Another Totalitarian, Anti-Smoking Crusade

Friday, April 16, 2010
Posted in category Lifestyle Fascism

The latest act of the US Congress: to get Major League Baseball to ban smokeless tobacco during its next round of collective bargaining. Ballplayers are being blamed for the use of tobacco among American youth. What’s amazing is that the players association is willing to consider this because “Congress feels strongly about it.” Ex-major leaguer Joe Garagiola is playing the smoking Nazi role for the government. Note that Congress is holding hearings on this issue and making use of government agencies – the CDC and the National Cancer Institute – to assist in its intervention.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

17 Responses to Another Totalitarian, Anti-Smoking Crusade

  1. liberranter says:

    April 16th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Interesting. I’m pretty sure that MLB already banned “smokeless tobacco” use by players at least two decades ago, so I don’t know why anyone is blaming the current generation of ballplayers for the popularity of “chaw.” I can’t think of a single player of note today who uses it or advertises the fact that they do (assuming they do it on the QT).

  2. Shannon says:

    April 16th, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    If use of perfume can be banned in the workplace, then why not chew at a sports game? Anything to rob us serfs of a tiny bit of pleasure, a bit of morale is the goal of our rulers. I just hope they don’t ban deodorant, or things will really be miserable :P

  3. Karen De Coster says:

    April 16th, 2010 at 10:13 pm

    Liberrantor, of course players still use it — it has not been banned. It was banned in the minor leagues. One-third of all players still use chew; the stories related that fact.

  4. clark says:

    April 17th, 2010 at 2:07 am

    Will it become common to hear:

    “Is that Chew, or Chaw you got there? Here, spit into this testing cup”

    Chaw – the strips of baseball bubble gum, great stuff – I was going to look it up but found this, for kids, basically telling them everything they need to know to chew, and to mix their chewing tobacco with bubblegum, something even I didn’t know. A baseball player’s grim misfortune is spotlighted/used as an example of why not to chew at all, a degree of moderation is never mentioned, kind of like living on nothing but fast food vs. eating fast food two or three times a month in the Spring and Summer? I don’t know, I don’t chew:

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/drug_alcohol/tobacco/smokeless.html

    Random spit tests can’t be far away?
    According to the website above it will probably be acceptable to them if they allow your saliva to contain: substitutes such as tobacco-free, mint-leaf snuff; sugarless gum; hard candy; beef jerky; sunflower seeds; shredded coconut; raisins; or dried fruit… these are still ok foods, according to them, …so far, for now, they’ll let us know I’m sure.

    Interestingly enough, another webpage says, “Poorly fitting dentures that rub against the tongue or the inside of the cheeks can also cause these conditions.” So maybe it’s not so much the substance but the actions?

    http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_oral_cavity_and_oropharyngeal_cancer_60.asp

  5. Jeannie Queenie says:

    April 17th, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    So the way I see it folks, is if we are being forced to pay for healthcare that we don’t want, then we should have a say about those actions that make the doctor bills increase. Things like fast food crap food, high fructose drinks/candies, etc, smoking, all of which lead to various degrees of sickness, makes me want to say, ‘hell yes, make laws against this crap if we have to pay for healthcare en masse with our taxes!”

    Yes, yes, I know no one wants anyone to impinge on their freedom and god given right to be a complete stupid jerk, but please don’t ask me to pay for lousy or lame behavior that only adds to a growing healthcare bill. Bad enough that with this latest bill, Jane and John Doe are expected to foot the bill for your transgender surgery to which I say, screw that stuff. I don’t care about your freedom when you want to abuse it and make the rest of us pay for perversions or abortions or viagra or breast implants, etc. You don’t care about my freedom to be free from your moronic bad-health issues and choices!

  6. clark says:

    April 18th, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    “So the way I see it folks, is if we are being forced to pay for healthcare that we don’t want, then we should have a say about those actions that make the doctor bills increase. Things like fast food crap food, high fructose drinks/candies, etc,”

    That would mean you would become just like them, no thanks.

    Reminds me of the guys I knew who were always in perfect health, but they’re still dead anyway, they could have smoked, chewed and lived on nothing but BigMac’s and it wouldn’t have made a lick of difference in the end.

    As if you’re going to live forever.

  7. Jeannie Queenie says:

    April 20th, 2010 at 12:14 am

    “That would mean you would become just like them, no thanks.” Clark, i haven’t a clue as to where you are coming from. Why would you say something so ridiculous? For you to advocate that anyone adopt the idiotic food choices that many practice just because ‘you will be dead someday’, is beyond me. Bud, it’s called quality of life, and being responsible for that wonderful gift called life. You and you alone have the choice to keep healthy or not..my point is simply this…if your choices make you sick due to your ignorance or laziness in learning what is most healthy, just please DO NOT ask me to help pay for your ill health. I have never believed in rewarding stupidity….and many americans are clearly whacked when it comes to food choices and lifestyles. Only a bird brain would suggest that since we all die, why not live like we are brainless. Methinks that next time you write put the bowl away for a few hours before taking pen/mouse in hand. Why don’t you reread the last two sentences above since you don’t seem ‘to get it’.

  8. Karen De Coster says:

    April 20th, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Jeannie, I think Clark is referring to this statement: “So the way I see it folks, is if we are being forced to pay for healthcare that we don’t want, then we should have a say about those actions that make the doctor bills increase. Things like fast food crap food, high fructose drinks/candies, etc,”

    That argument is exactly what the totalitarians use to justify all interventions and tyranny……”since we are paying for it……” Behavioral politics always have, as an end goal, the enrichment of someone somewhere – like the wealthy corporate socialists who fill the coffers of politicians and keep them in power. That’s in addition to the power motives of political interventions.

    One can never legislate peoples’ opinions, mindsets, habits, behavior, or preferences. To even attempt to do so requires absolute tyranny.

  9. Jeannie Queenie says:

    April 20th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Karen, you are absolutely right in saying this, “One can never legislate peoples’ opinions, mindsets, habits, behavior, or preferences. To even attempt to do so requires absolute tyranny.” But the fact is that they do and will continue to legislate taxes up the wahoo…is that right?. Once more, what I am saying (and yes, I know what you are saying), is that if we are forced to eat this healthcare bill, then let’s get the high fructose crap out of stores, the madcow out of cattle, and you know all the rest. For as I see it, the entire healthcare scene will just get massively expensive as long as lifestyle choices, ie, fast food, etc make people sick AND WE END UP PAYING FOR IT. The idea that there can never be any laws is absurd…and I say that while knowing that Mark Twain also said, “the law is an ass” which it is all too often in some cases. You know those photographs you showed a while back of the fat asses around Walmart in the store/parking lot, all I’m saying is ‘there oughta be a law”. When the lack of laws allow crap like the ongoing sex scandals of the catholic church to prevail..and you have a pope hollering ‘foul’, so what if I played musical priests for decades”, then I look for someone to explain to me how you deal with that without any laws? Where does justice come into the picture? Or are we just to live in a lawless society and play bang bang’ whenever some whack job oversteps himself?

    Cicero said, “The good of the people is the chief law”, but Martin Luther King said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” So that adds fuel to my fire, which means the law should be able to keep crooks from taking your 401K, or taking your guns, or your liberty away. I think that folks confuse liberty with freedom, or the license to do whatever one wants even if it hurts others.

  10. Clark says:

    April 21st, 2010 at 12:43 am

    Whoa, such friendly assumptions and lovely passive aggressiveness.
    Karen is correct, I just didn’t think it needed expanding upon here.

    “then let’s get the high fructose crap out of stores, the madcow out of cattle, and you know all the rest.”

    Uh-huh, and we all know how that’ll turn out, everything except those issues will be addressed. Did you know private companies wanted to do their own tests for madcow but the government wouldn’t let them? Shit like that.

    “You know those photographs you showed a while back of the fat asses around Walmart in the store/parking lot, all I’m saying is ‘there oughta be a law”.”

    You don’t see anything wrong with that statement? and this one:

    “When the lack of laws allow crap like the ongoing sex scandals of the catholic church to prevail..”

    As if a law would’ve made any difference?

    Seems like one of the worlds men had a pretty good quality of life and he had, what, a quart of whiskey a day and lots of smoking? GFY.
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/cigarettes-whiskey-wild-woman.html

  11. Clark says:

    April 21st, 2010 at 1:00 am

    That should have read, one of the world’s oldest men… I’m tired, I type often when I’m tried, I didn’t know tiredness had so many other connotations in other people minds, it’s like a red matadors cape or something.

    One more thing, it is Not true that the law stops the lynching MLK was referring to, it’s something else. There’s a lot of good writing out there about why the law stops nothing.

    What do they call laws made by criminals used to commit crimes?
    Is it like prescription medications that make people fat? No, but those people could be turned into outlaws at the stoke of a pen, funny huh?

  12. damaged justice says:

    April 22nd, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Since it is wrong to force some to pay for the poor choices of others, the logical thing to do is to stop the force rather than add more to the equation. But if a lover of liberty accepts the fact that this is not likely to happen, you have a choice: Either accept the collectivism and get involved in forcing everyone else to make better choices, or refuse to pay for their poor choices.

  13. Jeannie Queenie says:

    April 23rd, 2010 at 1:48 am

    Clark,
    I find it most amusing that you lamely cast aspersions on what I said. You choose certain sentences and twist them into rubbish only meaningful to you, but not the intended message I attempted to convey. Like what in the hell did you mean by lovely, passive aggressive and friendly assumptions? In a deranged angst, you conveniently overlook the most important paragraph of all. Is it because you are racist that you feel it was wrong for Martin Luther to say what he said? Why say something so nutty as no law could possibly stop lynching, for something else stops lynching. Pray tell, just what is that something else? Does a little birdy whisper into whitey’s ear and say, “don’t even think of lynching that guy?” It seems to me that one cannot exist without the natural law or the golden rule. So for you to suggest that those laws are not necessary reveals a lack of philosophical understanding. Martin Luther King was stating a FACT… “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.” Just like any other Libertarian, King believed that all of us possess all rights, title and power over our own lives, but he was smart enough to realize that there exist idiots among us that need checks on their crazed desires to hurt or steal, or even kill, so King stated a fact about the law affording some protection. You see Clark…”idealism is often prohibited by reality”…in an ideal world, NO one would cheat, hurt, kiii, but that is not the real world. Natural law provides the basis for treating others like we would like to be treated. However, too many really don’t give a damn how they treat others, thus the need to put limits on other’s behavior. Why is that so difficult to understand? According to your way of thinking we should just open all jail doors and release anyone who has committed crimes, even the most heinous among them. To say that NO laws are necessary is sheer balderdash. Our Constitution is based on the natural law that all men are created equal, and that we have a right to our life, our liberty and property, but I hear you saying that no laws should protect those rights. So I guess we might as well throw out the Constitution, for after all that silly piece of paper is based on natural law and the golden rule, hence, even if another person trespasses on your life or property, there should be no laws that land his butt in prison. For to land a guy in prison one would need laws to get him there. It sounds to me like your idea of freedom sans laws is mentioned above. You tell of an old guy who drank everyday and had beaucoup wild women…sounds like a young boy’s wetdream, a fantasy world without obligations and responsiblities or committments. I guess one would have to drink each day to drown out the sorrow of having no real love in one’s life to speak of. Boy, I sure do hope that you keep that smiling face when the prez snatches your 401K to bring down the deficit…shouldn’t be any law, should there, preventing him from doing that, right?
    BTW—what is the stoke of a pen? A stroke without the “R”?

  14. clark says:

    April 24th, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Funny.

    What you said seemed pretty clear to me.

    I was just throwing some thoughts out there, you’re reading a bit more into it than is there and missing a whole lot more.

    It’s got nothing to do with M.L.K. or the color of anyone else, it never does, ever, it’s just about power and control.

    Heh, Like what in the hell did I mean by lovely, passive aggressive and friendly assumptions? Describing something you, “haven’t a clue” as ridiculous, and using the general tone, or wording: “your choices make you sick”, and “your ignorance” and on and on.

    As to laws stopping law breakers from doing bad things, or good people from doing bad things… do you read the news? Ever read LRC or freedominourtime.blogspot.com

    “In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good” – Aleander Solzhenitsyn.

    There Are some really well written articles out there discussing why laws stop no one from doing anything, If I had the links nearby I’d post them.

    The rest of your rant is a little bizarre, especially the part about the Constitution, some people say it was thrown out long ago.

    The are some good articles out there about what to do about the prison industrial complex, but that’s a bit much for here and now.

    Perhaps you should read about the old man before you write about him, that’s why i posted the link:P

  15. Jeannie Queenie says:

    April 25th, 2010 at 1:32 am

    Clark, why do you fancy yourself a mind reader as shown here, “You should read about the old man before you write
    about him”. I did read about him…and sooo…i read that he drank a quart of whiskey each day..and sooo…all this tells me is that the poor guy couldn’t cope with life…doesn’t tell me he had any great quality of life, unless you are of the mind that getting soused 24/7 is what life is all about. What it probably means is the poor guy was depressed as hell..maybe due to a lousy diet and no omega 3s and 6s, or maybe he didn’t know how to fix a decent meal. Obviously he had no regular female permanent relationship for he was a bigtime skirt chaser. As I see it the poor man lacked a real woman, good cooking and other goodies, or he wouldn’t have drank like a fish. I don’t see how you can equate one night stands and a quart of booze each day as a panacea for not having the real thing. As for you telling me that the Constitution is bizarre and some say it should be thrown out, I would suggest you should read the many good sites out there written by Libertarians who know that natural law is a given, and that the Constitution is based on natural law. That law is the foundation for any or all other laws. I suppose you would tell me that there should be no laws against sex trafficing of young girls, and that ACORN had every right to do what they did months ago. Which was to bring in young girls from South America, tell them how to run their ‘business’ aka prostitution, not pay taxes, but have americans foot the bill for their career! The world you envision
    without any laws is terrific if you have only people with morals, values and intelligence. Lacking those traits, checks and balances are necessary for keeping those among us who want to live the law of the jungle. I haven’t a clue as to what you mean by this, nor did you explain….”What do they call laws made by criminals used to commit crimes?”
    Say what, since when do prisoners make the laws of the land?..that is absurd, and please don’t reply by whining about me calling it absurd, for it makes no sense whatsover. Perhaps in your mind it does, but if you aren’t projecting your thoughts correctly, how can others receive the message you’re trying to convey? Lastly, we all know that we have free will, and make our own choices, and most folks will behave pretty decent most the time. But if by chance, your name is Jeffrey Dahmer, no law will prevent you from killing young boys and saving their heads in a frig, but the fact does remain that many laws do have the effect of dampening actions by those tempted to break laws, kerstanze?

  16. clark says:

    April 27th, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Are you sure you read about him? Otherwise you might not have said, “Obviously he had no regular female permanent relationship” – the guy was married, but it’s not like that’s a requirement for life.

    Talk about mind reading, I never said it was a panacea for not having the real thing.

    The old mans story is just one example of many in life that a person can live a long life (an acceptable existence) doing what they want and the so-called experts can be wrong.

    I think he drank because of what he experienced as a soldier in WWII, not the lack of women and goodies, once again, are you sure you read about the man?

    I fail to see where I ever ever said the Constitution is bizarre… I said Your Comment Was Bizarre! What I said was, some people say It Has Already Been Thrown Out, not that it should be.

    I don’t envision a world without laws, I think maybe yas got a reading and comprehension problem? You’re kind of weird too, what with that last bit.

    If you cannot figure out what the phrase “What do they call laws made by criminals to commit crimes?” after reading this blog,… okay, and there’s no such thing as criminal government actions, never has been, never will be, anywhere in the world throughout time. Yeah-okay.

  17. Esteban Moss says:

    June 26th, 2010 at 7:00 am

    I don’t know how Cameroon could have lost. Could they have lost any faster. I just believed that they had a good shot to do well in this years world cup. I guess I will have to wait. Maybe its time to jump on the Argentina bandwagon. Looks like Demichelis has already scored. Go Argentina. To make me feel better from that devistating loss by Cameroon, I have been listening to some funny jokes.. This joke is really funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3j7uSbccSc

Leave a Reply