The RAnts of RA

If you are a smoker you are on the EPA’s list of endangered species, because if the American Lung Association and drug companies have their way, you will no longer have the right to make that choice.

The American Lung Association is using it’s deep coffers to bombard American’s with the message that smoking is wrong and immoral. If they get their way, smokers will be paying an additional $2.00 in taxes per pack.

Glaxo Smith Kline is launching an Italian marketing campaign for anti-smoking products this week (January 9, 2005) as pharmaceutical groups gear up to cash in where their rivals in the tobacco sector are losing out. The fresh focus on smoking in southern Europe follows a 36 per cent increase in sales of GSK’s products in Ireland since that country introduced a ban on smoking in public places at the end of March 2004. GSK plans to follow up with similar campaigns in Spain and Portugal.

Smokers today are made to feel guilty for lighting up. They are treated as second class citizen’s who’s rights take a backseat to everyone else.

Michigan Proposed Smoking Ban

Michigan Senator Ray Basham, D-Taylor, has introduced legislation; the Michigan Smoke-Free Dining Act (SB 186),  which would prohit smoking in all Michigan Restaurants.

Rob Gifford, executive director of the Michigan Restaurant Association, which  fiercely opposes the no-smoking proposal, says it amounts to nannyism by government.

States like Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Indiana, Maine and New York  have smoking bans currently in place for restaurants, many include bars and bowling  alleys.

Several other states are currently considering smoking bans: Michigan, Georgia and  Utah to name a few, as well as many several countries.

Oklahoma Business Friendly State

Oklahomans seem to have gotten it right. In July 2002, the Oklahoma  legislature passed a law that regulates restaurants serving more than 50  customers. Restaurant owners may elect to declare themselves entirely  smoking, entirely smoke-free or effectively smoke-free. If they choose,  the classification of “effectively smoke-free,” they must provide separately ventilated smoking rooms.

This new law also applies to indoor workplaces with 15 or more employees,  bars, pools halls, bowling, adult day care, malls, and certain medical facilities.  Hotel lobbies and youth camps are to be smokefree.

This law makes sense. After all when an individual decides to put it all on  the line to open their own business, shouldn’t they have the right to cater to  their own clientel? In a capitalist society such as ours, the customer rules.

If a business owner is not meeting the needs of his or her customer base,  they won’t remain in business for very long.

One bowling alley owner in New York recently folded because his customers  were not interested in a non-smoking bowling league. League play is the bread  and butter of the bowling alley, without them, they just won’t keep the doors  open long, negatively impacting many small communities and local economies.

Smoking Ban Impacts Businesses

Though I’ve heard legislators over and over again say there is no evidence  that the new smoking bans have had a negative impact on business revenues. I’ve  found plenty of evidence to the contrary, simply by searching google.

In California, it’s easy to spot a bar, it’s the building with all the  smokers congregated outside the doorway. Bar owners have been kind in most  instances providing plastic lawn chair seating for patrons who wish to  light up. When the band takes a break it’s not uncommon to find an empty  bar because everyone is outside, how ridiculous.

Where California enjoys mild winters and mostly sunny weather, Michigan  smokers are at the whim of mother nature.

Facing winter weather with wind chill factors often below zero, just being  outside can present it’s own health risks. Can the state be held liable for those  who would succum to harsh winter weather if forced to move outside to light up?  I’m sure that’s one the courts will have to decide.

Smoking Ban Waivers

States such as New York, make waivers available to businesses who  can prove their business has been harmed, by more than 15%, because of the  smoking ban. The problem is that by the time the data becomes available  the business is likely to be already in finacial trouble.

Anyone who has ever owned a restaurant knows that the bookkeeping  end of the business is a huge job and takes months to compile accurate  statements. A direct coorelation between the non-smoking bans and  income losses can be a tough one to prove, few have passed muster.

Smoking as a rule is banned in hospitals, government buildings, museums,  schools and theatres everywhere. Most states ban smoking at work and in  train or bus stations and airports. Chain restaurants are increasingly non-smoking.

Smoking is banned on domestic airplanes, however, a few airports still have  smoking sections. I always try to connect in St. Louis, which has many smoking  booths, they are terrible, smoke-filled enclosed cubicles, with smoke so think  you can cut it with a knife. Even the terrible conditions do not deter anxious  smokers, who welcome the sight. Just beware, if you don’t have lung cancer  when you go in, you will by the time you come out. They are well used and the  smoke hangs in the air like a dense fog on a San Francisco morning, despite it’s  ventilation system.

California to Ban Smoking on Beaches

California is taking it to the next level. The state already has smoking bans  in place for restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, government buildings, public  buildings and playgrounds. They are currently seeking to  ban  smoking on all beaches and piers. Supporters say smokers are littering the  coast with unsightly cigarette butts and present a fire hazard to wooden piers.

I’m not certain what they expected. Most beach areas do not provide ashtrays. At  least when people were smoking inside, they had a place to extinguish their butts.  I guess you can’t have everything.

Or maybe they can. If California succeeds in passing this new bill, smoking  will be effectively comfined to the comfort of your own home, unless of course  you live in a non-smoking residence or if you have children.

Smokers who wish to avoid exposing their children to smoke will be forced  to put them up for adoption, in order to protect them from harmful exposure.

Well, ok, they haven’t gone that far yet, but it’s coming. There have already  been legal cases in California where the parents are barred, by court order, from  smoking around their own children. Some will say, “And rightly so.”

But if smoking is not allowed in public and it’s not allowed in the privacy of  your own home, where can you light up? Do you have the right to?

Not if big brother has his way.

Congress Exempt

I find it curious that in Washington D.C. smoking is banned in all government  buildings, except in Congress.

You mean to tell me that our congressmen, who are so concerned over our health  and well-being that they continually pass restrictive regulations intended to keep  us from hurting ourselves, have exempted themselves from the public smoking laws?  That’s exactly what I’m saying.

It seems American has a special class of citizen, one to which the laws do not  apply. Our legislators have their own retirement plan. They aren’t required to pay  7.5% off the top of their wages, like the rest of us (15% if you are self-employed).  Of course they won’t be eligible to collect from the Social Security fund either.

They have a much better plan, allowing them to collect their full wages, just as they  are now, each and every year until they die. (With cost of living raises of course.)  It’s a pretty sweety deal they have voted for themselves and it’s paid for by you and  I.

They also aren’t prohibited from smoking inside, which may endanger their non-smoking staff members, like the rest of American’s.

I don’t know about you but this burns my biscuits.

Internet Tax on Cigarettes

As if all this were not enough, legislators are considering forcing Indian tribes to  charge taxes to all non-indians for cigarette sales and forcing internet businesses to  charge sales taxes on all cigarette sales.

Many years ago Camel had an ad promotion that said, “I’d rather fight than  switch.” If smokers don’t begin to stand up for their rights and fight, they  will be forced to quit.

The state of New York wants to increase the tax on a single pack of cigarettes  by $7.00, an outrageous amount by any standard.

If these proposed tax laws are enacted, we will see the courts filled with  individuals charged with tax evasion because many of us who choose to smoke will  be priced out of the market.

Quitting Smoking a Challenge

The enconomy has been hard hit over the past few years and any smoker can  attest how difficult quitting can be, even under optimal circumstances. Add the  stress of a lost job and finacial troubles and quitting becomes all but an  impossibility.

Of course today we have all these wonderful new fangled smoking cessation  aids, which cost an arm and a leg. (We have the pharmaceutical companies to thank  for that.) Anyone considering quitting had better be serious because they cost  more than a carton of cigarettes.

If the government wants to raise taxes in order to promote non-smoking as  they claim, the money should be used to subsidize smoking cessation aids for  the poor.

We all know that even those with health insurance have trouble purchasing  items to help them remain healthy because health insurance in our country  refuses to cover preventative medical treatments. You have to be sick to  get help. But that’s an entirely different article.

Big Government gets Bigger

Most of us are well aware of government creep, the cost of and size of which  continues to grow exponentially each year. This infestation of government  intrusion and regulation must be halted if the family and small business  owner is going to prosper and flourish in todays economic  environment.

While today we are talking about smokers-rights, this issue should not  be of concern to just smokers or those who adamently against smoking. This  is a national issue, one that should be of concern to all American’s because  our freedoms are being stripped away one layer at a time.

Don’t think for one minute that government officials will stop at taxing  cigarettes over the internet. Oh no. If they are successful in convincing  taxpayers that smokers should pay taxes for cigarettes purchased online, other  items will follow, post-haste.

Each year, they spend a little more and they take a little more, always  convincing us that it’s for our own benefit.

Just like when we tell our children that this shot is good for them  and the pain only hurts for a little while. Many parents have discovered  that the pain can last a lifetime for their child. Our children will be  paying for this governments spending spree for many years to come.

If you don’t care enough to do it for yourself, do it for your children,  for their right to live in freedom and in economic health. Call your  legislator today and tell them the spending and taxing must stop. Tell your  legislator you expect him or her to uphold the constitution and protect the  freedoms guaranteed to you and your family under its articles. Your  children will be glad you did.

Visit Annette’s Favorites for more information.

According to an article, which ran today on ABC News, “A suburban Maryland couple accused of driving 20 miles with their 12-year-old son and his friend holed up in the trunk of their car have been charged with child abuse, but their lawyer says they are guilty of only bad judgment.”

This is just another sign of the times. A nosy busy body calls the cops on a family and the police, just doing their civic duty, dutifully track them down and arrest them. What’s wrong with this picture?

I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. Plenty!

According to ABC News, police, were called after a witness saw the boys climb into the trunk. Surely, the witness must have also noticed that the boys weren’t struggling or being held against their will. These young people requested the ride.

Back in my day, no one would have given this a second thought. We used to use the trunk of the car to sneak into the drive-in movies (remember those?), we often had five or six people stuffed in there.

We would ride to the lake on a hot summer day in the back of our pick-up truck, hair blowing in the wind, not to mention being a tangled mess when we arrived at our destination. A small price to pay for a nice breeze on sticky Michigan summer day.

Those were the days when parents ruled. They could decide what was safe for their children. They laid down the law and dished up the rewards. Children could relax knowing who was in-charge and not have to worry.

It’s no wonder children are under so much stress today. They know that parents must walk a tight rope, parents don’t dare discipline their children, especially in public. They’ll end up in jail because some nosy busy-body will stick their nose into your family business.

I’ll never forget the time my 15 year-old cousin got a little big for his britches. He told his dad he would do what he wanted and that he didn’t have to listen to him. Wrong answer! One thing lead to another and my cousin took a swing, at my uncle, only to end up picking himself up out of the wall. My uncle had shoved him right into the wall, we had a nice imprint of cousins behind as a reminder of the incident.

Other than a bruised ego and a new found respect for his father, my cousin was no worse for wear. Was my uncle a child abuser? Depends on who you ask.

If you ask anyone in our family, you’ll hear that my cousin deserved exactly what he got and that my uncle is a good father. Ask a nosy neighbor who doesn’t believe in disciplining children, he should probably be in jail.

These parents are no different.

Were the children at risk?

Oh NO! They weren’t wearing seat belts. So!

They were laying down for pete-sake. Their necks were probably much more protected in a prone position than sitting in an ill-fitted car seat anyway.

Don’t even get me started on the seat-belt laws. They are unconstitutional and should be repealed anyway. Seat-belts cause more injuries and deaths than you might think…mostly because it’s not being reported.

It’s a win-win situation to everyone except consumers. Car manufacturers are required by law to install them, jacking-up the price of each and every vehicle sold. Municipalities win because they issue citations ranging from $50.00 to upwards of $300.00 for non-compliance. Providing a great boost to their bottom-line.

I’m still waiting for the law requiring children sleeping on the top of a bunk-bed to wear a seat belt. Then we can have random household checks for compliance. Children found not to be buckled up will be removed from custody and placed with parents who know their place.

According to ABC News, The Duthoys spent 48 hours in an Annapolis jail after the arrest, and were initially held on $150,000 bail. The judge released them after reducing the bail, but has ordered that they have no unsupervised contact with their 12-year-old son until their trial. The boy is currently residing with an aunt. The Duthoys’ two older children, a 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl, were allowed to remain with their parents.

If you find this a miscarriage of justice, a stretch of government authority and an outrage, please take a moment and sound off.

Annette M. Hall

Today I read an article on InsightMag.com that, quite frankly, gave me the chills.

Things have gone rapidly down-hill since the horrific events of September 11th, 2001. The horror is that the ‘terrorists’ could have the audacity to kill thousands of people, and jubilantly cheer at their demise. This has not been questioned.

However, the real tragedy in the WTC and Pentagon attacks is that the US Federal Government and individual States have immediately and collectively undermined the will of our great nation, in the name of ‘security‘.

States have started issuing mandates requiring vaccinations against any ‘contagious diseases‘. Since all diseases that can be vaccinated against are contagious by definition – why bother vaccinating against something that isn’t contagious? The wholesale effect of this is that it would immediately force foreign substances into the veins of every American and/or effectively create state-run concentration camps for the purpose of isolating them in the name of ‘quarantining‘ the uninfected from the general populace, under the assertion that *they* are the source of risk. These immunizations & quarantines will be government controlled, and unpetitionable; those people that are not infected and refuse immunizations will be taken from their homes and placed in government-controlled concentration camps without due process and would not even be allowed to petition their government for redress of grievances.

The above situation disappoints me greatly. But it is dwarfed by what the federal government has done. Would you approve a ‘pay rate change’ from your employer without seeing what the change would include? You expect it to be an increase, of course – any employer that had the audacity to do otherwise is insane, right? So you have every reason to trust them, don’t you? I didn’t think so. Would you still be reluctant if your employer said that it was a very reasonable change, and that it was for your own safety that you did not see the actual new value until after you signed a contract setting this sealed ‘rate’ in motion? Of course you’d be reluctant. Would you trust your federal representatives to vote for legislation that they were not allowed to read? After all – any legislation that the author says is ‘good for you’ must be, right?

If you’re not outraged at the very thought of this, perhaps you’ll be more outraged after hearing what the actual bill contained… including provisions to enable ‘representatives’ of any unnamed level of government to break into your home, property or business without a warrant – nor even reasonable assertion of what they hope to find, and without telling you – before or after. And they can tap your telephone, email, internet connection, any other digital or analog device on suspicion of ‘terrorist’ related activities, while maintaining the broadest possible definition of terrorism, even broader than the dictionary.

With the sweep of his pen, Bush has completely obliterated the 4th Amendment and Due Process. The entire intent of the Founders has been rendered asunder before Bush has fulfilled his first year in office. I’m ashamed that I supported him.

It’s time to make amends. There is no easy means of undoing what I’ve done, but there are steps I can take; as can you. It won’t be long before the government exploits these new ‘powers’ to their ultimate end – a complete and total compromise of your every Right.

• Prepare for the worst. I truly believe it is time for a new revolution. I don’t see any other way to reverse these dire actions which are already in motion.
• Get a gun. No… get several. Don’t forget ammunition.
• Keep your eyes peeled for injustice – speak out when you see it. If they know someone is watching it will make it more difficult to blatantly invade your rights.
• Get a partner. Don’t go anywhere alone anymore. A single victim is much easier to overwhelm than a pair. The presence of a second person also increases the chances that if something does occur others will find out about it.
• Don’t rely solely on digital communication. Since the WTC and Pentagon attacks, Carnivore has been beefed up enormously. Assume that every byte from every email and webpage you ever visit has been, and will continue to be, tracked by the government. If you need anonymity for your actions on the Internet consider using a public terminal that does not log your presence – like a college computer room, library, large computer vendor or internet cafe. If anonymity is very important create a new contact profile on a public forum like Yahoo, Hotmail or Mail.com – and use a public forum so _direct_ contact with your partner is not necessary. Consider posting to completely different forums and providers when further communication is necessary.
• Don’t trust the postal service. The USPS has recently implemented ‘anti-terrorism’ policies in the interest of ‘public safety’. To that end they have failed to actually tell the public their new policy. I imagine this is to prevent potential terrorists from circumventing the new procedures in the distribution of bio-chemical agents via postal mail. Though I respect their proposed intent, the means by which they are [arguably] accomplishing it are no better than the alternative: neither of which work, and there is now no reason to trust that the USPS is not abusing their position to exploit completely unrelated material as a pawn of the government. Privatization of USPS? Yeah, right.

I haven’t really been in a mood lately to provide much more than partial aid to anyone in distress. For that I apologize. It is my hope that the future will once again be as optimistic as it usually is… I just don’t see it anytime soon.

Regards,

Shawn K. Hall

It’s truly amazing how quickly he forgot what he was there to defend.