Update: Cigarettes and free speech: Judge blocks graphic smoking warnings

In a previous blog I brought up my opinion that the new legislation mandating graphic images on cigarettes was overreaching and unconstitutional, regardless of whether or not the frightening images would be successful in a cause I support.

Apparently the U.S. District Judge felt the same way. Five of the six largest tobacco companies sued the FDA on free-speech grounds and asked for a preliminary injunction to block implementation of the images, set for fall of 2012.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled in their favor Monday.

I wonder how this will turn out. I'll keep you posted.

New Anti-Tobacco Regulations

It’s well known to all of my friends or family that I am very anti-smoking, but I’m at odds with the new anti-tobacco tactics that are to be put into effect September of 2012.

In the most aggressive anti-tobacco effort since the surgeon general's warning became mandatory on cigarette packaging in 1965, the FDA said Tuesday it will begin requiring tobacco marketers to cover the top half of cigarette boxes and 20% of tobacco advertisements with nine bluntly graphic anti-smoking images.

Does the new requirement that all tobacco products display graphic and admittedly disturbing photos on their products go too far? We are a capitalist society; doesn’t big tobacco have a right to market and sell their product, however unhealthy?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a staunch supporter or banning smoking in public places, especially places near children, but I still think that the consumption of tobacco products is a personal choice, and that as long as it’s done away from me, my baby, and other non-smokers, it’s none of my business.

Imagine if the government mandated that Ben & Jerry’s started putting pictures of fat stomachs or butts on the packaging for ice cream? Or that Coca Cola products must now include a warning label that consumption may lead to obesity, and that the warning must cover 20% of the can? We are already bombarded with calorie counts on menus in restaurants and fast food joints- do we really need more reminders of the unhealthy choices we make? Don’t we all know by now that tobacco is bad for us, and that ice cream makes us fat? (Lord knows those calorie counts that ruined eating at the cheesecake factory for me forever…)

 

It’s a very slippery slope when the government regulations are allowed to run rampant in a free market society. I’m not sure this is the best route to reduce smoking; I much prefer banning smoking in public places, especially bars and restaurants, and hope that the trend reaches all 50 states. I couldn’t go out at ALL in Louisiana because the bars were so smoky.

The new labels are gnarly. I agree with their message, but I don’t think it’s constitutional for the government to mandate that they be placed on tobacco products.

Chocolate Milk Ban

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Unified School District (2nd largest district in the United States) decided that the schools it presides over (approximately 680,000 students in total) would not be allowed to serve chocolate or strawberry milk in the cafeterias as of July 1st.

In an attempt to lower obesity rates in children, the LAUSD decided to take out sugar/flavored milk and put in soy milk along with low-fat and no-fat milks.

I have mixed emotions about this; the libertarian side of my brain is disgusted that choices are being removed from young people, and the over-involved mother/ republican side counters that if you’re dead set on giving your kid chocolate milk just pack it in their lunch. Better yet, don’t rely on the school to feed your kid at all- making lunch for your child not only shows your little bundle of joy that you love them, but also provides a means to ensure they are properly fed a nutritious ad enjoyable meal.

Apparently some parents are concerned that children may stop drinking milk altogether because the only milk they liked was flavored.  Institutions such as the American Heart Association, the National Medical Association and the School Nutrition Association have argued that flavored milk has more pros than cons, and adding a little sugar to encourage consumption is justified.

Those who support the ban point out that chocolate and strawberry milk have ingredients such as colorings, flavorings, artificial sweeteners and high rates of sugar which don’t tend to be healthy. Their next targets are soda, chips and other unhealthy products as they continue to create healthier menus for schools.

Chocolate milk ban supporters also say that the presence of sugar makes the consumers develop a “drive” for sweetness, which tend to develop into bad diets.  I personally love chocolate milk. If it weren’t so loaded with fat and sugar I’d drink it all the time. That doesn’t mean Nixon is going to be pounding it when she’s older. Sweets are meant to be an occasional treat- not a daily accompaniment with meals.

Condoms or Diapers

Does the economy affect the way we think about growing our family? It should and, surprisingly, in a nation that is notorious for spending more than it makes, It does. 

I read an article today that suggests that Americans are not only tightening our belts, but we’re keeping our zippers up too. As our economy reels and struggles to revamp, that the average American family is spending more money on condoms and less on diapers.

It’s refreshing to see that other families like ours recognize that it is not prudent to expand their families when their income isn’t growing and may even be lower than usual.

Adam and I originally planned on having at least two but most likely three kids. Now, especially after all of the unexpected complications with Nix, we’re content with our family of three and don’t plan to have any more babies. I intend to stay home to raise Nixon, and without the extra income we’d take in from me working, it just wouldn’t be fair to Nixon or another baby to tack on the extra expenses a new baby entails.

In a few years, if we’re in a better place financially, Adam and I have discussed fostering or adopting another child, most likely an older brother for Nix that otherwise probably wouldn’t be able to find a family. We’ve been blessed, and Adam has had plenty of work coming in, but for now we’ll “follow the trend” of responsible families who are waiting out the recession before having more children.

Remembering a Brilliant Soldier on Memorial Day

One of my very close conservative friends pointed this story out to me today, in honor of memorial day, and I thought I’d share it with my readers. It’s pretty long by itself, and beautifully written, so I wont waste any of your time with my commentary, except to say that when Lt. Mark Daily was killed by an I.E.D America lost one of its great heros.

Lt. Daily's story is worth reading. 

The first link is to an article published by the man who inspired Lt. Daily to enlist. Yes, it is 3 pages, but, in honor of memorial day, I encourage you to take the time to read it. After all, this young man died protecting the freedoms and liberties of not only Americans, but those of others abroad. His message deserves an audience.

1.  A Death in the Family by Christopher Hitchens

Then, to follow that, I have copied Lt. Daily's blog citing why he felt the need to enlist. 

THIS IS A TRUELY MOVING AND WELL WRITTEN BLOG PLEASE READ IT.

2. WHY I JOINED

Current mood:optimistic

Why I Joined:

This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see.  First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq.  After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq.  Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here. 

Much has changed in the last three years.  The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends.  This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near.  What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.  Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide.  And I am now in the center of this. 

Is this why I joined?

Yes.  Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights.  Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion.  I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq.  If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). 

I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions.  Their excuses used to be my excuses.  When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions.  When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me.  I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment.  My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday.  Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant.  Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared.  Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade. 

And maybe it is.  Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral.  Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein.  One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately.  Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics.  Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are. 

So that is why I joined.  In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny.  Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction.  Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq.  Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. 

I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.

In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted.  Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages.  Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed.  Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either.  Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction.  So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"