Last week I reported on the Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act in my article "First They Came For The Smokers.... President Obama signed that law today which in essence not only further vilifies smokers as the bane of society, but claims it will lower health care costs, bans tobacco brands from sponsoring sports and entertainment events and will "save the children". American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, CEO John R. Seffrin actually said it finally "put an end to Big Tobacco's despicable marketing practices".
Some things they failed to mention that the bill will do is further infringe on personal civil liberties in this country, have an impact on southern states that produce tobacco and create a further black market and crime for cigarettes as they become more expensive.
Famous Liberal Icons Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt Using Their Civil Liberties
Imagine Telling Kennedy To Stop Smoking
As I noted in my article, there were a few curious things in the bill which gave certain "classes" of people preference over others. For instance they have banned all flavored cigarettes, including things like cherry, coffee and the pretty popular clove, but allowed menthol to continue to be used in cigarettes. Menthol seems to be the major preference of black smokers (and was introduced as an exception by the Black Caucus into the bill).
Not a smoker? You should still be concerned. The government is now telling companies which flavorings they can use in products, which companies can sponsor sporting and entertainment events and which agriculture industries deserve to exist.
If you think it stops at cigarettes and tobacco then just wait a little while. They will be going after soda soon, determining that cherry Coke is too enticing for young children and is affecting their weight. Or perhaps they will go after Burgers that contain cheese because some people just like cheese a little too much and can't resist, thus putting their health at risk.
You can bet that alcohol is next on their list citing cirrhosis deaths as a reason that you can't have cherry flavored wine coolers anymore or a glass of wine after dinner. The wine coolers of course are solely aimed at children they will say. John R. Seffrin will come out demanding a law to finally put an end to "Big Alcohol's despicable marketing practices". After that will come the sugar producing agriculture industry and the oil industry. Those two are never a favorite of those who like to tell you what to do.
Well you get the point. This is a precedent law put in place in order to justify removing personal liberties based on "feel good" emotions and the false statistics used to prove them.
All you have to do is ask yourself if this law is really needed? Do we really need additional laws such as this? My conclusion is no. There are tons of things in this world that are bad for you and expecting the government to prevent you from every single thing that could harm you is ludicrous.
Our founding fathers would be disgusted at such actions. First and foremost, because they believed that the federal government should have very few laws so that all in the country know what they are. Secondly, because the pursuit of liberty and happiness includes - for some - having a cigarette after dinner, a pipe while kicking some North Korean ass or a cigar with some friends.
Maybe a soldier wants to smoke a cigarette after a tough battle. Who the hell are these people to tell them they can't?
And some people like cherries or clove and still love the children! Hell, the guy above fought for them, so get off his back.
As far as banning cigarettes - I am not against it.
Cigarettes are not a naturally occurring product like some falsely believe since other, more dangerous chemicals are mixed in to make them addictive purely for the intention of profiting off hapless addicts. Any non smoker can tell you how horrible it is to be in an enclosed space with someone smoking. Of course a smoker will not hesitate to tell me my mouth is not getting dry, my eyes are not burning, my throat is not sore and I do not reek of smoke. Oh no, that is your right under the constitution as a smoker to make others suffer. I say, good riddance cigarettes.
BTW, a soldier who never smoked will not suddenly want a smoke after a firefight and using that pic to support your right to continue an addiction was totally lame. Totally lame indeed.
Don't worry smokers, you will probably earn the right to die rather than give up your habit. And you will probably be dead from cigarette related illness long before cigs are outlawed - after all, the gov can't live without the cigarette cash cow. That is what its all about - raking in the cash while the dupes themselves fight for the right to keep right on paying it.
That being said...
I am totally against targeted taxation. It is a "divide and conquer" tactic used by the government to unfairly tax a minority that cannot defend itself because the majority does not care. What the majority doesn't seem to get is that everyone is split into many minorities in order to tax them. Targeted taxes are guaranteed income and guaranteed to last forever.
It is, in effect, taxation without representation. And yes, this tactic is used on an ever expanding list of items, all with a majority of people not caring about the minority being taxed or even supporting the targeted taxation because it is money they know they do not have to pay since they do not fall into that group. A really sinister practice when you stop and think about it.
The only way to win is to stop smoking. Then, those who would profit off your addiction and those who would unfairly target you for outrageous taxes get absolutely nothing.
In fact, all anyone has to do to stop being unfairly taxed through targeted taxation of a product is to stop buying that product until they drop the tax.
Posted by: vulcan420 on June 30, 2010 01:39 AM