Tobacco and Firearms. Gifts that keep on giving to the left. (Vanity/Opinion)

Let’s use the historic fight against Big Tobacco as a backdrop for the Eric Garner case.

Many of us are familiar with the history of the left’s crusade against Big Tobacco. There were epic Congressional and Judicial battles to prove that Big Tobacco lied about the effects of cigarettes. Then followed lawsuits against Big Tobacco which extorted vast transfers of wealth from Big Tobacco to the Government. The hatred of the left to Big Tobacco compared only to the hatred of Kahn to Captain Kirk.

Let’s use the historic fight against Big Tobacco as a backdrop for the Eric Garner case.

The left has had chances to simply ban tobacco products. The most recent chance was when it controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. But why in the world would the left do something like that? Instead of banning tobacco, the left keeps using it as an excuse to issue more regulations and pass more laws. Laws to raise taxes, laws to arrest and fine people who violate the tax laws, or who sell to adults under 21, asset forfeiture laws to seize money and property from people to violate the laws, resulting in the police being converted into de facto tax collectors, and the endless public service ads and school programs to bash tobacco. The money, the retribution, and the regulations never stop, and the left loves it.

So let’s examine what happened with Eric Garner, and the left’s reaction. Garner was selling cigarettes on the streets. Gasp! Plus, he was selling cigarettes for which the prohibitive taxes hadn’t been paid. This could not be allowed to continue, thus, the police were ordered to take enforcement action, and this enforcement action was the result of the laws passed by the police hating left. Garner struggled and died as a result of the struggle. Now shouldn’t the left had been somewhat supportive of the police? Remember, this is tobacco, something the left has endlessly regulated, taxed, demonized and where possible, criminalized.

The left did something strange here. It momentarily subsumed its visceral hatred of all things tobacco and instead chose to racialize the incident, when clearly, race was not a factor.* Suddenly, the enforcement of the laws regulating tobacco were not so important. The left’s hatred of the police was more important.

So, what would the response of the left be if the following happened. Suppose a black male bought a rifle. At the time of the purchase, the rifle was legal to sell, and he could legally own it. But subsequent to his purchase, the legislature banned ownership of that particular rifle, and made it a felony to possess. Armed with a search warrant, officers arrive at the house to arrest the man and confiscate the rifle. He resists, and as a result of the resistance, he dies. Which way would the left go on this? Would it be supportive of the police because they tried to confiscate his rifle, or would they also choose to racialize it, and as with tobacco, subsume their hatred of firearms and use the death as an excuse to whip up hatred of the police some more?

*The reason for the asterisk is to point something out about this case. Garner had been arrested before for this same “crime.” Where were the race baiters then? If the police weren’t being racist before when they arrested him, why did this incident suddenly become about race? If the left genuinely cared about Garner, why weren’t race baiters confronting the police earlier?

I realize of course, that if the left could ban all firearms, it wouldn’t hesitate to do so. But for the meantime, it can use the issue, like tobacco, to regulate, confiscate, and incarcerate whenever it can.

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.