A Little Less Free
So our governor has decided to bow to the pressures of kickback.
Cigarette smokers continue to be treated as if they randomly empty baggies of gunpowder into the pants of passersby. Why does our society always go overboard? On June 15, the new law will go into effect: No venue-interior smoking, other than in private clubs, private offices with no customer traffic and casinos (hmmm). The incredibly dangerous (and, to many of us, air-fouling) variety of beer and liquor available will, of course, remain legal for consumption inside venues. Who has vested interests in singling out tobacco as the dangerous item subjected to a vast breach of freedom? Does liquor bring in too much tax money to be included in the vain attempts of politicians to pretend they care about the health of residents?
The hypocrisy borders on the bizarre. If you must buy something to decorate one of your shelves with, or a new toy for your vehicle or house that you do not really need, remember that the factory that made it belches more toxins into the air per day than those found in thousands of cigarette cartons. I know consistency is a lot to ask for in an extremist, reactionary state, but could it hurt to give the idea some thought? We certainly have yet to chance it. My fellow state residents, it is your privilege to believe, and wander around valiantly proclaiming, whatever you like. Just keep in mind that if you happen to be the typical moaner, you make yourself transparent as a jealous ex-smoker when you support hurting the liberties of people whose habits are making no impact on your life.
Smoking is certainly not the unrewarding enslavement it tends to be depicted as. To millions, it is a great delight. Whose choice are we basing our universal laws on? Those with the most political exposure and influence do not represent those who work here (and actually, you know, pay taxes).
Simply put, we do not need any more laws. Do you agree? We have to remember that with every new law, we become a bit more restrictive, a bit less free. A bit less like ourselves, you might say, and more like places we profess to loathe. So if we try to cook up any fresh rules, we had better make sure everyone agrees. People no longer seem to consider the concept of setting a dangerous precedent. Once any government gets its foot in the door, the door will not close again. What happens when something is banned that you, the reader, do happen to like? Then will you take an interest, and perhaps even attend civil meetings regarding newly proposed laws?
The anti-smoking ban is tantamount to the treatment of dandruff via decapitation. Not everyone agrees with banning smoking across the board rather than arriving at more reasonable terms—by a very wide margin—and not everyone believes the secondhand-smoke propaganda. There are just a few folks out there who feel they have to run to the government if their worlds are not perfect by their own definitions. The problem is, they affect millions who do not agree with them. Consider this: If smoke-free venues were really so popular, we would not need any government intrusion. Businesses would do it on their own, sticking to demand. So the given reasons for such laws are entirely redundant.
This Study Approved By The Don
Whoever pays the fiddler usually calls the tune. When a “scientific” study comes out saying that coffee is not harmful, always ask: Who paid for that study? Follow the money trail! If anyone who makes money off coffee helped pay for that study, do not swallow the claimed results as truth! Never swallow as truth the claimed results of any study approving booze, pharmaceutical drugs, sugar, coffee, chocolate, meat, dairy, nuclear power, cell phones, computers or whatever if people who make money off that item helped pay for that study to be done. Do not be their duped fool! Do not let them con you into buying or eating or using something harmful so they can make money off you.
News stories about a health safety study usually do not provide a complete list of who all paid for the study.
Many scientists sell their brains, careers and consciences. The cancer of money addiction corrupts and makes many people prostitutes in all occupations.
If the persons conducting the research eat or use the item being studied, often they downplay the dangers of the item regardless of the actual study results because they do not want to face up to the painful truth and change their own lives. Scientists' personal addictions and prejudices often distort their public conclusions.
I aim to speak, write and live the truth as best I see it. I lived well in 2006 on $3,635 for my total living expenses—that is considerably less than one half the U.S. poverty level for me as a single person under 65. My conscience and life are not for sale!
CORRECTION: In last week's issue, we misspelled the name of the third-place winner in our photo contest. The correct spelling is Devon Costello. The Alibi regrets the error.
Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to email@example.com. They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.