Posted on 02/10/2005 4:14:57 PM PST by wagglebee
It's been evident for a long time now that people are getting grumpier, there's a lot of violence in today's society, and too many Americans, especially the younger set, have turned to drugs, legal and illegal, to cope with the everyday tensions of modern life.
When I look back to the dark ages when I was growing up, and for many years after, things were a lot less turbulent. We didn't have to turn to tranquilizers or other mood-soothing drugs when we were under tension or wrapped up in difficult tasks. We simply took a few minutes to relax, sat back and reached for a cigarette. It almost always did the trick. What got me thinking about smoking was a film I saw recently starring Tom Selleck, who played General Dwight Eisenhower in the weeks before he made the fateful decision to invade Normandy. In almost every scene, Ike, as powerfully portrayed by Selleck, had a cigarette dangling from his lips. I'm certain that this was an accurate depiction, that in those days Ike was ... gasp ... a chain smoker!
And unspoken was the idea that this man under the most incredible stress – faced with making a decision that involved the lives of tens of thousands of young men – found tobacco a friendly ally that helped him cope with the mental and emotional demands placed on his shoulders.
When I knew him, he didn't smoke – among other things, he had suffered a heart attack, pretty much a convincing sign that it was time to quit smoking. But when he did smoke, it played a role in keeping him on an even keel when that was vitally important for him and for America.
In the Marine Corps in WW II we were told that in the field, even if we were non-smokers, we were to carry at least one pack of cigarettes for the benefit of those who did smoke and might be out of cigarettes at a time when they most needed a drag. Obviously the Corps saw tobacco as a benefit to Marines, especially in combat. Moreover, both C and K rations included small packs of cigarettes.
I didn't smoke then – I chewed cigars in the mistaken belief that it made me, then a skinny 17-year-old kid, look like a tough Marine of the ilk of Medal of Honor winner Joe Foss, who always seemed to have a stogie in his mouth.
If you watch any of the old war movies, there is invariably a scene where a dying G.I. or Marine is comforted by his concerned buddies, who put a cigarette in his lips, light it, and see a spark of gratitude in his eyes as he departs this world, thankfully sent on his way to eternity relaxed by soothing tobacco.
In recent years I have been appalled by former smokers or their heirs who have helped greedy trial lawyers milk billions from an industry once praised for its contributions to the war effort, on the specious grounds that the evil old tobacco companies had withheld from them the shocking news that tobacco smoking was not the healthiest pastime around.
C'mon, where have these dodos been? As far back as the 19th century, cigarettes were known as "coffin nails," not exactly a testimony to tobacco's safety.
I don't smoke anymore. For 40 years I smoked seven foul-smelling cheap cigars a day – and I inhaled. Then I switched to cigarettes. Like most people, I smoked a pack a day. I finally quit when it occurred to me that tobacco was one reason why I had a tough time waking up every morning.
It wasn't easy to stop; habits are hard to break and there were a bunch of false starts. But like millions of my fellow Americans, I did it.
It's been years since I kicked the habit and I still miss the opportunity to take a break and have a cigar or cigarette. I miss being able to smoke at the end of a meal. Smoking put a period to eating. Now the sentence goes on and on, and overeating is not exactly healthy either.
The anti-smoking fanatics have convinced the world that tobacco is addictive. The experience of the millions of ex-smokers who quit proved how false that idea is. If it is really an addiction, most of those who have quit would not have succeeded and many of those who had quit would have been backsliders who finally gave in to the urge and went back to smoking.
Don't believe that? Take a look at those addicted to hard drugs such as cocaine or heroin. Those are real addictions, and the record of cures for those addictions is dismal. Most addicts die as addicts.
Tobacco is a habit, period. You can break a habit with great effort. Breaking addictions requires superhuman efforts few find possible.
As Alan Caruba points out, the anti-tobacco fascists have conned the world with their phony claims. He writes: "There are few, if any, people that do not know there is an element of risk involved in the decision to smoke. There is risk involved when any American gets into his car and goes anywhere.
"Driving kills over 40,000 Americans every year. It is the price we pay for the mobility and other benefits cars and vehicles provide. There is, in fact, risk in every human activity including the enjoyment of alcoholic beverages and even the simple act of eating."
And as I said, smoking has its benefits too. Moreover, it is a choice people make, and in these days when choice has become a battle cry, the opportunity to choose is limited. You are admirably pro-choice if you approve of butchering unborn human beings, but you have no right to choose to use tobacco.
Adds Caruba, one of the sanest observers of the current scene around today: "Do people who enjoy smoking have any rights? Increasingly, the answer is no. It is essential to keep in mind that smoking cigarettes, cigars or pipes is an entirely personal choice. No one is required to smoke. Millions voluntarily stop smoking every year. People have been smoking and enjoying tobacco products for a very long time, but now they have been demonized and ostracized."
To combat the freedom-of-choice argument for smokers, the anti-smoking fascists would have us believe that smoking harms not only the smoker but also everybody within range of the tobacco smoke. This is junk science at its worst. It has been repeatedly shown that the alleged health dangers of so-called second-hand smoke are a fiction.
In his eye-opening book "The Health Benefits of Tobacco," Dr. William Campbell Douglas II writes that "One study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, found that nonsmokers have no increased risk of lung cancer as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke during childhood, in the workplace or from living with a pack-a-day smoker for as many as 40 years."
He cites another study conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer funded by the World Health Organization that concluded that second-hand smoke poses no significant health risk.
"Despite these authoritative studies, and in spite of Federal Judge William Osteen's ruling striking down the conclusion of the EPA's study, the EPA continues to lie to the public that second-hand smoke is not merely a nuisance, but a proven health hazard."
Look, smoking is a health hazard and the hazard increases with the amount of tobacco consumed. The two-pack-a-day smoker is looking for trouble. That's excessive. Excess in anything is a bad idea. A glass of wine every day is healthy, a bottle of wine a day is hazardous. So, too, with tobacco. We just saw an example of that. Johnny Carson was known to be a man who for years smoked to excess. He died of emphysema.
Americans should be free to smoke if they want to. There is certainly more than enough information around that in the long run immoderate smoking can be harmful. But it's your choice, not that of the loonies at EPA or the neofascists in the anti-smoking lobby.
If you want to know more, get Dr. Douglass' book. He makes a powerful case for moderate smoking. He has a Web site www.drtobacco.com, where it can be ordered.
The problem is the left continues to say things which their allies in the leftist media report as gospel and the result is the public begins to believe a lie.
As Tim Wilson pointed out, tobacco won WW II,pot did us in in Viet Nam.
That's what I did. I just quit my pack a day habit. Period. No false starts, cold turkey, haven't had one since. Once in a while, when I walk by a smoker, I inhale a little bit and get nostalgic (because I am one of those folks who like the smell of tobacco the way some people like aromatherapy) but I have never smoked again. Emphysema killed both of my maternal grandparents. Not worth the risk.
I agree with this arguement. I stopped smoking because smoking a pack and a half was for me excessive. I figured that I cannot just have a couple of smokes like my wife does so I stopped. No regrets. I am now twenty pounds heavier and that worries me! My mind has replaced one habit for another: food! I joined a gym and decided to burn all this excess weight. I am in control. PERIOD! My old man smokes he is 83! He has maintained the same weight for 63 of those years. That my friends is what keeps him alive and fit! Smoking is not killing him but my aunts, uncles, grandmother who died wer killed not because they smoked but because they were overweight!!
I believe this is a tax grab pure and simple. There was an interesting study that stated that if 15% of the pop smoked, then the cost to treat those who would "potentially" be affected by desease would be offset by the tax revenu generated at the higher prices. This is what it's all about folks. Bureaucrats are socially engineering our lives in order for the left side of the ledger matches the right side!!!
These are almost the identical words written by Florence King in a column, or in a special essay in a magazine.
I have been trying forever to find it. I even have got to buying collections of her syndicated columns, but they all have been edited in such a way it appears that all her smoking related columns have been excised.
PC at its worst.
If anyone else can recall that King column, I would be eternally grateful for any additional hints that might help me locate a copy.
It had to have been written between 1980 and 2000.
B4L8r
It is noteworthy that in an essay, written osensibly to illustrate the excesses of the moral Taliban, PC rears its ugly head either subconsciously or not.
Mr. Carson, having died at age 80, could be said to have died of old age, or hardening of the arteries, or heart problem complications, or even my favorite, "old age".
But no; the link to tobacco needs to be emphasised.
It is impossible to prove a negative. Still, it is worth speculating how many people may have been spared an earlier death from obesity, heart problems and strokes, by means of the soothing and stress-reducing benefits of tobacco.
I remember seeing Jackie Gleason's last appearance with Johnny Carson (it was either 86 or 87). Gleason was on for twenty minutes and smoked at least five cigarettes. He told Carson that a few years before he had bypass surgery and his wife was somewhat upset when the surgeon informed them that his lungs were as healthy as a teenager.
In 1940, Malcolm X was arrested for drug dealing. At the time of his arrest, he was addicted to heroin, cocaine, barbiturates, amphetamines, tobacco and a user of marijuana. He was thrown into a cell to detox cold turkey. After a week all he wanted was a cigarette. He said that the other drugs were difficult to do without but tobacco was a consuming need. Nicotine is one of the most addicting substances known and inhaling it is one of the most addicting venues for any drug use.
Total horse manure. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known.
Only 8% of cocaine users become dependent. For alcohol, it's about 15%. For tobacco, addiction is seen in greater than 90% of users.
Think about it. Of all the smokers you know, how many are casual users who smoke one cigarrette or fewer per day?
-ccm
I have smoked on and off for fifteen years. I always quit when I was pregnant, I never smoke in my house, cars, or around my children, and I do not smoke around people I know who don't like it. Anyone who thinks smoking isn't bad for you is in denial. But it is legal. So leave me alone. People who want to outlaw smoking in public places are going to have a serious fight if they come to my town. Given the fact that up until about 1980 most people smoked, if second hand smoke was such a danger we would all have cancer. And if I own a restaurant, and the government tells me that THEY are not going to allow a legal activity on MY property, buddy we are going to have a problem. Personal choice and private property rights have been attacked for years by liberal do-gooders.
These people are organized, she has been added to their email blaster, These people goto everyone of these small municiple BoA meetings and take up all the floor time when it is given over for discussion. This has happened so much so at St.Peters that one of the Alderman is proposing that all open floor speaking by non-residents be moved to after the regular bussiness session is over. And limiting the discussion per topic time to 20min. St. Peters broadcasts its meetings on the local cable channell and they say people are tuning out because of the repetitive nature of the Anti-Smoking Nazi's schtick.
What they are trying to do is bully their way into taking up all of these Board meetings's extra time untill they get these ordinances introduced, usually by an ally on the board but it seems that these small boards are wearing down to the pressure.
As usual they hear both sides and of course as you would imagine the most eloquent of the speakers has been area business owners that are worried about losing business, and standing up for their property rights.
Power=$$$ eventually...
Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think its all about bringing down successfull capitalists. Just like all the good little Marxists want.
You know, I am starting to get a little freaked out by what is going on in this country. Perhaps it has always been this crazy and I am just getting old enough to notice, but it just seems as though we are a couple of hairs away from complete socialism. How can the fight between good and evil have gotten so close? And what can we do besides "write letters"?
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.