Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Times' Curbs Its First Amendment Enthusiasm When It Comes to Tobacco
New York Times/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

Posted on 07/23/2006 3:57:51 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest

by Mark Finkelstein

July 23, 2006 - 06:47

Don't the press in general and the New York Times in particular take pride in portraying themselves as ever-the vigilant defenders of the First Amendment? But judging by an editorial in the paper this morning, the Times experiences a power loss worse than the one currently gripping Queens when it comes to defending the First Amendment rights of groups it disfavors, in this case the tobacco industry.

Entitled Take the Tobacco Pledge, the editorial urges ratification of The World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, known colloquially as 'the tobacco treaty.' Here's how the Times describes its provisions:

"Countries that ratify the treaty promise to limit or ban tobacco advertising, promotion and event sponsorship; raise cigarette taxes; enlarge warning labels on cigarette packs; move toward ending smoking in public places; crack down on tobacco smuggling; and make it more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking."

Raising taxes is a no-brainer for the liberals of the Times. But limiting or banning advertising? Isn't that an infringement of First Amendment free speech rights? And making it "more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking" - isn't that a restriction of the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances?

How would the Times feel about a treaty that would restrict the ability of newspapers to advertize and make it more difficult for newspapers to influence legislation that concerns the press? What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: bilofrights; constitutionlist; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; nytimes; pufflist; smoking; tobaccoindustry; treasontimes; treaties; un; who
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2006 3:57:53 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Behind Liberal Lines; Miss Marple; an amused spectator; netmilsmom; Diogenesis; YaYa123; MEG33; ...

NY Times/NewsBusters hypocrisy-ping to Today show list.


2 posted on 07/23/2006 3:58:49 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show Since 2002 So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Common Sense BTTT. I smoke, but I hope my children don't.


3 posted on 07/23/2006 4:01:19 AM PDT by Prodn2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

"What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others?"

I have several names for them - the press, Liberals, Democrats. All three groups only believe in free speech only if they are the ones behind the podium. If, on the other hand, the person behind the podium isn't one of their own, they firmly believe in the "right to protest."


4 posted on 07/23/2006 4:02:03 AM PDT by onevoter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

I do, and I suspect that we all, curb our personal 1A. I seldom address or attend topics such as minorities or personal adornment or entertainment. It would be nice to be tyrant and demand the media address news only.


5 posted on 07/23/2006 4:14:44 AM PDT by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
... crack down on tobacco smuggling; ...

Interesting how they slipped that one in there. The World Health Organization is now concerning itself with "cracking down" on tobacco smuggling?

6 posted on 07/23/2006 4:16:19 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander

They're joining the national "progressive" revival of Prohibition, taking an emminently taxable legitimate industry and converting it into an underground one which costs taxdollars to suppress.

Love my home manufactured smokes and you will too!


7 posted on 07/23/2006 4:24:20 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (WARNING: Alcohol may cause you to think you are whispering when you are definitely not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NaughtiusMaximus

Insightful take, IMHO!


8 posted on 07/23/2006 4:26:31 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (Watching the Today Show Since 2002 So You Don't Have To.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"Countries that ratify the treaty promise to limit or ban tobacco advertising, promotion and event sponsorship; raise cigarette taxes; enlarge warning labels on cigarette packs; move toward ending smoking in public places; crack down on tobacco smuggling; and make it more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking."

Ah, did they forget public flogging and being put in stocks for those of us who indulge in this LEGAL activity?

As usual, the zealots and anit-tobacco Nazis, stop short of calling for a complete ban on tobacco products and making the cultivation, sale and use thereof, ILLEGAL!

Much as the hypocritical, zany, prejudicial, SpurGeon General, NO ONE dares suggest such a course of action.

God, I wish there was one Rep or Senator who had the cajones to introduce such legislation so we could all see the hypocrisy of these nanny-state, doo doo gooders, as they ran for cover and came up with every excuse in the book for avoiding any such proposed legislation.

If it is such an evil, "killer of all who even breathe an infinitesimal amount of second-hand smoke," then why NOT simply ban it. Period?

Of course, rhetorically, I submit, its because (a) Its a cash cow which is used to fill the coffers of both Fed and State guvmints and (b) we smokers are relegated to second class status due to our indulgence and NO ONE dares come to our defense.

Please, no dissertations on this nasty, smelly, obnoxious, expensive habits, as we smokers are only too well aware of all consequences of our actions.

Nevertheless, enough is enough.

Either make this product Illegal, or give us a break; some space and we will (as is usually the case in most instances) bend over backwards not to intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto.

Oh yes, and for those of you who cannot "feel our pain," yet enjoy indulging in the occasional Twinkie, crispy creme donut, big Mac & fries, super size coke, etc., just wait, it won't be long. Your turn is coming. Your are in "their" sights and it won't be long till you will know what it feels like.

9 posted on 07/23/2006 4:42:06 AM PDT by seasoned traditionalist (ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, ARE MUSLIMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
But limiting or banning advertising? Isn't that an infringement of First Amendment free speech rights?

It already is, this just gives them level field.

10 posted on 07/23/2006 4:43:32 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

The real question is why did they need to publish this anyways. Bush's Surgeon General just came out with a scathing report on SHS which will be used as fuel for the fire for thje rapidly growing smoking bans and tax increases. Nothing in this proposal isn't being done right now.


11 posted on 07/23/2006 4:46:17 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist
or give us a break; some space and we will (as is usually the case in most instances) bend over backwards not to intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto.

If smokers did bend over backwards they populace would not be eager to join those who want to impose social engineering on smokers habits. The facts are that the social engineer's are a small but vocal minority who could not ban twinkee's with support of the larger majority. On the smoking issue they get this majority because most people have been subjected to smokers who "intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto."

If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.

As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.

12 posted on 07/23/2006 4:56:25 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Corrected version:

If smokers did bend over backwards the populace would not be eager to join those who want to impose social engineering on smokers habits. The facts are that the social engineer's are a small but vocal minority who could not ban twinkee's without the support of the larger majority.

On the smoking issue, they get this majority because most people have been subjected to smokers who "intentionally offend the sensitivities of all non-smokers and their aversions thereto."

If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.

As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.


13 posted on 07/23/2006 4:59:45 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist

I agree. It's a different feeling when the formerly virtuous become the goats. (And their time will come.)


14 posted on 07/23/2006 5:14:35 AM PDT by NaughtiusMaximus (WARNING: Alcohol may cause you to think you are whispering when you are definitely not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
If smokers truly acted as you say, these bans would be a non-issue.

Oh give me a break, pleeeeeeze!

If you really believe this spurious, nonsensical, diatribe you are espousing (that the reason for the attacks on smokers/second-hand smoke and the continual increase in taxes)is due to "our" INTENTIONAL abuses and complete disregard for the sensitivities of others (read: "we go around and blow smoke in people's faces") then you, my good man, need counseling and therapy, NOW!!!

As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to.

So, when are you and others, going to cut your driving in half? Or don't you complain about the high cost of gas--which is mostly related to the high Fed and State Taxes?

Sure, we could cut our taxes COMPLETELY, by all of us quiting tomorrow and then I would gleefully like to see those like yourself, SQUEAL loudly as you were forced to make up the lost revenues by an increase in YOUR personal taxes.

As outlined in my Post, those like yourself are quick to criticize us and admonish us and suggest that we cut back or quit, but YOUSE guys/gals, NEVER come out for an outright ban on all tobacco products.

Why is that Ray, Mr. CPA?

15 posted on 07/23/2006 5:19:19 AM PDT by seasoned traditionalist (ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, ARE MUSLIMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SheLion; Gabz; Mears

First ping of the week.


16 posted on 07/23/2006 5:20:51 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist
As outlined in my Post, those like yourself are quick to criticize us and admonish us and suggest that we cut back or quit, but YOUSE guys/gals, NEVER come out for an outright ban on all tobacco products.

Freon was banned by increasing the tax on it and limiting its use. Cigarettes are following the same path. As long as smokers keep paying it, the taxes will increase.

As for why these bans are taking place, you are in denial if you think its fear of being exposed to SHS or that 60 to 70% of the population supporting it want to control what you breathe or eat. The simple but unstated fact is they don't like the smell. They prefer to have dinner without smoke.

It would not have been an issue if smokers adopted the posture and politeness that is offered by pipe and cigar smokers. These smokers have traditionally been very polite in their smoking. On the other hand cig smokers could care less if the other person near them is bothered. In fact many smokers think the nonsmoker is just being a baby about the smoke and those who claim allergies are just pretending or psychologically disturbed.

Some smokers are so militant or addicted they subject their kids to smoke in close spaces. These folks go beyond rude and border on abuse. If they can't even have the decency to refrain from smoking around thier own children, who would expect they have the deceny to respect others without being forced ?

17 posted on 07/23/2006 5:32:31 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NaughtiusMaximus; Raycpa; All
"I agree. It's a different feeling when the formerly virtuous become the goats. (And their time will come."

Absolutely

There are those "enlightened ones," like Ray, Mr. CPA, who discount even the possibility of the Nanny-State Doogooders taking up the next cause celebre in order to control our lives and micro manage our existence (all the while, trying to relegate the rest of us to the same baneful, miserable state of existence these useless excuses for human beings exists, under) by taxing and attacking food products "They" believe are unhealthy and "could" cause medical problems.

This is so, even though, this in fact, has been ongoing for some time, now, and the situation will only be exacerbated as long as no one resists.

Not to insult anyone, but just as us smokers are looked down upon and most of us are wont to complain because we are aware of our nasty habits, many of those who could be considered "PLUS SIZES" are also demeaned and they as well, are made to feel like second-class citizens and guilty as well for their conditions.

It is not so much about the nasty smoke or the extra lbs., people carry, its about "Power and Control," (the favorite pastimes of LIBS) over our lives, and if those like Mr. Ray cannot distinguish and accept that fact, then he probably is one himself.

18 posted on 07/23/2006 5:32:54 AM PDT by seasoned traditionalist (ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, ARE MUSLIMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Well, Mr. Ray, you make my point once again

Ranting and raving about us smokers, etc., etc., etc., yet again, in several par graphs, I DON'T SEE YOU COMING OUT AND SUPPORTING A COMPLETE BAN OF ALL TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

Why is that Mr. Ray?

Ill tell you why.

Its pure, unadulterated, Liberal-like, BS and major hypocrisy one your part, if you ask me.

19 posted on 07/23/2006 5:37:18 AM PDT by seasoned traditionalist (ALL MUSLIMS ARE NOT TERRORISTS, BUT ALL TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY, ARE MUSLIMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist
There are those "enlightened ones," like Ray, Mr. CPA, who discount even the possibility of the Nanny-State Doogooders

I don't discount the possibility they want to. In fact they are trying right now. I discount the possibility they will get the kind of support they have gotten on the smoking issue. On this issue they garner huge majority support because every nonsmoker has been subjected to having to deal with SHS from an obnoxious or oblivious smoker.

On fatty foods, it would be pretty tough to garner the same support because most people are not made uncomfortable by the person at the next table eating a Big Mac.

20 posted on 07/23/2006 5:37:51 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist
I DON'T SEE YOU COMING OUT AND SUPPORTING A COMPLETE BAN OF ALL TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

Why should I? If you refrain from smoking in public, I would have no interest in banning this. Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?

21 posted on 07/23/2006 5:40:36 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Prodn2000
"I smoke, but I hope my children don't."

If they live with you they already do smoke.

22 posted on 07/23/2006 5:45:36 AM PDT by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest; Just another Joe; CSM; lockjaw02; Publius6961; elkfersupper; nopardons; ...

Nanny State Ping.


From the NYSlimes this is not surprising in the least


23 posted on 07/23/2006 5:46:55 AM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"As for the taxes, smokers are an easy target because they are addicted and do not reduce their consumption when the tax is increased. They can always cut their tax in half but they choose not to."
WTF does this mean? It's OK to tax smokers inordinatly but how can they cut thier taxes in half if they are "addicted"?
Please expain!
BTW I wonder if anyone could open up a class action lawsuit against Hollywood for "glorifying" smoking and smokers that got me "addicted" when I was very young (about 35-40 years ago).
That would be the liberal solution if any out there still smoked, but, being a strong beleiver in personal responsibility, I would not go that route.
The vicious attack on smokers and smoking have only made it harder to quit something that deep down inside I know is not good for me, but,(there I go again) being fed up with someone trying to tell me what to do and how to live My life, I still smoke.
AND, I am very curtious when lighting up sitting next to someone in a smoking environment, I always ask if it would bother them if I smoked! I have yet to get a "yes" answer! I think if I did I fantisize about saying to them "Then GTF out of the area then!" No not really, I would move if I really wanted to smoke or refrain from lighting up.
JMHO
"Seasoned" rereading the post after the time it took to type this , Thanks, you put it much more elegantly and faster than I could.
And another thing, "Youse" is in the colloquial domain of people from the "World Champion Pittsburgh Steelers" so don't youse use youse if not entitled... Please


24 posted on 07/23/2006 5:48:38 AM PDT by jburkovi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

You are and always have been, the southern end of a north-bound horse.


25 posted on 07/23/2006 5:52:13 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jburkovi
WTF does this mean? It's OK to tax smokers inordinatly but how can they cut thier taxes in half if they are "addicted"? Please expain!

Simply explaing the law of supply and demand. Want lower taxes, reduce consumption.

The vicious attack on smokers and smoking have only made it harder to quit something that deep down inside I know is not good for me, but,(there I go again) being fed up with someone trying to tell me what to do and how to live My life, I still smoke.

Spoken like a true addict. It is always someone else's fault they have to continue in their behavior.

I always ask if it would bother them if I smoked! I have yet to get a "yes" answer! I

Do you even ask people 20 feet away?

26 posted on 07/23/2006 5:54:00 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Yeah. Who'da thunk that the Treason Times were hand-in-hand with the tobaccophobes?

Makes me want to light up another.


27 posted on 07/23/2006 5:54:34 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jburkovi

I'm sorry about the "youse" comment. I don't know what I was thinking! It must have been to many smokes! "Yunz" is in the domain!


28 posted on 07/23/2006 5:56:52 AM PDT by jburkovi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
WTF does this mean? It's OK to tax smokers inordinatly but how can they cut thier taxes in half if they are "addicted"? Please expain!

Simply explaing the law of supply and demand. Want lower taxes, reduce consumption. Where did you go to learn the law of supply and demand? Typical lib.
And your a CPA?
The vicious attack on smokers and smoking have only made it harder to quit something that deep down inside I know is not good for me, but,(there I go again) being fed up with someone trying to tell me what to do and how to live My life, I still smoke.

Spoken like a true addict. It is always someone else's fault they have to continue in their behavior. Yes! It's Hollywood's fault! Did you even read my post? Typical lib.

I always ask if it would bother them if I smoked! I have yet to get a "yes" answer! I

Do you even ask people 20 feet away? Why should I ask people 20 feet away if I'm in a smoking environment! Typical lib.
29 posted on 07/23/2006 6:10:15 AM PDT by jburkovi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
30 posted on 07/23/2006 6:12:58 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jburkovi
Why should I ask people 20 feet away if I'm in a smoking environment!

Thank you for making my argument.

31 posted on 07/23/2006 6:16:18 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

What?


32 posted on 07/23/2006 6:22:49 AM PDT by jburkovi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
If you refrain from smoking in public, I would have no interest in banning this.

First, it was confining smokers to the backs of airplanes, then outright smoking bans. Then it was smoking sections in restaurants, then outright bans. In some places one cannot smoke on the beaches, or in parks. To a vigilante like yourself, every place is "public" there are no private places. You see smoking sections in bars and restaurants as hedonistic dens you are going to eliminate.

As a CPA I'm sure you've checked where the tobacco settlement money has gone, and it hasn't been to health care. The monies have been used as surety for roads, bridges and other public facilities. Woe be the states who are counting on this money coming in year after year after year. I sometimes wish cigarette sales would be banned, just to see how loudly the non-smokers scream as their taxes sky-rocket to pay for the facilities smokers are now funding. Our largess is funding many things but I'm confident that the nannies will be coming after something you enjoy soon. Expect no sympathy from us.

33 posted on 07/23/2006 6:25:18 AM PDT by LSAggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
On this issue they garner huge majority support because every nonsmoker has been subjected to having to deal with SHS

Where are you getting your information. Where did you come up with this elusive "huge majority support" nonsense? How was it measured and by whom?

On fatty foods, it would be pretty tough to garner the same support

You cannot be that naive. The smoke nazis did not have the alleged "support" when they began their campaign. The alleged "support" was garnered via a propaganda campaign over a few decades.

Watch carefully as the same type of propaganda campaign has begun in earnest regarding alleged fatty foods.

I suggest you curl up with a good book.
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

34 posted on 07/23/2006 6:31:21 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! www.irey.com and www.vets4Irey.com - Now more than Ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Any bets they support First Amendment rights when it comes to marijuana legalization?


35 posted on 07/23/2006 6:34:35 AM PDT by DakotaRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
What do you call people who sanctimonously cloak themselves in the banner of the Bill of Rights when it comes to defending their own interests, but would deny those same rights to others?
 

Liberals

 

36 posted on 07/23/2006 6:35:42 AM PDT by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSAggie
The monies have been used as surety for roads, bridges and other public facilities.

Don't forget the arts and cultural organizations that they want us to pay for, too.
If we have to fund all this crap, we should then be able to smoke in the theaters, libraries and such. It's only fair, right?
37 posted on 07/23/2006 6:37:04 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Raising taxes is a no-brainer for the liberals of the Times. But limiting or banning advertising? Isn't that an infringement of First Amendment free speech rights? And making it "more difficult for tobacco companies to influence legislation on smoking" - isn't that a restriction of the First Amendment right to petition the government for the redress of grievances?

The question is: Do you think the NY Times is hypocritical in their call for us to sign onto 'the tobacco treaty'?

38 posted on 07/23/2006 6:37:44 AM PDT by demkicker (democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: seasoned traditionalist; Raycpa
Sure, we could cut our taxes COMPLETELY, by all of us quiting tomorrow and then I would gleefully like to see those like yourself, SQUEAL loudly as you were forced to make up the lost revenues by an increase in YOUR personal taxes.

You have a nice little point buried in here, seasoned. The goobermint has made the tax grab on tobacco, and even if tobacco disappeared from the planet tomorrow, the tobacco tax would continue on in some form or another - much like the phone tax from the Spanish American war.

39 posted on 07/23/2006 6:53:02 AM PDT by an amused spectator (Bush Runner! The Donkey is after you! Bush Runner! When he catches you, you're through!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg

What a way to start the week........thankfully I've already had my coffee. I think I'll just get out the popcorn and chuckle as the resident moonbats crawl out from their hideyholes to agree with the NYSlimes.


40 posted on 07/23/2006 6:58:41 AM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody; Cantiloper

Excellent book!!!!! My copy is well worn....and I think it's tie to pull it off the shelf and reread it!

Have you read "Dissecting Antismokers Brains" by Michael McFadden? Excellently researched work by an infrequent poster, but fellow FReeper. I'll see if I can hunt up the website for you.


41 posted on 07/23/2006 7:08:20 AM PDT by Gabz (Taxaholism, the disease you elect to have (TY xcamel))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
Here in Missouri, the anti-smoking nazis are going for an 80 cent a pack tax on cigarettes to fund non-profits who goal is to stop smoking!! Methinks there are a bunch of people whose children have worthless sociology degrees and need a job, and who better to fund it than the smokers.

Re: your tagline. I've been making ours for about a year, should have started much sooner. Better tobacco, less cost. I hate to keep having it pointed out though because it's a situation that state and federal legislators can "fix" easily enough.
42 posted on 07/23/2006 7:39:38 AM PDT by LSAggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Freon was banned by increasing the tax on it and limiting its use

Freon isn't banned, DuPont's patent on R-19 expired and coincindentially the Gov't mandated a change to R134 for "environmental reasons".

Stioll ots and lots of freon out there, especially in larger chillers; R-19 was a consumer product. Nice try, though.

43 posted on 07/23/2006 7:59:25 AM PDT by par4 (If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LSAggie

Dig up the names of the leaders of those, "Nonprofit," groups wanting $$$ from smokers. You might find that they're all, ALL democrat contributers.

Stephanie Steinberg, chairwoman of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado, for example:

STEINBERG, STEPHANIE M
DENVER, CO 80202
COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER
STRICKLAND, THOMAS LEE
VIA STRICKLAND FOR COLORADO INC
10/19/2002 500.00 22020970584

STEINBERG, STEPHANIE M
DENVER, CO 80202
COLORADO SENATE 2002
03/06/2002 1000.00

STEINBERG, STEPHANIE M
DENVER, CO 80202
STRICKLAND, THOMAS LEE
VIA STRICKLAND FOR COLORADO INC
03/11/2002 1000.00

ALL democrat ALL the time.


44 posted on 07/23/2006 8:00:43 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"Bush's Surgeon General just came out with a scathing report on SHS which will be used as fuel for the fire for thje rapidly growing smoking bans and tax increases. Nothing in this proposal isn't being done right now."

Ah, the fabled man behind the curtain speaks.

We all know he the words he speaks are absolute truths.

Say it with me RAYMAN, I BEEEEEEEEELLLIIVEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Hey, post some cartoons for me. I have yet to have a good laugh today.


45 posted on 07/23/2006 8:29:27 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg


"Makes me want to light up another."

I just did.


46 posted on 07/23/2006 8:33:51 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"These folks go beyond rude and border on abuse"

You got that right! That description fits the IRS to tee!


47 posted on 07/23/2006 8:36:03 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"Freon was banned by increasing the tax on it and limiting its use"

Wow. Your car must have the world's first hypo-non-froenic-air-conditioner.
I haven't ran across one yet in the shop. I'm glad you mentioned it, as I can now get rid of all my AC equipment.


48 posted on 07/23/2006 8:39:10 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"On fatty foods, it would be pretty tough to garner the same support because most people are not made uncomfortable by the person at the next table eating a Big Mac."

Wow. You need to come out from under that large pile of schedule C's and read more on this forum.

The assualt on food is well under way.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1648884/posts

And if you'd bother to look, ther's more.


49 posted on 07/23/2006 8:45:24 AM PDT by 383rr (Those who choose security over liberty deserve neither- GUN CONTROL=SLAVERY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks for the ping!


50 posted on 07/23/2006 8:47:30 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson