Because This Is Important ….. Leftards Freak Out Over Golden Globe E-Cigs!!!!!

What’s wrong with these lunatics?

Priorities: Senate Democrats Send Strongly-Worded Letter To….

..NBCUniversal — to voice displeasure over one element of the network’s coverage of the annual Golden Globe awards last weekend. Four United States Senators took time out of their schedules for this:

Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and three of his Democratic colleagues are criticizing the Golden Globe Awards for showing celebrities using electronic cigarettes on TV. Durbin, along with Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, sent a letter Tuesday to NBCUniversal and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association expressing concern about the potential that showing the e-cigs at the awards show will “glamorize smoking.” The senators ask the two groups to take action to prevent similar appearances by e-cigs at future shows.

I really don’t understand the left’s obsession and hatred towards e-cigs.  And, I can’t fathom the obvious hypocrisy of hating on e-cigs while celebrating and promotion of pot legalization. 

Well, okay, I do understand it, I just don’t understand how come the rest of the world can’t see it.  It isn’t about health issues or anything else.  It’s about the totalitarian state attempting to control and constrict the behavior of the citizens.  Who cares if someone is puffing on an e-cig?  Why?  And, why hasn’t the nation told these lunatics to STFU?

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Because This Is Important ….. Leftards Freak Out Over Golden Globe E-Cigs!!!!!

  1. leftinflagstaff says:

    Well, everyone knows parents aren’t responsible for informing their children. Government and the Golden Globes are.

  2. philjourdan says:

    And showing cleavage glamorizes sex!

  3. Bruce says:

    Perhaps the Democrats will fund studies looking at lung cancer rates from tokes and mouth cancer from hash cookies.

    And perhaps pigs will start nesting in trees.

  4. HankH says:

    Exactly. It has nothing to do with health. Like their other irrational fears, they don’t like how e-cigs look.

  5. cdquarles says:

    James, please remember that ‘criminalizing sin’ in terms of ‘drugs’ first started with opium here, followed by alcohol then marijuana. That was one of the noses of camels entering our cultural tents that has resulted in the mess we are in today. The whole thing is aimed at making normal life a crime. First they came for narcotics, then they came for alcohol and tobacco. What’s next?

    As a Christian I abhor prostitution. As a libertarian, I must reject any use of government power to enforce my notions of morality on the sinners, that goes beyond the least restrictive means. Name and shame both parties to the acts of prostitution. Don’t jail them unless they can be shown beyond a shadow of a doubt to have spread a deadly disease to innocents.

    Same thing with intoxication. Go after those who are intoxicated in public, regardless of the intoxicant, when they have demonstrably and again beyond a shadow of a doubt to have caused harm to the lives and property of others (no, I don’t count ‘pain and suffering’ as demonstrable harm … too subjective). Even then, use the least restrictive means that fit the circumstances.

    • suyts says:

      Cd, I promise I’ll address this issue at some point. It’s difficult to gather the words and thoughts in just one post. I absolutely agree that this is about control and criminalizing everyone. How better to control the public than to make them all criminals? And, I lean your way in ridding ourselves of these onerous laws. Still, I recognize a public interest in an orderly society. Sure, one can easily make the case for legalization of marijuana and the like …. a victimless crime, as it were. But, what of heroin? Angel dust? Should these be commercially available? Or are we to allow use, but, not purchase? To be sure, it is a slippery slope we’ve fallen to in the desire to control the behavior of the citizenry, but, it is equally slippery on the other side. At least it is from my perspective.

      • cdquarles says:

        All of it is fine by me (noting that as a sentient being with free will, sinful behavior is always possible, though undesirable), so long as one is not ‘drunk and disorderly’. That’s where I think we should draw the line. Not singling out intoxicants, but singling out intoxication and demonstrable harm to innocent parties.

        I would note that making these things illegal results in more harm than if they were legal and obtainable as normal pharmaceuticals, where one could monitor potency and purity; and have recourse against adulteration. Then we focus our efforts on the addicts, the true addicts that are at most one percent of the population.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s