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.
He CRAVES something he really enjoyed EIGHT years ago.
Didn't you anti-smokers say that it takes just 'a little while' to get the nicotine out of our systems?
Well, I hardly think he has any left in his body after 8 years! He is craving cigarettes because he enjoyed it and he misses it.
Even though smokers in the US number 55 million, we are still in the minority. However, we still outnumber the AARP and the NRA.
DEADLY! LOL! Boy, are YOU misinformed!
Strong story.
God bless and keep you.
And you have 100% proof that cigarette smoke is completely harmless?
My question is, if smoking is as harmless as everyone says, why are a bunch of smokers suing the tobacco companies over the effects of smoking?
Just curious. Maybe some of those studies you are citing were done by people with their own agenda.
No offense taken but at least your parents didn't commit slow suicide before your eyes like my Dad did and everyone that dies from smoking does.
Anything to add on that subject?
Yeah, give me a minute. The page I'm looking for at ABCnews has been moved to their archives, it's taking me a some extra time to find it.
while I understand what you are saying, and know exactly what you mean -- I have actually seen the minds/feelings (whatever you want to call it) change on both sides of this, and other, issues.
But sticking with this issue, I actually see and understand most of what is being said on both sides. I do not like seeing, reading or hearing smokers tell non-smokers TOUGH, you've done this to us, live with it. However, considering most of those that get frustrated enough to say that have been told by the anti-smokers (there is a difference between non and antis-smokers) they are ignorant low lifes who have no rights and should have their children removed from their custody.
I happen to find it rather ironic, that according to one of the prominent (well financed) anti-smokers, my husband and I are unfit parents because we smoke, yet is a proponent of gay adoption and consider himself and his "partner" far more fit parents to their "daughters" because they don't smoke.
Yes I get annoyed with all the "stuff" coming out of the mouths of the antis, because from what I have seen and personally been subjected to they can not be trusted. I've got a hard time with a New Yorker who fled to France with his "partner" and "daughters" following 9/11 to have letters published in Delaware newspapers claiming to be a resident of Delaware during the smoking ban battle there. And now he is complaining about smoking areas outside schools in France, where his "daughters" attend school.
You smoke or not, I would hope the misuse of science, misrepresentation of credentials, abuse of the legislative process, and misuse of taxpayer money would bother everyone. I am disappointed to say it bothers few.
I feel alot of disgust when I go to ballgames and during breaks or between games, parents stream out to their cars to smoke. Some are afraid it'll affect their jobs, or social standing, some have this strange idea that they have to hide it from kids so that they won't be a bad influence to any kids that look up them. One day each kid finds out and they are disillusioned by the hypocrisy and lose respect for those adults. It's the same as being a liar.
My view is..if the kids are that weak of will and character that they would be that influenced, then they better get the kids professional help. Kids need to be toughened up, taught morals, taught that one can look up to a person even if that person does something that that kid or some in society might not want to do or like.
Neither of my kids smoke, drink, do drugs or anything...I taught them how to say "no" and to have a mind of their own.
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
For starters.
Or, he's craving it the same way an alcoholic craves liquor or drugs years after he/she quits. Because the body has been chemically altered and still demands it, eight years later.
Look, smoke if you want. But the fact is that smoking is highly addictive. When addictive substances are used heavily for a long time, the body changes. Sometimes the cravings never completely go away, or take a long time to do so. Which is why some alcoholics never touch liquor again after getting clean.
How about the WHO (World Health Organization) study that was quashed because it didn't give the results they wanted, or the study that the American Heart Association funded for 38 years (until they found out it wasn't going to give the results they wanted), or the Oak Ridge National Labratory study? Three of the largest studies to date and none of them found a statistically significant health risk with ETS.
Like I said, do some research.
Where are all the predicted health benefits from a scant 30 years ago?
Why would anyone hang where they are not wanted?
This is what happens when someone holds a party without ground rules.
You'll die from assault before you find the evidence you desire unless you refine your debate skills.
I never said that. What I do scream against is this second hand smoke propoganda.
Unless a person has severe respiratory illness, being in a room of smokers is not going to hurt anyone. Especially when there are air purifiers around, etc. And if a person is asthmatic and/or has a respiratory illness, they wouldn't subject themselves to being in a room with smokers anyway.
My question is, if smoking is as harmless as everyone says, why are a bunch of smokers suing the tobacco companies over the effects of smoking?
Because a good attorney got a hold of them. For the money, you know. It was known back in the 50's that smoking wasn't good for a person. But the anti's seem to think they can pass this off as new information. When it really isn't new.
Just curious. Maybe some of those studies you are citing were done by people with their own agenda.
Everyone working with the war on smokers has their own agenda. Once again, it's called money.
Don't blame you. All this preaching makes me want to light up and I don't smoke.
That's the ticket. I never could stand when the Clinton's started spewing "it takes a villiage to raise a child." I don't THINK so. We raised our own daughter, thank you. Boy, that statement they made really got my fur up!
Parents need to teach at home.
Although, when it came to smoking, my parents told me if they EVER caught me smoking, they would KILL me. hehe!
Well, I fought it hard, but in the end, my peers got me. It was my friends who started me smoking. Not billboards and not the ads on TV at that time. But my friends.
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.