Those were the good old days. Especially in Maine.
Posted on 11/19/2004 5:35:36 AM PST by SheLion
Today is the day we set aside each year to badger, harass and pester that marginalized subculture of Americans, the Doorway People.
You know the Doorway People. They stand in doorways at work or at the mall smoking cigarettes because lighting up in mixed company has become as distasteful as nose-picking.
Yes, today marks the 27th anniversary of the Great American Smokeout, sponsored by the American Cancer Society, where modern incarnates of pinch-mouthed prohibitionists attempt to further ghettoize smokers.
Now, it's not that I think smoking is good. I have friends who smoke. I wish they didn't. On average, they will trade 10 years of their lives to enjoy their habit. But we're all grownups. Smoking is their demon and I have enough of my own demons to wrestle with.
But, unlike anti-smoking zealots, I sympathize with smokers.
That's because I was a smoker. When I quit for good in 1996, I was burning through 2 1/2 packs a day. I ditched the habit because each time I coughed, my lungs rattled as if someone had backed into metal trash cans.
Still, I loved every puff. I still miss it. In fact, I still have nicotine cravings.
So I'm sympathetic to smokers and believe they should be free to enjoy their addiction, which, last I checked, remains legal. Which is why I dislike the anti-smoking scolds. They are trying to criminalize smoking.
From New York City to Dallas, from Toledo, Ohio, to Eugene, Ore., anti-smoking zealots have racked up successful campaigns to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, the last bastion of peace and acceptance for smokers.
Eventually, the anti-smoking "movement" will have won enough smoking bans in enough cities in enough states to introduce national no-smoking legislation, said Zoe Mitchell, co-founder of Ban the Ban, which recently defeated efforts to enact similar no-smoking legislation in Washington, D.C.
"Ultimately, their goal is to make it a national issue based on their success at the local level," she said.
Anti-smokers say they're acting in the best interest of public health.
They say all those smokers burden the healthcare system with their cigarette-related maladies. It costs all of us more in healthcare premiums, they say.
Nonsense. Smokers die sooner than most of us nonsmokers, never collecting a cent from Social Security, which they've paid for decades.
Also, smokers pay outrageous cigarette taxes on each pack of smokes, which pours billions of dollars annually into government coffers.
At best, the money argument is a wash.
When an anti-smoking nut steps into a place like the Puss N' Boots Tavern in Fairless Hills, all they see is the blue-gray cloud of smoke hovering over the patrons crowded around the bar.
When I walk into the Boot, I see it differently.
I see a local cop who's seen more than his fair share of tragedy.
Or an emergency room nurse who was up to her elbows in blood just a few hours before.
Or a construction guy who's sacrificed years of Saturdays to work overtime so he could save for his kid's college tuition.
Or a middle-aged father worried about his son, who's fighting the war.
These are the good people the anti-smoking zealots want to stigmatize as public health leeches.
And if they accomplish their goal, they won't go away.
They will persecute the overweight, stigmatize SUV drivers and haul into court those who don't recycle.
They've got the money and the time and the lawyers.
None.
This isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's SUPPOSED to be a constitutional Republic. Do you know the difference? It might be a good thing to find out.
I think we should ban those screaming children from restaurants because after all I didn't pay to hear them scream, I payed for my food. /sarcasm
Get back at? LOL
They don't want to 'get back at' you. They just don't care now that they've been shoved into the street, with junk science and scare tactics, about your wants and desires.
Do you smell a mole/troll?
C'mon, I'm not paranoid. Hopefully they aren't blowing smoke in anyone's face on purpose. But I know you know what I am talking about. There are a LOT of people out there who aren't as considerate as you are.
One of the other people on this thread said something like "don't expect any consideration from smokers who are forced to smnoke outside." People like that may not actively try to blow smoke right at you but they sure don't make an effort not to.
No, I just see someone that doesn't like the smell.
They're another of the, "I wouldn't vote for it but I sure do like the results." people that don't stop to think about the property rights of others or the fact that smokers are disillusioned by "democracy".
You said it causes a PREVENTABLE cancer....that is what I am asking about. What PREVENTABLE form of cancer is CAUSED by smoking...your implication being that if you don't smoke you won't get that type of cancer (which you haven't identified)
And the ACS is still claiming that smoking is linked to cervical cancer and that tidbit has repeatedly been ebunked.
If smoking and second hand is the big killer the highly paid professional anti-smoking zealots say it is, don't you think they would have issued an all out ban and just pulled tobacco products off of the market?
They would have to have an all out ban before they can go into a person's home and forbid smoking.
Did you buy a home near one of those places or did build their plants after you moved in? There's a huge difference.
When I was stationed in Cherry Point, NC, we actually had people protesting the "noise pollution" from the jets. These were people who bought land and built homes KNOWING their was a Marine Corps Air Station right down the street. What did they expect when they moved in? Quiet jets? Pilots practicing combat maneuvers in gliders?
That's insanity.
Time to get out and vote. Bottom line.
My dentist's son got a brain tumor, he was going through chemo and radiation. He beat the cancer, thank God, but this happened about the time that the "scientists" were saying that giving your kids hot dogs that might be overly done might cause cancer due to nitrates.
Imagine my dentist weeping to me as told me how guilty she now felt for giving her kids hot dogs.
I was so made at the stupid "scientists" that use junk science just so that they can get grant money. They should see the harm they do to people, emotionally and mentally.
They say the same thing about bacon and almost everything that one eats, cooks, has in their home, their office, outdoors. Have a microwave? An old hairdryer? Wood Paneling? Carpet? Furniture? Drinking unfiltered water with nitrates in it? Drink regular coffee? Decaf? Use white coffee filters?
It's not just smoking.
Are you going to throw out everything in your life that "they" say causes cancer? No, you pick and choose. It's your right but don't force your choices on others.
Do you believe in global warming even though top climatologists have pooh poohed the concept? Most top scientists pooh pooh it but you rarely hear from them in the MSM.
The "intellectuals" are out of control..and for what? Money? Fame? God like stature? Because they are expected to publish so many studies a year to keep their jobs? Several have been caught and publically exposed for falsifying studies.
Sanity must return to the scientists, universities, and to this country.
They didn't want mob rule.
We are still a Republic though the demonrats are trying hard to make us a democracy with mob rule.
I agree with you regard the NIMBY attitude of people who move into an area after the fact, be it an airport, chicken plant, or whatever and then proceed to complain.
I look upon them the same way I look upon people that knowingly enter a private establishment that permits smoking and then proceed to complain and attempt to get it stopped, and then when they succeed they complain about smokers outside (I'm not talking about you, I've been reading your posts)
I'm not trying to minimize the illness of your grandfather. But there are a lot of circumstances that go hand-in-hand. Was he obese? How was his diet? Did he exercise or was he a couch potato. See what I mean?
Not all smokers are predestined to get cancer. And millions of non-smokers DO develop cancer. Cancer and heart problems come with birth and the way we choose to live our lives. You can't blame either on one sole habit.
I often tell this story when I encounter such smiley faces. Many years ago when smoking was still partially allowed on airplanes my wife and were on a fairly lengthy flight. We had arrived late at the airport and consequently I wound up sitting behind my wife and she was seated next to a somewhat older lady.
Well, they were soon gabbing like a couple of old friends and and, of course, my wife was smoking like a chimney (per usual). About 2/3 of the way through the flight my wife suddenly noticed that the lady was not smoking and said, "oh, goodness, forgive me for not offering you a cigarette (thinking she must have gotten on without picking up a pack).
I'll never forget the lady's reply. "Oh, that's all right ... I don't smoke." My wife, puzzled, said "but there are plenty of seats in the no smoking section". To which the lady replied, "I fly several times a year, but I NEVER sit there .... I can't stand those people"!
God's honest truth.
Well, preventable doesn't mean it's totally excluded. But you can almost eliminate the risk of lung cancer by not smoking.
Emphysema is also virtually unheard of in non-smokers.
Smoking (actually, all tobacco use) is harmful to your health, end of story. It's not a debatable topic. I speak from experience, as I've seen what it's done to members of my own family.
I also trust doctors and their years of research and medical knowledge over rumors on the Internet.
Some of both. Depends on which one we're talking about.
But it didn't matter. I made the best of it by using technology that was available.
Those were the good old days. Especially in Maine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.