reason why.''

Wigand, too will die; my wife's cousin never smoked a single cigarette or a single cigar nor did he drink beer, whiskey or wine.

He worked hard all of his 45 years and just laid down one day and died.

Don't these people understand that life is a zero-sum game?

[Old Professer]

When 4 wolves and 3 sheep sit down to discuss dinner, what do you suppose is on the menu?

[Old Professer]

Anybody who smokes cough-drops is suspect in my book to start with.

[Freedom4US]

But Now - They are to old to have any fun. So of course they must make sure everybody else doesn't have any.

You know, I think you're on to something there...

[VetsRule]

When 4 wolves and 3 sheep sit down to discuss dinner, what do you suppose is on the menu?

Is this a "tyranny of the majority" thing now? Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't protect smokers, the freedom of smokers to smoke in public places arguably ends right at the next person's nostrils (it's certainly just as valid an argument, if not more so, than the suggestion that there is some kind of unfettered right to smoke anywhere), and smokers have plenty of other alternatives to exercise their freedom to smoke in private.

VR

[Liberal Classic]

The Constitution ostensibly protects property rights and restaurants and bars are private establishments. I have no problem with the government prohibiting smoking in official buildings, nor do I have a problem with a business prohibiting smoking in its factory or offices. But someone's right to not smell smoke ends when he enters a privately owned restaurant or bar who allows it.

[VetsRule]

State and local governments have the power to regulate activity even inside of private businesses. Those same bars need to obtain liquor licenses from most if not all states of the Union. The concept is the same. So long as there is a rational basis for the law, and so long as no protected classes or federal issues are implicated, state and local governments can enact laws regulating smoking.

In my view, anyway.

VR

[Gabz]

I understand your point regarding licensing.

So why not have a license to permit smoking, just as there is one for serving alcohol???

That seems like a no-brainer to me.

[jimt]

''He's right: You smoke, you die. That's pretty simple,'' Todd said.

It's also demonstrably false. Smoking increases your chances of developing certain heart and/or lung diseases. It doesn't guarantee you'll develop them.

It's also a misdirected argument - a straw man. There are NO valid studies which prove secondhand smoke is harmful. There are plenty that say it isn't. And that's what this supposed ordinance addresses.

It addresses it on the basis of hysteria, junk science, lies, and contempt for property rights.

Fork the smoking nazis.

[jimt]

State and local governments have the power to regulate activity even inside of private businesses. Those same bars need to obtain liquor licenses from most if not all states of the Union. The concept is the same. So long as there is a rational basis for the law, and so long as no protected classes or federal issues are implicated, state and local governments can enact laws regulating smoking.

And they exercise that power way too many times, under false guises. There are no valid studies that indicate smoking is anything more than annoying to the anti-smoking crowd. Does the Constitution include a right not to be annoyed ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY? I don't think so. And if it does, I want a law passed that every Mrs. Grundy who wants to mind everyone elses' business be summarily stripped of citizenship, all assets forfeited, and be deported to France or Germany or whatever socialist utopia will have them - on the basis that they're annoying as all get-out.

There is no rational basis for the law - and even if there were it should not override property rights.

[Gabz]

It addresses it on the basis of hysteria, junk science, lies, and contempt for property rights.

give the man a CEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGAR!!!

You have it exactly correct.