🚀 go-pugleaf

I wrote:
> But I'm still angry because I have to listen to the ads and they are
> some of the most intolerant, one-sided, smug things I've ever heard. And
> they lie.

Keith_P._Keber@iguanabbs.com (Keith P. Keber) writes:
>Ah. So freedom of speech is to be denied to elected representatives in favor
>of tobacco companies? And how is pointing out the ill effects of tobacco
>smoke in enclosed areas "lying"?

Freedom of speech is a strange way to defend these ads. In case you
hadn't noticed, tobacco ads have not been considered eligible for free
speech protection for quite some time. When was the last time you heard
a broadcast tobacco ad? And you may have noticed the white box in the
corner of the print ads. If it should be illegal to advertise tobacco
(a perfectly legal product), why shouldn't it also be illegal to
advertise *against* tobacco?

The ads were not designed by "elected representatives" but by bureaucrats.
They weren't even mandated by said reps but by the voters via initiative.
As another poster mentioned, the initiative said "education", not ads.
(And you also should have noticed the hypocracy of those who decry the
initiative process itself but defend this particular result.)

The ads I heard did, in fact, lie. They asserted that second-hand smoke
would prevent you from breathing! They asserted that the Declaration
of Independence guarantees rights. Instead it asserts that certain rights
already exist. The Constitution's Bill of Rights guarantees some rights,
including the right to free speech, without any statement that some
people don't qualify. There were many other less-than-candid assertions
that wouldn't stand up to minimal analysis.

The ads are an insult to intelligent people. If you're not insulted...
-- 
Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA	"Politics is the business of getting
dave@compata.ccss.com, +1 714 434 7359	 power and privilege without
dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu		 possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke