October 25, 2007
At times, I have been known to take a position that seems to inflame nearly everyone from both sides of the aisle. Some lambaste me, others say I am courageous and others still cluck their tongues and ignore me, relegating me to just another kook. That is the chance we take when we see something wrong that is chipping away at our liberties and should be corrected and take a stand.
This is one of those posts and all I ask is you read it and think carefully about what you have been allowing to happen and where we are headed because of it. If you can’t, so be it.
Since the time of World War Two, a steady and persistent push has been underway to supposedly do away with a once popular product, vile as it may be. Hitler, under the auspices of his National Socialist Party, advocated banning this product and prohibited his fellow Nazi’s to ever use it in his presence. He abhorred the product. His campaign against it reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as his personal prejudices.
The product? Today’s much hated and feared Tobacco!
This will not be in defense of tobacco or its use. Although I tend to enjoy my little cigars on occasion, I agree that it does stink and is bad for ones health. But, what else have we used over the years that many today enjoy that might also be bad for ones health?
My point is that we are falling into the clutches of Socialists who mask their take over agenda with the public’s hatred and fear of tobacco and smoking it, by initiating multi-million dollar campaigns in states to ban the use of it. I don’t mean the ban of it in public buildings, which I totally agree with, but spreading the ban to privately owned businesses and even our private cars and homes.
State after state places measures funded by out of state anti-smoking groups to force private business to succumb to their agenda and even supposed conservatives fall in behind them, thinking that such nanny state steps is for the good of all. Tobacco companies are accused of targeting youthful teens to entice them to smoke to create new smokers as the old ones die.
In Washington State ads were ran showing employees in bars, restaurants and bowling alley’s having to wear gas masks to work, because of smoke. Trying to run ads for the opposition becomes ticklish as advertising tobacco on TV has been illegal for nearly three decades, which leads me to inquire, how is it tobacco companies entice kids if they may not advertise freely?
Just about everywhere these measure pass easily and a new bureaucracy ends up being created to enforce the smoking ban and accept the fines if one is caught using this still legal product, or if a private business owner allows it.
Lately, in addition to excessive taxes already on the product, proposals for increasing the taxes even more have been suggested and now, to “care for the health of the children of the working poor.” What they don’t tell you is that, according to the American Heart Association, is, “Studies show that smoking prevalence is higher among those who had earned a GED diploma (39.6 percent) and among those with 9-11 years of education (34.0 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (8.0 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (29.1 percent).”
In plain English, it is the “working poor” who purchase and use the majority of tobacco in the country. In typical Liberal ambiguity, they wish to burden the “working poor” in order to help the “working poor.”
As a side note and an example of the Liberals true desire for “helping the children,” in 2003 in Seattle, Washington, well known for it’s extreme Liberal ways, a proposed tax on designer lattes was handily defeated although taxes collected were to “pay for child care and preschool programs.”
Tax the hell out of those demonic smokers, but leave my Starbucks alone, seemed to be the message.
Also in 2003, in North Dakota, a measure was proposed to completely ban tobacco within the state. It would be a crime to sell, possess or use tobacco, which one would think would be the intent of the other measures, right? Not so fast. It too was defeated and due in large part to testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, such as the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
As one spokesperson put it, “There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented. The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.”
The truth comes out. Your health falls second to their desire for increased and steady funding. Follow the money, I was always told.
Speaking against these bans often appears futile as sheeple seem to agree that second hand smoke is killing thousands a day, even though study after study shows the opposite. Even the World Health Organization compiled a study and not liking the results, hid that one and performed another, until they received the results they desired.
Furthering their agenda, in 1995 an International treaty was proposed to bring tobacco control under the World Wide Control of the United Nations World Health Organization. WHO Tobacco Treaty includes tobacco tax and price increases, as well as “Other key technical, procedural and financial matters relating to the implementation of the treaty such as funding and financial support.”
Any guess as to just who will “fund” the bulk of “funding and financial support?” 168 nations have signed it to date, including the United States.
On the heels of all this, smoking bans are spreading to our homes, cars and even allow employers to regulate our lives off the job.
One government adviser in England proposed smokers be licensed to purchase cigarettes, another hidden tax to gouge one decreasingly small segment of our population.
If you made it this far, I suppose you are rolling your eyes and thinking how ridiculous to oppose smoking bans. No one likes smoking and it is better to just rid us of it, right? Refer back to the 2003 proposed totally banning of it in North Dakota. Look behind the effort at who opposed making tobacco illegal within the state and why.
What you might not have noticed in your eagerness to cast a vote in favor of these bans is that it isn’t only tobacco they are coming after. That is just the excuse they use to get their foot in the door. Other legal products are under fire today, products that we most all use and even enjoy.
The fast food industry has been under fire for cooking in transfats and not releasing their nutritional values of greasy hamburgers. Do you go to McDonalds for health food? I don’t.
Already, rumblings are growing that Health costs of obesity exceed smoking and drinking. Some Doctors refuse to treat patients that smoke. Will overweight people be far behind?
While we are on risky behavior, what of those that hang glide, ride motorcycles, drive high performance vehicles, bungee jump, engage in extreme sports or even homosexuals who often engage in unprotected sex? When will the slippery slope slide to them?
The Socialist believes they have all the answers and we all must live and do as they do. No deviation will be permitted. As vile and disgusting as smoking is, it is only the measure being used to get their foot in the door for regulation of our existence as they see fit.
If your state is thinking of proposing a measure to implement a smoking ban, think long and hard before casting your vote in favor. Look to others experiences and their increase in unemployment. Think about just who is funding those pet entitlement programs so many enjoy.
Above all, think about what else they will decide to take away from you and others, “for the public good” and to “keep costs down.”
You very well may be next.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
October 25, 2007
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:17 PM