Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Posted by Bill Smith at 11:55 AM | 16 comments

Bill, I was at first sort of lost about what might be said about this particular story...at first blush it seemed to be just another "puff piece" from our ol' buddies on Shop Rd. I believe the editors and self-appointed health gurus in the ivory tower probably intend for this story and others that will follow to soften negative public thinking about enacting smoking-ban laws here in the midlands. This of course would be the intent of "thestatemulletwrapper" even though these government bans will be a clear infringement of the personal and property rights of people who wish to smoke, and of people who wish to run businesses that welcome smokers. "Thestatemulletwrapper" is nothing if not completely sold out in favor of nanny-state big government. Upon further reflection however, I found utter hypocrisy that can be brought to light, even in this seemingly innocuous little piece. Think about it: The editorial staff at "thestatemulletwrapper" led by Cindi (with an "I" dang it!) have been tireless champions for increasing the state taxes collected on the sale of cigarettes, citing benefits that will ensue from these increased revenues in nearly every area...more funds for schools, lower property taxes, less smoking by teens, better roads...etc etc etc. On the one hand, these nimrods would absolutely LOVE for the citizens of South Carolina to allow state government to triple or quadruple the taxes collected on tobacco sales so as to fund all the things they like, and on the other hand the same nimrods have come down largely in favor of banning smoking in public and doing whatever else is possible to reduce or eliminate tobacco use. Hello? Here's a couple of thoughts for Brad and the other girls down at "thestatemulletwrapper"...first, if we do as you wish and increase tobacco taxes AND ALSO do everything possible to reduce tobacco use, these opposing forces will collide and result in increased taxes elsewhere to keep alive those programs you've funded with decreasing tobacco tax revenues. Sheesh! Could we please have a little honesty? Secondly Brad, and speaking further of honesty, when you are finally successful in truncating the rights of smokers and property owners, could you just let us know where your next attack on freedom through the tyranny of taxes will come? What'll it be Cindi? Fat foods? Probably not, you already have the 2% prepared food tax and a further increase for no other reason than just 'cause you feel like it would likely cause a revolt among restaurant owners. Let's see, what else? How 'bout a tax penalty (above the already outrageous auto property tax) on any car that weighs more than two thousand pounds? Or that has more than one hundred fifty horsepower? I guess my point is, where does the taxation of things you don't happen to like end? Surely tobacco use won't be the last or only thing you go after...tell us what else you intend to inflict upon citizens in this state, who just want to enjoy their freedom and do as they please with their lives, unmolested by do-gooders and people like you who clearly believe that you're the smartest people in the room. Lord, protect us from people who are convinced they know what's best for everbody else and that are prepared to use taxes and public policy as battering rams to accomplish their purposes. Fritz
 

Banning smoking in restaurants is really a great idea. Cigarette smoke is a proven carcinogen. Some other really great ideas are seatbelt laws, laws requiring child car seats, helmets for motorcyclists, driver licensing laws, vehicle registration laws, security screening at airports, immunization laws for school children, signs that say "keep off the grass" and laws against shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Each of these could be considered an "attack on freedom," but only by simple minded "nimrods" like third world ministers of propaganda and paid political consultants. Any attempt to have an intelligent debate on this here would be lost on poor Bill-Smith since his judgement is clouded by simple minded political rhetoric and by his overwhelming need to keep getting his paycheck from his masters.

We wonder why Fritz-Bill did not turn his wrath against the Hilton Head Island Packet which was the source of this story.
 

This is a bring thread.
 

This is a boring thread.
 

Carcinogen or not, I believe that as long as cigarettes are legal, people ought to be able to use and enjoy them, as long as their use does not infringe upon the rights of others. I don't believe smoking ought to be allowed in ALL restaurants. I don't smoke and don't want to have to breathe second hand smoke when my wife and I go out to eat. However, business owners ought to be free to operate smoking-friendly establishments if they want, and people like me or anyone else who dislikes cigarette smoke can simply go elsewhere. I don't get what's so hard to understand about that. To me, the real issue is the gutless and hypocritical position taken by people who want to 'act' like they think smoking is horrible, and yet want to fund pet projects with tobacco tax revenues. Here's a suggestion for these people: Have some stones why don't you, and just go ahead and outlaw tobacco use (especially if it's as bad and horrible as you say), and then raise taxes outright and in the open to support whatever little program it is that you believe is so wonderful? That would be the intellectually honest way to go about it, wouldn't it? I'd love to see Ross-Scoppe and Warthen and the rest of the chuckleheads at "thestatemulletwrapper" take a principled position like this, but what are the chances? Pretty slim I'd say. Fritz
 

Bill-Fritz must be ill. The above reply contains more evidence of brain activity than his normal potty mouthed rhetoric. We actually agree with his first sentence.

Although he applies some logic to his thought process, the serious flaws in his logic become obvious after that first sentence. It is common to find flawed logic among the propaganda ministers of third world countries and paid wannabe political consultants.

Here are some of the problems with his logic.

If someone opens a business to the "public," then all members of the public should be able to take advantage of that facility or service without being exposed to a known carcinogen. Public access is the key to the biggest flaw in his logic.

It does infringe on the non-smoker's right to access a facility when a known carcinogen is allowed. The “just don’t go there” argument does not fly. If it is a business is open to the public then it must offer a safe and healthy environment to the public.

Remember that a "keep off the grass" sign infringes on your right to walk on grass, and laws against yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater infringe on your right to yell FIRE. Bill-Fritz will probably want to argue that such laws are a left wing tree hugging communist plot. Not so. Such laws take into consideration the best interests of the public.

We have to go now and light up a stogie and blow some smoke rings.
 

Anon is wasting her time trying to talk logic here. The people who run this site have no interest in logic.
 

"If someone opens a business to the public, then all members of the public should be able to take advantage of that facility..."

Hmmm. Whoever wrote this doesn't have the guts to sign a name so I cannot speak specifically to a person, but talk about flawed logic...this "logic" is obviously flawed, (I don't really think ~logic~ has anything to do with this debate-it's about rightness and wrongness, but I get what the point). Is the nameless wonder who wrote this suggesting that there can be no such thing as public cigar-smoking establishments? Clearly there can be and ought to be for people who enjoy smoking cigars, and the public at large be hanged...they needn't go there if cigar smoke bothers them. But forget about wafting tobacco smoke for a sec, how about establishments for people who like EXTREMELY loud music? Loud music doesn't cause cancer but it will damage hearing, so following your 'logic' there could be no places like this open to the public and that blast music that can be heard on the moon. Correct? Seems to me that under our ghost-writers' theory, NObody could operate a public establishment that offered any product, service or venue for the use of same that could in any way be harmful to any fool or smoke nazi who happened to blunder in. Is that really the kind of world ghosty wants to live in? What happened to personal responsibilty? Or, forgetting that...whatever happened to just plain going somewhere else? See, it is ridiculous to say that EVERY single place open to the public ought to offer nothing that might be found harmful or even offensive to ANY member of that public. Silly ghosty, just silly, and it doesn't wash. Thankfully in this land we CAN have cigar bars, and even though I don't like them, EXTREMELY LOUD MUSIC (oops, stop screaming) bars. This is still a free country and it is good that self-appointed public hazard brown shirts cannot yet force their way on the rest of us. Bravely and proudly signed by: Fritz
 

We sure struck another nerve with Fritz or Bill or whatever name he is using today. He is back to his potty mouthed ranting. One of his problems is that he does not understand that it is all about logic and common sense. Characteristics that seem lacking with his thought processes. He must have burned up too many brain cells listening to Rush (hence the smoke nazi reference). Is Rush still on the air or in rehab?

In response to his argument about EXTREMELY LOUD MUSIC, all we have to say is: "ear plugs."

Again his logic melts like a snow cone in the sun on a hot S.C. summer day.

If you think he is angry now just wait until laws are passed everywhere banning smoking in all public places. They will pass.
 

You're right. Like the did in California.
 

The nazi reference is mine alone...and it fits quite nicely I think. It is the elitist Frau Blucher and Herr Himler types that put forward this foolishness under the guise of "enlightenment" that are attempting to do great harm. Again, I don't smoke. I'll be OK either way it goes. It won't bother me personally that nanny-staters misuse the force of government to inflict
no-public-smoking laws upon people, but it will be troubling to me that freedom has been abridged, again by do-gooders and elitists who seek to make life uniformly bland and over-regulated. Moreover, I don't believe that these laws will pass here, as this isn't (Thank God) New York or Seattle. I think people here will nip it, nip it in the bud...whatever the Hilton Head Benz-drivers do notwithstanding (I think the story in "thestatemulletwrapper" originated in 'The Island Packet'). Oh well, life is short...too short to spend any more time on this. Maybe "thestatemulletwrapper" will give me something else to knock out of the park tomorrow. Again signed bravely and proudly: Fritz
 

Even to jokingly refer to those in this country who are doing their best for our society is reprehensible. In this case it appears to come from someone who has no idea of the evil carnage and destruction that was brought to our world by the nazis and their allies. The person responsible for the last post is reprehensible.
 

Even to jokingly refer to those in this country who are doing their best for our society is reprehensible. In this case it appears to come from someone who has no idea of the evil carnage and destruction that was brought to our world by the nazis and their allies. The person responsible for the last post is reprehensible.
 

Great news everybody!

From The State - August 14, 2004
"South Carolina's Home Page"

We have not even read the article yet, but we think it is great.

Front Page: COBEL WANTS TO SNUFF SMOKING
Mayor hopes City Council will ban it in restaurants, bars in vote next month
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/
 

2006
 

August 14, 2006 above. Typo. Our bad. We waz so excited about the good news and how much it will send Bill-Fritz and his alter ego Charlie off into potty mouthed rages that we could hardly tipe correctly.