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.
Agreed. One only needs to look at L-Tryptophan and the rise of the SSRI anti-depressants to prove your point.
It's another reason that big pharm and the liquor industry will not stand to see pot legalized ... and even the American Medical Association which promotes it's own stats that 40% of all hospital beds are occupied by people who;s ailments can be linked to the use of alcohol. That's alot of revenue, and a big reason alcohol will remain legal.
Drug laws are all about money and politics. You and I are in 100% total agreement here.
A scary thought, I know.
I never mentioned OSHA regs or ADA regs.
But since you brought up OSHA, were you aware they were sued by one of the Anti-smoker organizations to set a zero tolerance level for second hand smoke? The antis wanted OSHA regs for employee exposure - but they wanted a zero level and OSHA said it couldn't. I don't remember all the specifics, and don't have the document at my fingertips, BUT, the gist was had OSHA set levels for exposure all smoking bans enacted for "employee safety" would be tossed out - because even the smokiest bar would not reach even a minimum level.
The antis weren't happy and sued - but finally realized they were sunk if OSHA did set a reg - so they dropped the lawsuit.
I know, I brought it up as my own example.
But since you brought up OSHA, were you aware they were sued by one of the Anti-smoker organizations to set a zero tolerance level for second hand smoke? The antis wanted OSHA regs for employee exposure - but they wanted a zero level and OSHA said it couldn't. I don't remember all the specifics, and don't have the document at my fingertips, BUT, the gist was had OSHA set levels for exposure all smoking bans enacted for "employee safety" would be tossed out - because even the smokiest bar would not reach even a minimum level.
No, i'd be interested to read that article if you can find it (no sarcasm at all, i'm serious).
But that doesn't invalidate the point. OSHA was brought up in response to your assertion that "businesses should be able to do what they want". I still don't 100% agree with that, whether smoking falls under that umbrella or not.
The antis weren't happy and sued - but finally realized they were sunk if OSHA did set a reg - so they dropped the lawsuit.
Well, this is a victory for smokers, then.
I really don't know what, if any, or to what extent SHS affects people, how much SHS it takes, etc, etc. To be honest, I doubt anyone truly knows. Any "study" will yield the results that the "researchers" want it to yield.
I do know that SHS does indeed trigger asthma in some people, especially people with serious asthma, and is a known "trigger" for migranes and allergies in some people. Yes, I know, vehicle exhaust and other industrial pollutants can do the same thing. Now, do we legalize recreational drug use in the workplace that may cause distress to some people, because it may be no worse than vehicle emissions or smog? I don't know the answer to that. The debate will most likely rage for some time.
I know, I brought it up as my own example.
But since you brought up OSHA, were you aware they were sued by one of the Anti-smoker organizations to set a zero tolerance level for second hand smoke? The antis wanted OSHA regs for employee exposure - but they wanted a zero level and OSHA said it couldn't. I don't remember all the specifics, and don't have the document at my fingertips, BUT, the gist was had OSHA set levels for exposure all smoking bans enacted for "employee safety" would be tossed out - because even the smokiest bar would not reach even a minimum level.
No, i'd be interested to read that article if you can find it (no sarcasm at all, i'm serious).
But that doesn't invalidate the point. OSHA was brought up in response to your assertion that "businesses should be able to do what they want". I still don't 100% agree with that, whether smoking falls under that umbrella or not.
The antis weren't happy and sued - but finally realized they were sunk if OSHA did set a reg - so they dropped the lawsuit.
Well, this is a victory for smokers, then.
I really don't know what, if any, or to what extent SHS affects people, how much SHS it takes, etc, etc. To be honest, I doubt anyone truly knows. Any "study" will yield the results that the "researchers" want it to yield.
I do know that SHS does indeed trigger asthma in some people, especially people with serious asthma, and is a known "trigger" for migranes and allergies in some people. Yes, I know, vehicle exhaust and other industrial pollutants can do the same thing. Now, do we legalize recreational drug use in the workplace that may cause distress to some people, because it may be no worse than vehicle emissions or smog? I don't know the answer to that. The debate will most likely rage for some time.
HEHEHEHE! The paint peels and your eyes start stinging; are ya seeing the effects yet? Tobacco doesn't stand a chance so you might as well give it up and I'll meet you half way and by the way mine smells just like roses!
I have a problem with alot of chems and smells which is not related to smoking nor are my allergies.
Yes I've heard about our overly clean houses that are also more solid, not letting air in and out unless the doors or windows are opened and I agree.
I keep threatening to roll around naked in mud and run around in winter without shoes and everything that people used to do and were healthier for the most part. I can't stop using alot of cleaning chemicals that most use because I can't use them in the first place but I can stop using anti bacterial soap and washing my hands many times a day. :)
SheLion says to Hurlin,..."Do you smoke after sex?" Hurlin,..."I don't know, I never looked."
ROTFLMAO! You crazy thang' you!
You said that, not me. It's an old tactic, But nice try.
OMG, you are so bad, lol! This discussion has degraded into a third grade exchange.
THAT really is the main point and heart of this issue.
Nonsmokers have been far ruder to me than I have ever been to them.
That's nice of you. In my own home is where I draw the line.
We WERE in my own home!!!!
I know, LOL!!!!
MY you sound angry ,were you beat up a lot when you were a child.
WHY would anybody take their kids where their is smoking allowed and then bitch and moan about it. IF a man opens up a bar and decides he will allow smoking should he be shut down because of you, or maybe we are just having fun.
Property rights are the issue that you and I were addressing.
Your sarcastic statement and bizarre attempt to rationalize government control over private businesses by referring to a fight at a basketball game is almost amusing in it's childlike way.
Anyway, I am going sit here and sulk because Michigan just got torched by Ohio State. You can argue with someone else about cigs, have a good time.
Have fun sulking over a sporting event.
BTW, I wasn't talking about cigs to you, I was talking about rights. And by extention, what it means to be an American.
"I just don't think that I should have to sit and smell the smoke in a public place."
Please give us all your definition of "public place".
"But the RIGHT to smoke does?"
You clearly miss the point. You need to re-examin the reasons why you are on a conservative discussion board. The question is not your "right to breath smoke free air" nor is it my "right to smoke", instead it is clearly the property owner's right to the use of his property.
Look at this article by the great Walter Williams:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031119.shtml
In addition, if you happen to be listening to Rush, you would have just heard him state that your specific reasoning in this thread is now being used in a study to lay the foundation to restrict insense and candle burning in Church. How does it feel to enable the anti-religious fanatics.
Unfounded zealouts take on all shades. Where do you fit in?
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.