Gut Rumbles
 

January 10, 2005

naw, no hypocricy here

Every time members of the anti-smoking gestapo attack the rights of business owners, they SWEAR that they're doing it for The Public Health. Yep, smoking bans protect innocent people from deadly second-hand smoke--- therefore, the bans are GOOD, whether you like them or not.

If one life is saved, all the cost is worth it, yada, yada, yada...

But Public Health can be damned when a smoking ban might cost the anti-smokers some money. All of a sudden, smoking isn't so evil anymore. And I LOVE the reaction when these assclowns are called on what they're doing.

Alioto-Pier (niece of anti-smoking crusader Angela Alioto) said she really hadn't thought about the possible hypocrisy of the city exempting itself.

"That's kind of an interesting way to look at it,'' Alioto-Pier said, adding, "I wasn't around for the battle when the bars and restaurant ban went in.''

An "interesting" way to look at it? "Possible" hypocricy? How about some honesty here? Just SAY IT!!! "Government exists to tell YOU how to run your life. Government will punish you, take your wealth and even lock you in jail if you attempt to defy government. But the rules we make for YOU don't apply to US. That's why WE'RE government and YOU'RE not. Now, shut up and eat your gruel."

Nah. Just move along... no hypocricy here...

Comments

Oklahoma recently raised the tax on tobacco, the argument being that a: it will discourage smoking and b: the money will go to fund health programs.

Now, let's see, if your idea works and the cost makes people stop smoking, then you won't have money to run the health programs. So what are you planning on raising taxes on next to make up the difference?

I'm so sick of this crap.

Posted by: Mark on January 10, 2005 11:19 AM

What he hell is west of the Rocky Mountains that screws up these peoples brains.

Posted by: James Old Guy on January 10, 2005 11:34 AM

This is in San Francisco? San Francisco?

Posted by: outfoxed on January 10, 2005 11:58 AM

Mark,
So what are you planning on raising taxes on next to make up the difference?And when smoking is outlawed completely, that additional tax revenue will be required to fund the "War on Tobacco" in order to combat the gang violence resulting from smokes being black-market items.

Posted by: D.J. M.B. on January 10, 2005 02:24 PM

This reminded me of the US Congress when they instituted the OSHA and EEO laws about employment. They specifically exempted the Congress from those laws while they made them apply to everyone else. Sounds like just more of the same to me. When are we going to get rid of these hypocrites?

Posted by: dick on January 11, 2005 01:57 AM

The tobacco issue is an excellent bellwether. Most people proudly inform you of their support for this tyranny upon first acquaintance. It does not occur to them they have informed me I need not waste any more time upon their political opinions: they oppose liberty, and are part of the problem.

Unfortunately, that's a supermajority of the electorate. We are healthier, longer lived, and wealthier than earlier generations. We are not better, however, no matter how besotted with our goodness we may be.

Our good fortune is just that, luck. It is not our just deserts.

Posted by: Brett on January 11, 2005 09:17 AM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.