Joe
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.
You are the one persecuting people DU'er. You don't even sound like a FReeper.
Interesting. I didn't know that. This thread caught my eye 'cause I saw an article by Dr. Sally Satel once in the NYTimes op ed. It's no longer on their site (for free) but here's a copy.
From her WSJ article:
Activists have rushed to embrace a new study that seems to prove, at long last, that secondhand smoke is life-threatening. The British Medical Journal reported that after a smoking ban in Helena, Montana, the heart-attack rate dropped by almost half. In an accompanying editorial, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control heralded the finding. And that prompted the Washington Post to blare, "Second Hand Smoke Poses Heart Attack Risk, Warns the CDC."
In truth, the study is woefully unreliable; but its compatibility with widespread anti-tobacco animus gave it status as "fact." Meanwhile, other solid data that tobacco products can improve the health of smokers go largely ignored.
Interesting, eh?
Joe
Avoiding that "sign" would be the point. I already explained how most people get that sign.
He told me "God doesn't worry about what goes into our bodies, but what comes out."
Straight from scripture. It was referring to keeping kosher, but the idea is the same in some ways. Different in other ways.
I'm glad you are happy. But ya can't blame people for wishing you well.
I'm with you, I just read it. But tell me, where does it say you can do what you want if it infringes upon the rights of others?
I was going to say "keep it in the closet", but the phone booth is better!
;^)
I've always thought that the government should ban smoking in areas where people "have" to go... courts, DMV, government buildings, etc. Anywhere else... I think the law should only require a sign prominently posted outside re. whether the establishment bans smoking, allows smoking, or has sections. That way, everyone can make his/her own choice and gets the info up front. It always seemed to me that the market would take care of the situation. If people wanted non-smoking bars, someone would open one. I'm glad I've never smoked, because I can't get rid of the bad habits I have now... I'd never be able to quit. But all this hyper-sensitivity to smoke gets on my nerves.... the rights of the business owner really seem to me to have taken a beating on this issue.
Great article but there's one little thing I have a problem with. He said smokers die early and don't collect Social Security.
He should have said,"some smokers" die early-----I've been collecting SS for 10 years and there are quite a few like me.
It's a typical anti-smoking tactic.
If you shout it long enough and loud enough people will take it as truth.
I just don't have the money to shout as long and loud as the antismokers.
Probably because they're using MY money to shout with.
Great picture. Great idea.
It's my LIFE, and I take the LIBERTY to smoke because it brings me HAPPINESS!
Yep, and I *strongly* support private businesses making their own decision on the matter. No government intervention.
I still think you belong in a Liberal think tank discussion group somewhere in a blue state stink hole debating whats best for smokers with the funding coming in the form of taxes taken pack by pack from smokers. As for the personal attack on me well thats typical liberal debate tactics straight from the DNC manual.
Then I must be 109; my cousin told me on my 35th birthday that I was 35 when I was born (due to my conservative nature, I guess), and now I am 64...
Ther's no smell in the world that compares to dried coffee and spoilt milk.
(Me, as devil's advocate...)
But those people are allowed to be as loud as they want, they are paying for their meals just like you.
I'm sure you always could. It's just that you wanted to go to the places where smokers hung out. Now, of course you get a triple benefit: hanging out in the cool places, coming home reek-free, and the Adrenalin rush obtained from knowing you've forced your will on others. Seriously, does it get any better than that?
Businesses are not public places.
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.