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.
But what about the right of the restaurant owner to permit smoking in his establishment. Do his rights end when you walk through the door? No one is forced to enter that restaurant.
There are plenty of non-smoking establishments in and around where I live, but that's not good enough for nannies like you. I had a discussion with an anti about this some time ago.
My question was "why don't you go to XYZ restaurant, they are all non-smoking?"
Response - "I don't like the place."
Me- "Why not PDG, they're non-smoking?"
Response - "I don't like the food."
Me - "So because you don't like XYZ or PDQ, then ABC and all the rest MUST go non-smoking by government edict just to accomodate you?"
Response - "YES."
Sorry - that is not only unreasonable, it is down right childish.
Why would you consider that radical, they are half way there with smoking.
Hear hear.
PUFF
Taking your parallel one step further - I've got no idea if that wheezing inhalator wielding person has asthma or TB>
Are you aware that not only have asthma rates increased but so have TB rates.
The increase in asthma is starting to be related to the ultra-clean environment some people are choosing (anti-bacteria this and that).
Some of the TB is being related lack of air exchange in buildings and airplanes.
The incorporation of outside air into buildings and airplanes can be directly related to smoking bans. When smoking bans were instituted the airlines realized they could save fuel, thus money by cutting the rate of air exchanges per hour. The same in most modernly sealed buildings.
I'm not saying it is a "causation" but there is at least an obvious relationship.
Take a hike, pansy. But don't walk too fast, you might get sick and miss two more days of work, sissy.
Good grief! That's probably the most liberal minded post I've seen here yet. What if..... what if...... what if... Are we to legislate for every damn what if? What if the fellow driving the car crashed because he was having a nicotine fit, because "what if-ers" like you had succeeded in banning cigarettes? Under your logic, that makes you complicit in the death or property damage.
But hey, a flying corpse is funny when you think about it.
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.