Saturday, June 18, 2005

Paraded naked, beaten, and raped with impunity

Erin Carey and Ted Baar. Keep your children away from these people.

South Boston's Untouchables are relegated to the lowest jobs, and live in constant fear of being publicly humiliated, paraded naked, beaten, and raped with impunity by upper-caste Bostonians seeking to keep them in their place. Merely walking through an upper-caste neighborhood is a life-threatening offense.


On the subject of government helping you to "overcome collective action problems in your social life" (thank you, Matt), it should be no surprise that your fellow peers are just as gung-ho about removing the stain of tobacco use from the vicinities and extremities of their delicate pink orifices and imagined collective consciousness. From the Boston Globe:
[…] a Boston Housing Court jury ruled that a South Boston couple could be evicted from their rented water-view loft for heavy smoking, even though smoking was allowed in their lease.

[…] Last Friday, a jury ruled in favor of the landlord and the eviction. Even though the landlord could have written a nonsmoking clause into the lease and didn't, the jury found that the couple's heavy smoking violated a more general clause banning "any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health."
Of course, they tried to argue their case on the unconvincingly technical detail that the ventilation system in the apartment was defective — how strikingly banal in contrast with no-life, no-liberty, pursuit-of-health ideology. Neo-nonconstitutionalists are already yipping with a glee restrained only in inverse proportion to the amount of restraint required to complete the effect.
Although the verdict is not binding on other courts, tobacco law specialists said the decision is one of the nation's first to declare smoking a nuisance serious enough to become grounds for eviction.

"It is very important, because it is a sign that people are more aware of how dangerous second-hand smoke is," said Professor Richard Daynard, chairman of Northeastern University's Tobacco Products Liability Project, which tracks second-hand smoke litigation nationally.

"I believe this decision could accelerate the willingness of courts to decide that, if you are creating smoke that is seeping into other people's units, you are doing something that has to stop," Daynard said.
With friends like these, who needs the Surgeon General of the United States, unless you want a little representative democracy kick to the limited-government cranium.
Testifying at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on smokeless tobacco and "reduced risk" tobacco products, [Richard] Carmona was asked if he would "support the abolition of all tobacco products."

"I would at this point, yes," he replied. He declined to state whether he would support a law to ban tobacco — saying "legislation is not my field" — but did say that he "would support banning or abolishing tobacco products."
Such small distinctions between legislated bans and unlegislated bans are not meant to be understood or even important to the affected masses huddled outside the scheduled-for-demolition walls of civil society for a surreptitious puff. Human considerations of reason, rights and constitutionality are not to be weighed against microscopic particles of plant smoke. We are as children — "retarded children" — even to our fellow in-the-received-know citizens.

3 comments:

Pietr said...

'scheduled-for-demolition walls of civil society'-like it.
Mapmaster is a poet.But does he know it?

MapMaster said...

If run-on sentences with multiple clauses and unnecessary descriptors is poetry, then I'm your poet!

Fenris Badwulf said...

Bob Hunter revealed to us that smoking contributes to Global Warming. People who smoke should not have rights in a free society that listens to all voices and celebrated diversity.

They should wear robes painted with devils, and be chased by people throwing fruit. It is only fair.