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?
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?
If they live with you they already do smoke.
Nanny State Ping.
From the NYSlimes this is not surprising in the least
"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
You are and always have been, the southern end of a north-bound horse.
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?
Yeah. Who'da thunk that the Treason Times were hand-in-hand with the tobaccophobes?
Makes me want to light up another.
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!
Thank you for making my argument.
What?
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.
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.
Any bets they support First Amendment rights when it comes to marijuana legalization?
 |
| 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 |
The question is: Do you think the NY Times is hypocritical in their call for us to sign onto 'the tobacco treaty'?
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.
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.
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.