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.
When you "Walk Down the Street" in Wheeling WVA, I can GUARANTEE you have been exposed to innumerable Carcinogens in the "effluvia from" the Steel Mills in the area.
There is NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE that "Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke" is Toxic.
The "Jury is still Out" on "Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke."
AT VERY LEAST, there are FAR MORE RISKY ENVIRONMENTS than "Downwind from a Cigarette Smoker!!"
AS A GUESS, I would BET that the "Second-Hand Smoke from an "Oak-Burning Wood Stove" would be MORE DANGEROUS than "Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke!!"
THIS is an Issue of HOW RESILIENT the HUMAN SPECIES is; do we succumb to the SLIGHTEST INSULT, or are we "Pretty Tough;" are we SO FRAGILE that the "Slightest Insult" annihilates us, or are we "Tough Enough" to Tolerate Multiple Traumas; Built to Survive DESPITE the "Insults" Life Presents us with!!
The "Anti-Smoking Wimps" seem to believe that Humans are SO FRAGILE that the mere Exposure to "Second-Hand Smoke" will result in DEVASTATING PHYSICAL DEGENERATION-&-Possibly-INSTANT LUNG CANCER!
Despite MOUNDS of Evidence to the Contrary, the "Anti-Smoking Paranoids" have been CONVINCED THAT even the SLIGHTEST EXPOSURE to "Second-Hand Cigarette Smoke" will DOOM THEM to a HORRIBLE DEATH.
Because of the "Quasi-Religious Nature" of the "Belief System" of the "ANTI-Smokers," NO SCIENTIFIC DATA seems to be able to penetrate their "Belief System."
SO BE IT!!
I HOPE the 'Feds make "smoking" ILLEGAL!!
I'll make a LOT MORE MONEY smuggling cigaretts than trying to be an honest 'Doc!!
I agree to a certain extent , but a lot of people who were never born did die. (Abortion.)
And now a lot of those people who attacked smokers are going to feel the sting of a nanny government telling them what they can and cannot eat.
Its a good thing somebody does research. A lot of people have knee jerk reactions. Everybody says it so it must be true.
Very good points, which of course are totally lost on the anti-smoker gnatzies.
In many states it is perfectly legal to put a help wanted ad in the paper and specify "non smokers only" or "smokers need not apply." No one ever questions it or says anything about it. But can you imagine if a posiiton was advertised that stated "smokers only" or "non-smokers need not apply?"
The outrage would be horrendous.
I know how horrendous the outrage would be - I still lived and worked in Delaware when language was in a piece of legislation that would prohibit discrimination based upon the legal activities of employees outside of work hours. No amount of explanation to the opposite side would convince the anti-smokers that this would also protect non-smokers for the same type of discrimination. They only saw it as "smokers rights" language that was unacceptable to their nanny state mind-set.
"Smoker need not apply" language is still common in the classifieds in Delaware, but since there is a total smoking ban, you won't see anything different
They don't want to accept reality, but had the homosexual community in Delaware jumped on board of that legislation or another piece that got shot down the following year, they would not be still fighting for their "rights" in Delaware. None of the language specified smokers.
I fought it in Delaware for years and got very little assistance, I don't live there anymore, so I guess I really don't need to worry about their problem.
I did. Very thorough. I hope that quiets down some of the whiners. I don't think they want to hear the GOOD NEWS that cigarette smoke is not as harmful as they have been lead to believe. What will they whine about then?
I agree. My bad. My daughter is a nonsmoker and doesn't mind smoking at all. My stepson gets mad if anybody even lights up within sight of his house.
I've always said, if it's health issues they are concerned with then I think all fat people should have to eat outside, standing up.
Go ahead and fart if you want to. Its your right and I wouldn't think of trying to get your right to fart banned by the government.
there are a lot of things that bother me about this whole issue of forcing business owners to ban smoking..but most of it has to do with who are some of the major proponents of it.
I have a 6 year old and I have been being told since before she was 1 year old that she would have been better off if I had an abortion because I am a smoker.
A major (meaning highly paid/funded) anti has concluded that he and his male "partner" are better parents than my husband and I, because we are smokers and they are not.
I could continue, but I won't.
I support the right of a business owner to decide to permit smoking or not on his premises and for that I have been called everthing from an unfit parent, to a child abuser, to a murderer................it's because of people that take attitudes like that I will continue to speak out.
Or be banned from eating in particular resturants that serve fattening food.
LOL. Or have the "Fat Police" weigh them in first to see if they fall within a certain weight limit.
I know. These anti smokers really think they should be allowed to FORCE us into certain behaviors "for our own good!"
You have a very good point. But I noticed the anti smokers never get upset about abortion. I wish they would go online and see the horrible pictures of aborted babies. Maybe cigarette smoking wouldn't be so bad after all.
Since we are only discussing smoking tobacco in private businesses here, what is the point of your comment?
Perhaps that is what you were only discussing, but others were actually debating smoking outdoors and in doorways as well (scroll up and go to previous pages).
Hence the comment. Which I stand by.
Sounds to me as if your daughter is a normal person..........your stepson seems to have some issues.
Both of my SILs are non smokers - the older one is a former smoker, the younger one is a never smoker who has problems with certain tpes of exposure to smoke (not just tobacco) - both of them are against government mandated smoking bans.
Both live in states with state wide smoking bans (California and Delaware) and both wrote letters and called their legislators against the bans - even though they don't smoke.
Isn't that the whole idea behind the "War on Some Drugs when Used by Certain People"?
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.