Thursday, October 25, 2007

Speaking Out For Our Liberties

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.



u∃∃l!∃ said...

The cigarette tax is already higher than the costs of the habit to society (at least this was the case some years back when I did a research paper on this for a college economics class.)

If I just want to be selfish, than I would vote in favor of an increased cigarette tax.
Since I don't buy the product, it is a tax I won't have to pay.
How often to people vote in their own best interest instead of for what they feel is "fair"?

I think that protective masks are a good solution to the argument that allowing smoking in bars is to protect the employees.

I do have issues with people who sit with their Children in the smoking section. I think that any area where children are allowed should be no-smoking.

LewWaters said...

Coboble, the point is that our liberties are gradually being stripped away, with our permission because some don’t like something.

Who are any of us to say what someone else must do with his or her children? If you have any (I don’t know), do you want others mandating what you may or may not do with them? Would you like to be turned into CPS, possibly lose your child and incur unreasonable fines and court costs and be monitored by the courts because you took your child to a McDonald’s and someone saw you? Or, because they are a little overweight?

As Obesity Fight Hits Cafeteria, Many Fear a Note From School

Do you desire for the state to begin mandating what you or your child may wear, look like or do? That is where it is all heading.

Did you know that when Washington State passed Initiative 901, our smoking ban, that some 80% of businesses targeted were already smoke free? Do we really want that much state control instead of being responsible for ourselves?

You see, Coboble, you fell into the same trap they have laid out for everybody. Smoking is the tool being used to slowly take control of our lives away from us and give it to the Central Government, pure Soviet Communism.

Just look around you and see what other “great ideas” government has come up with to make things better for all. Of course, you may lose your liberty and have to forfeit more of your hard earned paycheck, but just think how much better off someone else will be.

Non-smokers aren’t forced to work in smoking establishments. Wait staff is a high turn over field and with 80% of he establishments deciding for themselves to be smoke free, which is their right by the way, smoke free jobs should be easy to find.

With the rate that some Bingo parlors, bars and small restaurants have gone under since I-901, including some that funded orphanages, non-smoking employees can now enjoy a smoke free environment, in the unemployment line.

But, the bottom line is government control over our lives and smoking provides a great avenue for them to sneak in and grab that control away from us.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Do you think that people should be able to raise their children any way they want?

Not all parents are good parents.

Are you for keeping Government completely out, or is it more about where the line should be, between Parents rights, and Societies obligation to protect its youngest citizens.
Should we abolish the Child Protection Services all together.

I am fine with private establishments allowing smoking and setting up smoking sections, that are properly ventilated, and adult only.

Unlike obesity, smoking is not a contained habit. When smoking in an enclosed area, it potentially effects the health of everyone in that space.

LewWaters said...

Coboble, if we allow anyone in government to mandate how children are to be raised, no matter where that line may be drawn, it will be crossed eventually and interference begins. We could see restrictions on religion. Don’t laugh, in some ways schools are already undermining families (I endured this first hand with a step family a few years ago).

Of course, obvious abuse needs addressed and punished, such as punching or kicking a child, but groups like CPS already interfere way too much. For example, I have a letter written to me warning me of listening to music of my choice in my own home, accusing me of playing music derogatory to women, although no one from CPS ever reviewed my music collection from the 1930’s to the 1070’s.

I would prefer to see families stepping in instead of government’s ever growing blanket solutions that do not work. As for CPS, from my own personal experience’s, I have absolutely no use for them!

As far as smoking sections go, I’d prefer business be given the right to choose to be either non-smoking or smoking and clearly marked, informing potential patrons of such.

Personally, I have no problem with obese people. I dislike the concept of government mandating what foods or liquids we may drink or feed our children. I also see a slippery slope back to the Nazi’s in creating people they deem proper and eventually could lead to exterminations, as was once done, for those that don’t measure up.

But you see, the whole point of this is what else they have begun to demonize and try to control ever since they got through the smoking bans in private business. They have their foot in the door and are ever so slowly taking liberty away from us all and telling us it is for our own good.

First they took common sense away, or should I say, de-educated it out of the people, then replaced that with government rules and suggestions.

May I suggest you research the Bolsheviks that unseated Russia’s Czar and set up the Soviet Union and their actions and antics from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The similarities are frightening, as are the early days of Hitler’s Nazi’s.

In closing, if Society has an obligation to protect its youngest citizens, how does society then condone and allow abortions of convenience? It doesn’t add up to me.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Interesting you should bring up abortion, because I almost did,

I was going to ask you how you could be in favor of protecting the children up to the point they were born, and then not protecting them after they were born.
But since you are not advocating it be legal to kill children, I felt that comparison was a real stretch.

The Nazis wanted a strong army.
In terms of national defense an unhealthy population is a threat.
A huge health problem is what foods the government subsidizes and what companies profit the most from.
I think that we would cut down significantly on obesity if the government stopped subsidizing corn syrup.
Perhaps they should stop subsidizing tobacco as well (they do subsidize tobacco, don't they?)

LewWaters said...

Last I heard, Coboble, yes they still subsidize tobacco as well as many other products. Just so you know, I disagree with government subsidies even if I understand why they subsidize certain products.

The correlation to the Nazis goes beyond just wanting a strong Army. They wanted a race of super humans that met their Aryan specifics. Even the strong were ‘liquidated’ should their political views disagree with the state. The Jews were the main target with Slavs, Homosexuals and even Jehovah’s Witnesses following.

A lot of their ‘putsch’ against smoking was Hitler’s personal preference, he a ‘reformed smoker’ himself.

As for foods, yes many we eat aren’t good for us, or so we are told today and tomorrow we are told different. We were once told how bad caffeine was for us. Then it was good for us and now, it’s going back to bad for us. Yet, who is proposing a ban on Starbucks?

What about perfumes and colognes? Some people bathe in them and I gag when I get near them. Why aren’t they forced to stop wearing them? Why only smoking, for now?

And again, it is very difficult to argue with what happened in North Dakota with the anti-tobacco groups being the ones opposing a total ban on the sale and use of tobacco in the state. Isn’t that their claimed desire, to end smoking?

Like I said, give government an inch and they will grab a mile. We see this throughout and so many today just fall in line falsely believing they are bettering the world when they are actually giving up the very liberties our ancestor fought and died for.

For some time now we are also being told of the looming water crisis before us. Just think what that crisis will lead to.

Smoking bans are just the beginning of a totalitarian Socialist state where government tells us when we may see doctors and what healthcare we may receive, what clothes to wear, what foods to eat, what our living quarters will be, determined by them and down to what we may drive. In the meantime, they don’t give up their luxuries they tell us we have to, do they?

The Truth Surge said...

i just wanted you to know that there is now a graphic to go with the Truth Surge blogroll. You can snag it from our site or email me and Ill send you the code.

witchywoman said...

Nazi rule?
It just amazes me to no end how much leeway these activist groups are gaining a hold of American peoples thoughts.
To tax smokers to gain health care for children??? That is just ludicrous!!
Why are smokers being singled out as a group to be discriminated against??? More important to someone like myself, why is it even being allowed to happen? This is a lifestyle of choice. A choice as an adult we as Americans can choose or not choose to make. Much like any and all other lifestyle choices.
Now, to enter into this equation and say that someone else has the right to tell me what to do and what not to do? Makes my blood boil. NOT ONE PERSON IN AMERICA HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT MY RIGHTS ARE. To tax me for smoking? That is unconstitutional.
We are getting closer and closer to Socialism every day, it is truely a sad thing to see. I fear that Communism is right around the corner.

jimi hendrix said...

ok smoking causes illness and death so ban it, alchohol causes illness and death so ban it, meat causes illness and death so ban it, water causes illness and death so ban it, the sun causes illness and death so ban going outside during the daytime, guns cause injury and death so ban them, cars cause injury and death so ban them, birth is the biggest cause of illness injury and death so ban it. i could keep going but i think my point has been made