Alice Holler, a smoker from the Meyersdale area, said she doesn't have a problem with helping children. But coupled with the state smoking ban, Holler said smokers are being hit too hard. The ban started in September and prohibits smoking in most public places.At least I wish she--and those like her--didn't live here any more.
“I feel they should start taxing something else instead of cigarettes,” she said while walking along West Main Street in Somerset on Thursday. She suggested levying a tax on alcohol instead.[More]
Don't gore my ox, gore his.
May posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
she's just being pragmatic, David. It isn't the violation of principle she objects to, it's the personal cost to her that ensues because of it, and/or the personal cost of standing for the principle.
ReplyDeleteAnother pragmatist. And they wonder why we don't respect them, go figure.
She isn't objecting to the wrong being done, she is objecting that it isn't being done to someone else, instead.
ReplyDeleteIf she truly wanted to be pragmatic, she'd just stop smoking...like that'll ever happen!
ReplyDeleteOh no, Yuri, that isn't the way pragmatism works. She wants what she wants for herself, and she is willing to aid in the mistreatment of others to get it. That's the way pragmatism works. I know! I have been told that many times by some of our false brethren.
ReplyDeleteI think I might have missed something here (like what this has to do with gun owners?). I completely understand where Alice Holler is coming from, it is unfair to specifically attack cigarette smokers for healthcare reasons, like it would be to tax the sell of bullets to pay for emergency room clinics, it's the same logic, both objectionable.
ReplyDeleteI probably read too much Chomsky, in his writings it is clear the taxation and prohibition of certain items, marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, have always been to exploit minorities. For example, the El Paso prohibition of marijuana specifically to incarcerate Mexicans. Tobacco use is probably the single most dangerous drug in the United States, however this tax increase isn't proposed because the Government has a vested interest in decreasing the demand or improving public safety, instead to tax a community that's too weak to rally political opposition. If our government wanted to improve the health of our citizens through taxing the things that plague us, we would see the taxation of fatty foods, instead the majority enjoy their McDonalds, so politicians ignore fatty foods. This is just one way our fiscally irresponsible government manages to "lower taxes" while "increasing spending", you just tax weak groups.
It's not fair for minorities to pay a tax on something that everyone uses, that's how class warfare is conducted. I think it would be fair if, suppose, the tax would pay for smokers to quit. Instead this money gets squandered on everything else.
We as gun owners ought to oppose all restrictions on vices, after all, it is not hard to compare the use of a firearm, which is deadly, to any substance which is also deadly. We can make the distinction, because we understand that our vice can be used responsibly. Politicians we equally attack gun owners, as well as cigarette smokers, on the grounds that it's fair to target minority groups.
What it has to do with guns is quite simple. Defend all our rights or none. She has exposed herself as a "noner". Ergo, she is similar in moral makeup to our false brethren. It's the "I want mine, I'll give up yours to get it".
ReplyDelete"We can make the distinction, because we understand that our vice can be used responsibly." the-pathogen
ReplyDeleteExcuse me, but how in any way shape or form is gun ownership a vice?
J.B. Books said:
ReplyDelete"Excuse me, but how in any way shape or form is gun ownership a vice?"
I think that's what the-pathogen is getting at - the same gymnastics are involved in someone saying my smoking (or whatever...) is a 'vice' - let alone any of their business.
Smoking - or whatever - is usually a quantifiable thing - a 'vice' is more a label of stigma and less of substance - hence my earlier use of the word 'gymnastics'. Property ownership is a ready arbiter of matters like smoking - and 'public domain' is the foot-in-the-door in terms of people who lack standing.
"Defend all our rights or none."
ReplyDeleteI agree, I thought, for some reason, the article was attacking cigarette smokers, which I was trying to point out ideological gun owners should be opposed to any right infringement.
I used the word "vice" because in the eyes of gun prohibitionist, gun ownership is within the definition of "vice", (bad habit, moral flaw or form of depravity). Anti-smokers view tobacco users in the same manner, making a personal choice that is damaging to society. My apologies if my word choice caused confusion. I'm not defending the gun-prohibitionist position, nor saying it's logical, but it is the common argument that gun ownership is -overall- more damaging to society. I assume we collectively disagree.