3 responses to “Soda Is the New Tobacco”

1. 

   Philip France

   September 23, 2009

   Thank you Selwyn for your poignant and articulate article.
   I am outraged at this proposition and you should be too.
   Before I comment further, I must state that if there were a book called “Liberty for Dummies”, chapter one would read as follows: “If Gavin “Any-Twosome” Newsome is for it, you can bet your life that you should be against it”. The man is an outright lunatic psychopath. This supports radio superstar Michael Savage’s assertion that liberalism is a mental disorder. Mayor Newsome is a highly educated and otherwise very intelligent man. The problem is that his ability to reason has been short-circuited by lunatic ideology that celebrates perversion and trivializes criminality. This man belongs in a rubber room.
   I will commence my commentary on Selwyn’s article with the following profound statement(s):
   Every new law represents a commensurate loss of your liberty. Every new tax represents a commensurate loss of your liberty.
   In anecdotal support for my defense of liberty I shall hereby confess that I am a cigarette smoker. As such, I am discriminated against with excessive taxation, which is in violation of my Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. I am abundantly aware of the risks to my physical well-being, but I prefer to exercise my liberties that are ordained by God Almighty so long as I cause no harm to others.
   I know. You have heard the rubbish regarding second-hand smoke and that it (allegedly) causes harm to others. There is no evidence that proves this and much that disproves this. I have heard your other arguments that I might get sick and starting spitting up blood and succumb to emphysema and that I will become a burden on society. Sorry. Under my current health plan, which stands not a prayer in hell under Obama/Congress’ plans, I will not be a burden at all (unless my plan is taken from me).
   It is easy and intellectually lazy (not to mention inherently dishonest) to pick on tobacco users. I realize that my testimony is anecdotal, but I have not called in to work sick (for my own sickness – I have for my children) in more than 10 years. For two years, I have received a “wellness” (God, how I despise that term) bonus (this program commenced two years ago or I would have enjoyed a longer success period). I can make the argument with valid proof that my use of tobacco is therapeutic (my excuse is that it contributes to my ability to manage stress).
   Every new law represents a commensurate loss of your liberty. Every new tax represents a commensurate loss of your liberty.
   Think on this:
   Motorcycle helmet laws.
   Bicycle helmet laws.
   Seatbelt laws.
   Carpool lanes.
   Laws regulating or prohibiting MSG in foods (my consumption of Chinese food products has diminished drastically since its implementation).
   Smoking laws and taxes.
   Hands-free cell phone use laws.
   These are all “casual” limits on your liberty. An effort to incrementally eliminate ALL of your liberties. One could make a sanctimonious excuse for each of their importance, but to do so one must abdicate the more immediate and precious importance of one’s individual liberty.
   Every new law represents a commensurate loss of your liberty. Every new tax represents a commensurate loss of your liberty.
   So what if the cigarette Nazi’s are right? What if contract emphysema and cough myself to death, spitting up blood on the sidewalk?
   I would have died a free man. Perhaps I should move to New Hampshire. Their state motto is “Live Free or Die”.
   Every new law represents a commensurate loss of your liberty. Every new tax represents a commensurate loss of your liberty.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   yoyo

   September 24, 2009

   Phil phil phil, as a cigarete smoking motorcycle riding leftie we have a little in common. I was trained in epidemiology and yes the evidence for passive smoking (and injury from silicon tits) is non existent. However, the evidence for use of mobile phones especially texting is that you become a serious risk to others. Now i understand the libertarian impulse, when it comes to drug laws I think they should all be changed on humanitarian, practical, health and libertarian grounds. but texting while driving (and i was REALLY good at it) is a danger to others. At that point we do need to minimise it. Yes most speed fines are there for revenue raising, and I dont care if you eat yourself to death on fast food; push bike helmet laws have been shown to to be counter productive because people wont ride. If you choose to live in a communal society SOME laws are neccessary for example some contract law so you know your house is yours, some work place safety law – no-one should die doing their day to day job. But when fools say all law is cruel and unusual punishment they have stopped thinking.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Philip France

   September 29, 2009

   Dear Yoyo;
   Much has been written since I have taken an extended weekend with the lady of my life. I am well behind schedule.
   I find it interesting that you and I are in much agreement on this subject. I wish to make it clear that I do NOT advocate that ALL laws are unnecessary. Perish the thought. My point, as stated clearly in my “profound” statement, is that nearly all NEW laws (and taxes) are a loss of personal liberty.
   As for the hands-free laws, while I agree that texting and even talking on a hand-held device while driving is dangerous, I consider that the law is unnecessary on the following grounds:
   1. There have been neither PSA’s demonstrating its danger nor providing statistical evidence of its inherent harm. A Public Service Announcement giving visual evidence of its dangers, accompanied by statistical analysis that identify (with evidence) its potential harm.
   2. Can anyone be so foolish as to believe that the welfare of the populace was the motive for the enactment of such laws? It is more likely that lobbyists for manufacturers of hands-free devices dropped bags of cash at the doorsteps of the legislators who drafted these laws.
   As for laws in general, the United States Constitution, as well as the Magna Carta, were derived from the 10 Commandments of The Bible. That should suffice for the overwhelming majority of our populace and our civil institutions. I could take it a step further and declare that the first two of these commandments should be sufficient, if taught properly and accurately.

   LikeLike

   Reply