March 02, 2007
I AIN'T making any comparisons; I'm just saying that this quote is certainly...interesting.
There are certainly many people who want to ban smoking in the Waffle House. And I suppose it makes no difference to observe that these people don't own a Waffle House.
But hear me out before you continue reading: I AM NOT---CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY---MAKING ANY ALLUSIONS, COMPARISONS, SIMILES, METAPHORS---INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY; NO, NOR ANYTHING OF THE SORT BY CITING THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION. (*This has been your notice of disclaimer.)
I AM, however, raising my eyebrows and muttering "hmmmm...."
"Hitler was also a dedicated non-smoker and promoted aggressive anti-smoking campaigns throughout Germany." (Found on Wikipedia here; Bound source: John Toland, Adolf Hitler, p. 741; Emphasis Mine.)
There is always civil disobedience, of course. I have already written about that. (At the bottom of the post.) Heck, even Hitler's "officers, aides, and secretaries" defied the silliness he aggressively promoted. But it was only after the rule was no longer an issue.
"Several witness accounts relate that, immediately after his suicide was confirmed, many officers, aides, and secretaries in the Führerbunker lit cigarettes." (IBID; Emphasis Mine.)
Like I said. I ain't making any comparisons, and you can draw your own conclusions. But those lines sure as heck got me thinking.
Posted by Carl at 10:31 PM | TrackBack
February 21, 2007
Keith Ellison and Tobacco.
As if Keith Ellison wasn't absurd enough, there's this. (Found in this post here.)
"Rep. Tom Tancredo supported freshman Rep. Keith Ellison's controversial swearing-in on the Quran, but when the Colorado Republican wanted to relax in his office with a cigar, the Muslim Democrat's office called in the cops." (Emphasis mine; Story link.)
I suppose that we shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Ellison would do this, given his past antics. But what did surprise me was this next statement.
"The officer said the visit was a formality – he already had told Ellison that Tancredo was allowed to smoke in his office, The Hill reported." (Emphasis mine; IBID.)
So in this whole tobacco debate, it boils down to this. Legislators make laws against smoking in public buildings and restaurants--'cause smoking sends the wrong message; Legislators tax cigarettes and use the money for educating children--'cause using cigarette money sends the right message, I suppose; but then Legislators are given immunity to smoke wherever the heck they want.**
That seems fair, don't it?
** It is immaterial to the argument that I am making for anyone to observe that, perhaps, Rep. Tancredo did not vote for smoking restrictions. So please, don't write me letters about it.
Posted by Carl at 11:36 PM | TrackBack
February 20, 2007
Watch out Fat people: YOU ARE NEXT.
It is clear that "Smoking cigarettes is the number one cause of PREVENTABLE death in America." (Quoted from here, who cited this site.) And although one might be disposed to argue that death is in no way preventable, I shall not.
It is also quite clear that Cigarette taxes [are] on the way. Similarly, one might argue that since the TN Legislature proposed "more than 4,600 new laws", any number of new taxes--or laws, for that matter--might be on their way in.
The point of this entry, however, is quite simple. Smoking is the leading "preventable cause" of death. This being so, the Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, and our Governor in his, are seeking to ban smoking. (Uh course, they ain't no reason not to raise the price of cigarettes, and then use it fer schools. That makes dang'd near perfect sense!)
But following the logic employed by our progressive Congress-people--cause we all know they's like unto Zeus his-own-self in they brilliance--the next logical step is to ban fat people.
"Obesity [is] on [the] verge of surpassing smoking as #1 cause of preventable death."
Although...I suppose it would be more scientific to argue that we should ban food, not fat people. I mean, if we get rid of the food, who's gonna be fat?
Sadly, beer might be next.
I guess wine doesn't make merry the hearts of God or man.
**DISCLAIMER: I do not strongly endorse civil disobedience with regard to cigarette bans. Okay, okay. I don't endorse it at all.
This disclaimer has been a community service production of Grub Street Plumbing, Incorporated. Thank you.
Posted by Carl at 10:28 PM | TrackBack
February 18, 2007
Smoking is a "criminal offense"...or will be, if HB1851 and SB1325 pass.
"HOUSE BILL 1851
By Bone
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 17, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated part thereto:
§ 39-17-1801. This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Non-Smoker
Protection Act”...§ 39-17-1803. Except at otherwise specifically authorized in § 39-17-1804, smoking is prohibited in all public places and places of employment within the state of Tennessee.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."
The section that this bill seeks to change is this: Tennessee Code : Title 39 Criminal Offenses : Chapter 17 Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare. That is, if this bill passes then smoking will be a "class-C misdemeanor."
I don't know whether or not I shall post more about this later, but I will at least make this comment. First, our legislature--and many other legislatures around this country--are "criminalizing" an act that has been allowed for at least four-hundred years. I am not here commenting upon whether or not smoking should be a misdemeanor. I am only observing that for quite some time, it has not been a misdemeanor.
Second, even as our Legislature is seeking to make criminals out of otherwise honest citizens, our Governor is seeking to tax them. And not only that, he will use this money obtained from criminals to fund our schools.
"The argument for a cigarette tax is straightforward: Our schools need more money. (Link.)
Bredesen supports the smoking ban. I suppose, then, that he must agree with our legislators that smoking is a criminal offense. My question is, is it reasonable to fund our school-system with monies received from those who participate in criminal behaviour?
Posted by Carl at 01:01 AM | TrackBack
February 13, 2007
Indoor Smoking Bans Kill!
I'm tellin' ya: banning indoor smoking kills.
"A worker at a Manitoulin Island long-term care home has been charged with criminal negligence causing death in the case of a resident who died after he went out into the cold to smoke." (Link, found here.)
See also: here and here and here.
Posted by Carl at 12:49 AM | TrackBack