First the smokes and then...
By A. M. Johnson
July 16, 2015
A few personal stances and observations.
I am a Christian. I am pro-life. I am in favor of the death penalty, and while we are speaking to criminal activity and gun laws, I am in favor of nationwide Conceal Carry allowed under interpretation of the second amendment. I am anti-gay marriage but could care less if two of the same-sex wish to copulate in any manner they wish. Get a room. They can have all the so called, Rights Mox-Nix to me.
I do not believe in man made climate change, We are not big enough or tough enough to change the climate.
Never beat my wife in 58 years of marriage, nor do I ever intend to, nor any woman for that matter.
There are multiple reasons that cause lung cancer, yes, smoking is the leading cause. I don't smoke as a personal choice. If smoking is so bad, ban all tobacco products, O-sorry, then the tax is lost.
I am against abortion particularly the newly exposed selling of aborted baby parts. Including the stabbing of a fetus' head as it enters the world breathing and alive. This from an adopted child with an ensuing beautiful family of two children and six beautiful Grand Girls who are making positive Christian impact on their world!
Eliminating murderers establishes a boundary. There are classes of murders that would not be deterred by any penalty, all the more that they should be eliminated from society.
I am against Sanctuary Cities for the same reason on different yet inclusive reasons.
Where trees have been cut, God has provided the mechanism to have new growth. The process of which is a lesson in botany science.
While I do not have a cat in the tobacco tax issue, the underlying issue is the subject of Control. That is what is being demonstrated. If the taxing of tobacco is good and for the reasons stated, then the slippery slope will continue by the very same local social mandating participants on other segments of life's choices.
A huge, to coin a pun, cause of health cost and unhealthy life style is obesity. Ketchikan surely has a fair share of obesity. As I understand the issue, the health of the community is at stake. This being the case, and reading in the Daily News this date, that the obesity grant for the school district has or may be lost and how important this is to the health of the community, then does it not follow that we should establish a $3.00 per bag tax for potato chips and such? Should we not police the use of food stamps for food not authorized that are effecting local obesity? The First Lady of the Nation seems to feel unhealthy foods leading to obesity is an issue.
We have a test for drugs, should we not have a process of measurement regarding obesity to assure that assumed obese citizens are not a burden on the health system now and in the future? We can judge smokers but not obese persons?
As Ms. Ellott stated, it goes on and on. Do I advocate for these actions? No, it is from the perspective of watching history of progressive social activity by the Beautiful People who deem themselves the lord and masters over the rest of us via Government can do it better mentality.
Human beings being what they are, survivors, will find ways around the smoking tax and will created the Black Market and a new industry which in turn will cause increased cost to the community in the form of more Laws and enforcement requirements.
Yes in deedee a very slippery slope.
Now I await the usual adjectives filled "noisome" responses.
A. M. Johnson
About: Lover of "Old dogs, Children (Grandchildren and Great-grandchildren), and watermelon wine. In favor of "Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey and more money"
Received July 15, 2015 - Published July 16, 2015
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Published letters become the property of SitNews.