·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Salute America's Heroes, support Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Global Warming theory, oppose Al Gore, support milblogs,
support Michael Yon, support Pat Dollard, support BlackFive, support MilBlogs, support MilBlogging,
support Mudville Gazette, support HotAir.Com, support JawaReport, support PajamasMedia, support VictoryCaucus,
support VetsForFreedom, support FreedomsWatch, support DayByDayCartoon, support Foundation for the Defense of Democracy,
support polisatDOTcom video, Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos,
oppose ANSWER, support http://PoliSat.Com, support http://WrennCom.Com, oppose Clinton Library, support Clinton Liebrary,
support http://ClintonLiebrary.Com, support http://ClintonLiebraryBook.Com, support ICANN, oppose terrorism, oppose jihadists,
oppose energyandcapital.com, oppose justforeignpolicy.org .
Focus on News, Politics, etc.
by Jim Wrenn, Editor
Shouldn't these questions be answered?.
A recently released movie, "The Insider," implies that tobacco company
agents sent death threats to the protagonist in the movie and placed a
bullet in his mailbox in an attempt to deter him from making accusations
against tobacco companies. On October 29, 1999, Brown & Williamson,
a tobacco company, issued a press release detailing previously undisclosed
FBI affidavits indicating that FBI agents had reason to believe the protagonist
and/or collaborators had faked the death-threats and placed the bullet
into his own mailbox. See .Brown
& Williamson's Press Release, which includes copies of such FBI
documents and raises questions about the course of such investigation.
B&W's questions deserve answers.
In the wake of anti-tobacco zealots' demonization of Joe Camel as a sinister
effort by "Big Tobacco" to lure children into smoking, why is it those
same zealots have failed to even criticize -- much less demonize -- a beer
company which uses animated frogs and lizards in advertising beer on sporting
events viewed by large numbers of children? Could it be the presence
of large beer breweries and distributorships in those politicians' districts
Assuming for purposes of argument that a tobacco company intended Joe Camel
to make smoking seem attractive to minors, why should we make the opposite
assumption about a beer company's use of animated frogs and lizards?
How could encouragement of youthful smoking, which at worst is a habit
statistically associated with slightly shorter life spans among long-term
smokers in comparison to non-smokers, be deemed morally reprehensible but
not comparable beer-company marketing to make alcohol consumption seem
"cool" to minors and thereby increase the incidence of youthful consumption
of alcohol (a potentially addictive substance) and also increase the incidence
of drunk driving resulting in thousands of youthful deaths each year?
How can the anti-tobacco zealots rationally argue that Joe Camel posed
a greater threat to the well-being of youths than the beer-commercial lizards?
What about effects on third parties? Except in the mind of an anti-tobacco
zealot, can "second-hand smoke" rationally be considered more dangerous
to third parties than drunk driving? Should we now mount a campaign
to demonize the beer company that uses the animated frogs and lizards?
No! Such approach would take us down an endless slippery slope leading
to demonization of red meat, mayonnaise, bacon, eggs, whole milk, etc. --
the list would be endless. The solution is to un-demonize Joe Camel
and recognize that in a free society, we allow people to make foolish decisions
and refuse to let zealots run our lives for us.
Back to Index for Editorial