Is Bostrom the only one who can see? OR April Fool's Day at the City Council, only they were not joking

Congratulations to Dan Bostrom for nailing things correctly when he suggested at yesterday’s City Council meeting that what the opponents of candy cigarettes really want to outlaw the real things.  Our local tobacco Taliban is back at things again so we all need to prepare for another round of intolerance.  That they are now attacking candy is but another sign of how they won’t let up on anything until they have achieved total domination of and utter demolition of what is supposed to be a free society.

 

So-called “public health” advocates oppose cigarettes because they associate “second hand” smoke with bad effects, real or imagined, which are said to include cancer, heart problems, and emphysema.  About the only possible second-hand problem caused by candy anythings is litter.  But the intolerant person is often a blind person so this minor detail won’t catch the eye of any of their eyes.

 

There may indeed be some public safety benefit from the part of the proposed ordinance which bans novelty lighters.  Lighters which do not look like lighters may be more of a hazard than lighters which do.  Of course, there is no real reason why this should be part of the same ordinance, except perhaps to provide cover for a councilmember who does not have the backbone to directly stand up against intolerance to rationalize a vote for the proposed ordinance.

 

But shame to people like Katie Engman, who works for the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota and is unlikely to feel shamed by her intolerance for bringing this thing to our City Council’s attention.  [After all, it is not like they have anything important to do.]  Double, or even triple shame on her and her cohorts for bringing youths like Shanicee Dillon and Calitta Jones into the fray.  Let us hope that these young people can grow up into more tolerant people than they are now being led to be.

 

DPP coverage is available here.