Nanny Troopers, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #319 | @MDWorld
March 25, 2013 Mike Gold 2 Comments
Back in the day, the national opinion of New Yorkers was that we were an arrogant, self-absorbed, rude bunch of elitists. Then came Mayor Michael Bloomberg to single-handedly change that image. Now we’re a bunch of arrogant, self-absorbed, rude, elitist nanny troopers, smothered in a dollop of insanity.
Here’s Mikey’s latest insane proclamation. He wants retailers with tobacco licenses (a valuable source of tax revenue in these troubled times) to hide their product so children won’t see it and want some, and so adults wouldn’t treat it as an impulse purchase.
Let me rapidly dismiss the latter. Cigarettes contain nicotine, a highly additive substance. Getting your fix isn’t an impulse, it’s a coercion. As for the former – and my Spider-Sense goes off every time some zealot hides his or her argument behind a small child – well, here’s Bloomberg’s operative scenario.
A kid goes into a drug store or a convenience store without adult escort. He bops around the place contemplating the sundry sundries, makes his choice – doubtlessly candy bars with enough sugar to compensate for those super-sized sodas – and goes to the counter where he sees a rack of cigarettes behind the counter.
“OMG! OMG! What the hell is THAT! I WANT SOME! Gimme some of THAT! Wow! I want it, I want it, I want it! Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie!”
And then, probably just to shut the little bastard up, the clerk breaks the law and sells him some cigarettes – the ones with Bullwinkle’s grandpa on the package. Maybe the clerk has a degree in marketing and gives it to him.
Right. That’s how kids get addicted to tobacco, and the only way to stop that is to hide this legal product. Shopkeepers can stash them where, a generation ago, they used to store condoms. Yes, friends, there was a time when condoms were hidden from public view and people wondered why the “illegitimacy” rate was so high. This was before condoms came in a multitude of textures and flavors.
Mind you, in New York a pack of cigarettes goes for over ten bucks and a carton is more expensive than mid-grade marijuana, which is not legal. Supply and demand, my ass.
Bloomberg’s rationalization for this? Because cigarettes are bad for you.
No shit, Sherlock! Wow. Nobody else knew that! Each and every person who smokes tobacco is uninformed or just stupid. And eat your broccoli, damn it!
I’d say Bloomberg is trying to force us all into mandatory monkhood, but as I recall some tribes of monks are known for their production of alcoholic libations. Besides, Michael Bloomberg is Jewish.
Indeed, Michael Bloomberg is a shanda fur die goyim.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check the website above for times. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman, Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Rene
March 25, 2013 - 8:17 am
Bloomberg sounds like a grade-A asshole.
But I’m of two minds about this. My libertarian tendencies have always recoiled against the more extreme signs of anti-tabagism. Here in Brazil, any cigarette merchandise has to include huge horror pictures about the ravages of tabagism, and I think that is over-kill.
But… as I get older, I get less ideological, more pragmatic. In the last 20 years we’ve seen a society that is progressively getting rid of what is, in essence, an useless, dangerous, filthy habit. That is not a bad thing, even if the government has been so heavy-handed about it.
And cigarettes have never been something that harms only the users, as the dangers of passive smoking have been well-documented.
Mike Gold
March 25, 2013 - 9:37 am
Yep. I agree entirely. Tobacco is a dirty, smelly, unhealthy choice. I have no problem with reasonable laws that place sanctions against people using it under conditions where it can affect others, outside of the privacy of one’s own home or car or, by extension, boat or plane or TARDIS.
But it is still a choice. If somebody wants to use that shit, good luck and good night. Banning it outright would be no more affective than banning alcohol, marijuana, those forms of opium that are illegal, salt, sugar, and barbecue. We have the right to chose our own poisons, and everybody, even the most self-righteous of vegans, has their poisons. We all dine in glass restaurants.
Bloomberg’s hide the coffinnails initiative is, as I detailed above, just completely fucking stupid and I fully expect this clown to appoint a horse as his next police chief.
Then again, a horse might do a better job.
Jeremiah Avery
March 25, 2013 - 10:20 am
It’d be nice if Bloomberg spent a bit of time focusing on the 80% or so students in NYC public schools that are deficient in reading skills rather than this nonsense.
It does seem absurd that a kid seeing a pack of cigarettes is actually going to get one at the store (I’m sure some have sold to minors but overall, unlikely).
I can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke and a woman smoking is unappealing to me. However, it’s a personal choice and not something that needs this absurd tactic.
Mike Gold
March 25, 2013 - 10:30 am
To be fair, Bloomie must operate under a severe handicap. He’s a billionaire, and every single billionaire is insane.
As Tom Petty said/wrote/sang:
It’s good to be king, if just for a while
To be there in velvet, yeah, to give ’em a smile
It’s good to get high and never come down
It’s good to be king of your own little town
Rene
March 25, 2013 - 11:25 am
You’re right, Mike. People have a right to be stupid, as long as they don’t harm others.
It’s just (and this is very selfish of me, I know), that smoking is one of those “vices” that seems too petty to defend, if you’re not a smoker yourself.
Everything else has a kind of unholy glory, don’t you agree? Over-indulgence in sex, food, drink, mind-altering drugs, even stuff that some would consider “vices” (but not me), like enjoying certain books/movies/comics not approved by one’s church or political party. All of that has some immediate and understandable appeal, even to people who don’t partake of them.
Now, smoking. It’s a peer-pressure vice that offers little immediate gratification, IMO. It’s small and soothing and mechanic, like chewing gum. And it’s smelly too.
But yeah, people should have a right to indulge in cigarettes (and chewing gum), if that’s their decision.
Mike Gold
March 25, 2013 - 11:46 am
The appeal of cigarette smoking eludes me and always had. I tried it when I was 13, but I’ll admit I already disliked the smell. Both my parents were smokers — my dad had a three pack a day habit until the moment the price went up to 35 cents a pack. That was too much, and he stopped cold.
I was still able to go to the drug store (appropriately named) and buy my mother her cigarettes without question. I gather there were no laws back then to prevent the clerk from selling me the stuff. That was a mistake, and I have no problem placing sanctions against such sales. But, damn, if the general perception was that cigarette smoking was cool (and Kool), hiding the damn things would have only made them cooler.
Reg
March 25, 2013 - 12:34 pm
Mike…I like how you made the distinction that cigarettes ‘contain nicotine’. The other unique chemicals added by the industry players add the titanium to the chains. That aspect can open up an interesting argument regarding scope of responsibility.
That being offered…is there room in the argument for the consideration that cigarette smoking tends to impact more than that individual? The realities of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke as well as ginormous hit to public health care costs?
Rene
March 25, 2013 - 12:55 pm
Reg, the thing is, anti-smoking laws already are so draconian right now, governments have already taken such big steps to discourage people from smoking, that I don’t see how they could introduce any more reasonable anti-smoking legislation. The only step remaining is to outlaw smoking.
Mike Gold
March 25, 2013 - 12:57 pm
I’ve commented above on the second hand smoke aspect, although I haven’t used that very phrase for no reason whatsoever. Through the magic of copy and paste, I’ll reiterate one such comment: “I have no problem with reasonable laws that place sanctions against people using it under conditions where it can affect others…”
You’re absolutely right about the other sundry additives in cigarettes, including but not limited to ammonia, caffeine, kola nut extract, lemon oil, snakeroot oil, sugar… and chocolate. Personally, if I needed any greater dissuasion than nicotine and I approached the list in alphabetical order, I’d pretty much stop at ammonia.
But it is a choice one can and should be able to make for oneself.
I’ve commented previously, and in connection with Bloomberg’s foolishness, about that ginormous hit to public health care costs. That’s a very, very slippery slope. Once you start banning any one product, be it sugary soft drinks or tobacco or anything else appropriately deemed to be unhealthy and therefore costly, you got yourself a list that is actually a lot longer than the list of tobacco additives: foods containing fats, alcohol, nitrosamines, and so on. And on that same endless page, you would be obliged to add fossil fuels, electricity generators, batteries, hybrid engines… and, in the further interest of fairness, we’d have to ban burning wood, coal… fuck it, we’d have to ban the very air we breathe. There are better ways to attack the issue of the high cost of “health care” — nationalize it, including big pharma, and get rid of the insurance companies.
Actually, let’s start with getting rid of the insurance companies. All of them. Entirely. You’ll be amazed at how the cost of everything would plummet.
Mike Gold
March 25, 2013 - 1:00 pm
Rene, I would love to see smoking tobacco criminalized and marijuana legalized. Then the pot smokers can finally have somebody to look down upon in self-righteous indignation.
Yeah, one can argue that’s already happening to a limited extent. Doesn’t matter. There’s no reason to believe tobacco prohibition would be any more successful than any other substance prohibition.
Nor should it be.
Reg
March 25, 2013 - 1:09 pm
“There are better ways to attack the issue of the high cost of “health care” — nationalize it, including big pharma, and get rid of the insurance companies.”
Now you’re just talkin’ crazy talk.
Mike Gold
March 25, 2013 - 1:12 pm
Yeah.
It’s a living.
Rene
March 26, 2013 - 4:26 am
This week I read that there are 1 million abortions a year in Brazil. Note that abortion is not legal here. And 40% of Americans have used marijuana at least once. And how many people have never watched/read/listened to anything ilegally downloaded?
That is why repressive anti-drug laws don’t work. We already live in direct democracies, of a sort. When enough people believe something isn’t wrong, there is little the ruling elites can do except play pretend. Of course, that serves its own purposes. Like not allienating a hardcore conservative minority that takes the pretend game seriously.
Neil C.
March 26, 2013 - 5:24 am
Personally, I have no problem with the smoking ban, since it’s made it a lot easier to go to bars and clubs and not go home smelling like a tobacco farm, especially as a non-smoker who the smoke irritates and whose father died of lung and bone cancer. But Bloomberg has gone nuts with regulating other things. Put calories up so you can be informed? Sure. But the rest, although it could affect health care costs, etc., it doesn’t have the same immediate danger or annoyance as second-hand smoke. I’m liberal on a lot of issues, but when it comes to “everyone gets a trophy!” or “dodgeball is bad for self-esteem” or the soda/hide cigarette ban, that’s when I shake my head and think people are crazy.
Mike Gold
March 26, 2013 - 7:23 am
Rene — Damn, right on the money.
Mike Gold
March 26, 2013 - 7:34 am
Neil — Dodgeball is bad for self-esteem? I missed that little slice of horseshit pie. If dodgeball has a negative impact on your kid’s self-esteem, you’re blaming it on the wrong thing.
Rene
March 26, 2013 - 7:55 am
Well, everything in school seems to be designed to destroy your self-esteem. Why choose dodgeball as scapegoat? 🙂
Mike Gold
March 26, 2013 - 8:02 am
Ha! You nailed me, Rene!
Thanks to our dear, truly enlightened friend Martha Thomases, I saw the movie Dodgeball and completely loved it.
R. Maheras
March 26, 2013 - 1:07 pm
Bloomberg, no doubt, is using classic political sleight of hand to keep voters’ eyes off of the real problems he’s not addressing.
“Hey, voter! Hey voter! Look at the shiny object over here, so I can distract you from what’s really going on.”
Mayor Daley in Chicago was the master of that. His big shiny object of choice? Gun control.
Mike Gold
March 26, 2013 - 1:19 pm
Good point, Russ, but actually as New York mayors go (Giuliani, Wagner, Walker, Van Wyck) Bloomberg was pretty good at running the city during his first two terms. But with Lame Duck comes great ego. Bloomberg was a better mayor than those four guys combined, times two. Then again, so was Daley.
R. Maheras
March 26, 2013 - 8:29 pm
I had a love-hate relationship with Daley. For example, he always seemed to a big supporter of the troops, yet he jumped through all kinds of political and legal hoops to kick the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units out of O’Hare, displacing thousands of reservists and Guard members who had spent most of their careers assigned there. I’ll never forget the Chicago Memorial Day luncheon after Daley sealed the deal. Daley was announced and walked in, and most of the military personnel from the Chicago area attending clapped and stood up — except for the tables where the O’Hare units were sitting.
Let me tell you, such mass displays of disrespect by military people are rare, but those troops felt betrayed by Daley’s zeal to kick them out.
It was certainly an eye-opener for me.
Mike Gold
March 26, 2013 - 9:05 pm
Agreed. O’Hare was his airport — he built it, going back to the days he ran the party before he was mayor. He didn’t want the military occupying any part of his land. Which he and his crew acquired in perhaps the greatest land swindle of all time. But he, personally, didn’t make a dime off it. Just his ego.
I’ve grown to respect some of what Daley did, and I think his basic attitude of “good government is good politics” is decent: he was, for his time, very responsive to the voiced needs of his constituency. You needed your curb fixed, you called your committeeman and it happened. And he never took a penny — “just give ’em your card.”
But a great, great many of his friends and field generals went to prison. And he got some of his biggest enemies, including two Democratic governors, tossed in prison. After his third term, he really started seeing himself as a Caesar and acting accordingly. He grew out of touch, although his machine continued to provide services to “his” citizens, and he was the first to put minorities in positions of high office, including Congress.
An enigma.
Neil C.
March 26, 2013 - 11:42 pm
Re: dodgeball: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/06/us/increasingly-schools-move-to-restrict-dodgeball.html
Rene
March 27, 2013 - 2:52 am
Jeez. Same demented thinking so common in some liberal wimps. If playing dodgeball made kids into spree killers then we’d be in deep trouble, because ANYTHING would make kids into spree killers. Remember when I said in another thread how some assholes turned “liberal” into a bad word?
The worst part of it is that it seems the terminology (“murder ball”, “killer ball”) is what bothers these assholes the most. Always the fucking terminology with them.
I could perhaps agree if their case was that being forced to play team sports allowed the less athletic kids to be humiliated in a daily basis, but it seems their problem is with how it’s called. Incredible.
Mike Gold
March 27, 2013 - 6:28 am
Dodgeball. The great American Evil. Oi. Did they ban Red Rover yet?
For crying out loud, us Baby Boomers grew up with teeter-totters, jungle jims, uncensored Looney Tunes, cigarette advertising, red-dyed hot dogs, candy stores, bubble-gum cigars, licorice handguns, Red Ryder toy guns, truly competitive sports, and a Superman who wears his shorts in a Woody Allen-like fashion… all now verboten by the self-righteous politically obnoxious self-appointed masters of child-rearing.
And what did these idiot busybodies give us? The first generation of brats that is actually stupider and less prepared for society than its predecessor. A gaggle of the spoiled who can never fail, never develop germ immunities and yet maintain a sense of entitlement so massive it dwarves the gravity of the Sun.
All the hubbub over our environment ignores the truly greatest evil lurking the nation: Asshole Infestation.