08 Oct 2006
Cigar industry heating up again

This is one of the two facts that put the lie to the anti-smoking movement's claim that it's all about protecting the innocent non-smoker from evil smokers and their second hand gas. "Cigar bars", where the well-heeled can gather and puff away, have exemptions from smoking bans in most cities that have implemented them. Rich folks puffing rich smokes: good! - poor folks sucking poor smokes: bad! How do you spell class warfare?

The other little factoid that flies in the face of their claims is the proliferation of the phrase "tobacco free" as opposed to "smoke free". I have yet to hear of the mass suffering of innocents from "second hand spit", though I will admit to finding public spitting a bit of a gross-out. Of course, I also find 700 pound middle aged women in pink hot pants a gross out, too, but as yet see no signs declaring "gross free" zones.

The anti-tobacco movement is about control - nothing more and nothing less. They have the correct answer, and they're bound and determined that everybody else will share in that answer, or else have to answer for their defiant non-belief.

Which sounds amazingly like a lot of monotheistic religions I've heard of. It's not for nothing that we are having a "crusade" against smoking ...

AP - For about five years in the 1990s, the cigar industry luxuriated in a wild sales boom when celebrities and trendy 20-somethings decided that puffing imported, hand-rolled stogies was The Next Big Thing.

(link) [Yahoo! News: Top Stories]

06:53 /Politics | 1 comment | permanent link

In God’s Name: As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation

You know, the Times is right about one thing: it is patently unfair that religious organizations get exemptions and other benefits that secular organizations with similar missions do not. But ...

How could it be otherwise? The only real solution is to expand the exemptions and benefits to cover all non profits. Because to quote John Marshall, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." And it would be far too easy for the government to effectively "establish" a religion or a set of "approved" religions if it were given tax and regulatory authority over religious institutions. How likely do you think it would be for the current Administration and it's Internal Revenue Service to grant exemptions to Heathen organizations (and several do have 501(c)(3) status) if it were not required by law to treat all religious organization equally?

Now this is not to say that I'm a fan of "faith based" initiatives. Exemption from regulations and taxes is not the same as passing out cash to churches. My complaint with this is that providing positive benefits to religions can have the same effect as taxing them: the government can end up endorsing or approving certain sects, effectively establishing a a given faith. Which is exactly the direction the current Administration has taken. If we want reform in this area, here's where we can do it: kill the whole Office of Faith-based Initiatives.

Conversely, if approached logically, expanding the benefits of religious organizations to secular ones would also require the cut off of any government funding of those organizations. As a libertarian, I wouldn't see anything particularly bad in that, but I daresay I don't think most of them would appreciate it, since they are the recipients of a large proportion of government grants.

So because of the political realities of the situation, it's probably going to be left alone. Any cure we apply here is quite likely to be worse than the disease.

Religious organizations enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes. And the number is multiplying rapidly.

(link) [New York Times]

06:35 /Asatru | 1 comment | permanent link