With their fanatical zeal, you have to wonder how far busybodies will go

Sun.Com ^ | 4 August 2002 | PAUL JACKSON

[SheLion]

"A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke" -- Groucho Marx

Frankly, I'd far rather have the companionship of a woman than even a good cigar, but that's the way one of the greatest comedians in the world expressed his love for cigars.

But, I'll give it to Groucho, in a free society an individual should be allowed to make their own choices.

Duck Soup Groucho died at the ripe old age of 87, which surely shows smoking cigars was not bad for his health.

Sir Winston Churchill, arguably the greatest man of the 20th century, smoked cigars incessantly, drank like a fish, and ate as much red meat as he could get his hands on.

Winnie lived to be 91.

Adolf Hitler, along with Josef Stalwas one of the most evil men of the 20th century, was a vegetarian, abstained from alcohol, and would not allow smoking anywhere he was. Hitler shot himself in despair at the age of 64.

Now, would you rather pattern yourself after Winston Churchill or Adolf Hitler?

Well, the anti-smoking zealots surely don't want to you to pattern yourself after Churchill and from their rigid, fanatical authoritarian and totalitarian psyche, you might well wonder just how far they'll go if they successfully ban smoking.

Some are already pushing the vegetarian agenda, others animal "rights."

Junk food and fast food are already being targeted, and some 'animal rights' types don't believe people should be allowed to keep pets -- that's enslaving an animal.

Yes, we're dealing not only with zealots here, but 100% proof crackpots. It's amazing politicians -- even Calgary's city council -- listen to them.

In my column "Orwellian dreams" (July 30) I pointed out how mean-spirited, petty busybodies --- some of them on city council -- are threatening to bring financial disaster to hundreds of small bars, restaurants and pool halls.

And at the same time throw thousands of young waiters and waitresses out of jobs as they enforce draconian smoking bans on these enterprising people.

I centred on Charlie Mendelman, owner of The Garage Billiards Bar and Restaurant in Eau Claire, who is typical of small owners who are now at the mercy of the city's stringent anti-smoking committee.

That column was well-received -- Charlie's a popular fellow in town -- but a couple of readers said I had neglected to mention an extremely valid point.

It is this: While the city plans to ban smoking entirely in "public" places, a bar, restaurant, pool or bingo hall or casino are not "public" places.

A "public" place is owned by the public -- through a government agency, usually -- but none of the bars, restaurants and other businesses now under threat from our aldermen are owned by the city or any other government.

They are owned by men and women who have often invested their life savings in them.

In a free society, such places are called private property.

That they are not public property where any citizen can freely enter is also evidenced by the fact that Charlie and his fellow bar owners are legally entitled to refuse admission to anyone they do not want in their establishments -- and can throw you out should your behaviour upset them.

Neither Mendelman nor any other bar or restaurant owner I have spoken with wants to prevent any other owner from voluntarily banning smoking in their establishments, they just want customers to have a freedom of choice in whether they want to go to a bar that allows smoking or one that doesn't.

Seems sensible to me.

Now here I'm indebted to American author and consultant Craig J. Cantoni, who put the matter of freedom of choice in a nutshell in a column in the Arizona Republican.

This is what Cantoni had to say: Free markets work this way: Person A allows smoking in his Mexican restaurant. Person B believes in the second-hand smoke hysteria spread by the anti-smoking fanatics, so he chooses to eat at a Mexican restaurant that bans smoking.

Person C refuses to eat at any Mexican restaurant because he does not want to clog his arteries with lard-drenched refried beans.

Person D does not worry about secondhand smoke or secondhand beans, so he patronizes Person A's restaurant.

All four people have made their own free choices and taken their own responsibility for their own decisions.

Seems pretty sensible to me.

To you, too, probably.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson, associate editor of the Sun, can be reached at paul.jackson@calgarysun.com. Letters to the editor should be sent to callet@sunpub.com.

[metesky]

In the end it's always personal insults with people like you, ain't it Doc?

It must really piss you off when the serfs don't tug their forelocks when the great Dr. Luv makes his pronunciamentos from on high.

You must be great fun at a party.

[Max McGarrity]

BTW, there are several physicians who post regularly to the "puff list" smoking threads who do not see eye-to-eye with you. Understand, though, that this fight isn't about smoking, it's about freedom and the loss of private property rights and individual liberties. AND the right to engage in "risky" behaviors without government intrusion.

[Max McGarrity]

:::hanging head in shame::: You're right, rwfok, of course it's his duty. D'ya suppose he might back off if I show him the study that proves I'll probably outlive him by about 8 years, even though I do smoke, simply because I don't spend my time fretting about how others live their lives? Hey, if I die early, maybe my family can sue him for causing me the stress that killed me! Yeah, that's the ticket!

[SheLion]

Dr. Luv is going to turn into THIS Doctor! You watch:

Doc deserves a kick in the butt

By CHARLES ADLER -- Winnipeg Sun

His name is Maurice and he was among hundreds who sent me e-mail this week. His beef was with Dr. Frederick Ross, the Winnipeg physician who got stunningly positive reviews across the country for his "courageous" stand to kick non-smoking patients out of his practice.

"Isn't it wonderful?" Maurice wrote. "Our superb health-care system now has a new breed of doctor starting to practice. The first of this new breed will only treat people who quit smoking. Next, those who only quit drinking, and then drug addicts who swear off drugs, and then people who promise never to fight again, etc., etc. Government -- not doctors -- makes and applies the law.

"Imagine -- forget the Hippocratic Oath -- this new breed subscribes to the Hypocritical Oath. A doctor is paid to treat all patients -- because in a public health-care system we all pay to have the same treatment. Let's see if Health Minister Dave Chomiak allows this doctor to create his new fiefdom -- or revokes his licence to practise his profession.

"Will the MMA stop this new trampling of patient's personal rights to do what is legal or will they allow this doctor and other doctors who get on this new bandwagon to trample those rights in an ever-expanding arena?

"I always thought -- mistakenly it seems -- that in a free country you have the right to do what is legal without repercussions. This egotistical guy now dictates how we should live our lives or go to another doctor! But that is not the point. If this doctor is not stopped and others start this insanity -- you will have to live your life according to their dictates or receive no health care. Who made this guy God? Who elected him to pass this new law? He should do his job like he is paid to with our high tax dollars -- or get out of the profession.

"We pay his wages, and he wants to pick and choose who he treats?"

Maurice isn't just blowing smoke here. He is staking out a clear-headed perspective on two fronts. First things first.

Maurice is opposed to discrimination based on human behaviour. Replace the word smokers with any other group, the chronically obese, diabetics, alcoholics, those addicted to prescribed medications, and everyone will immediately scream discrimination. But the Anti-tobacco Talibans have given us a pass to declare war on smokers.

Secondly, Maurice is bang-on in saying the doctor is a public servant in a public health-care system and should do his job, regardless of who the member of the public is. If we had a clerk at the motor-vehicle bureau who decided she wasn't going to renew the licence of an elderly person because many of the elderly are too addled to drive properly, that clerk would face disciplinary action.

Now allow me to put one final stake into the heart of the argument advanced by our "healer."

Whatever happened to universal access? Is it not the most important pillar in our health-care system? When did it stop applying to smokers? If they cannot get access to the system or if they have to go through hoops put up by their own doctors, then how can we call it universal?

Now, the doctor may say the system can still provide access to these smoking misfits. But that implies that while he is too moral a man to meet their needs, there might be some lesser humans who can deal with them. When did shifting of responsibility become a great Canadian value? And if other doctors take this excess baggage, won't that make those waits in their waiting rooms even longer? Why should other patients suffer because of the anti-smoking zealots' misguided methodology?

My favourite phone call on this issue came from a person who stuck up for the doctor all the way. He called in to my CJOB chat show to say he wanted to applaud Dr. Ross. People who insist on killing themselves through smoking don't deserve medical treatment.

"What if a man were on a window ledge and he wanted to jump?" I asked the caller. "What should police and firefighters do when they are called to the scene?"

They should let him jump, he said.

[metesky]

There's only one solution:

If you're going to get an operation in Canada, bring a friend with a gun.

"You better do this right, Doc, because if my friend dies, you die."

[Great Dane]

Perhaps that's because every day I come face-to-face with the needless suffering brought on by the consumption of tobacco "products".

Hummmm.... are you telling us that tobacco related illnesses are the only self-inflicted suffering you see..... I think you have developed tunnel vision.

[Great Dane]

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer deaths in both men and women in the United States.

Strange, just a few days ago it was reported that lung cancer in both smokers and non, was 2% of all cancers, so whom should we believe. ?

[Old Professer]

Am I? As an oncologist, I see a daily parade of death of both the young and old caused by smoking. I am not interested, nor do I have time to engage in debate with the self-righteous smoker - I see enough of them when they have to visit me. Of course by the time they have to visit my office, they're much more contrite...

My friend, you do us a disservice by assuming we defend the art of smoking; we defend the rights of the owners of smoking-allowed establishments.

As to being too busy to debate your unsolicited assertions, don't you think that is being a bit imperious?

[Old Professer]

So what's your point? How does this in any way detract from the fact that smoking related illnesses cause millions of painful and unneccessary deaths every single year?

Cripes!!! You just went from the fatuous to the fallacious in one fell swoop.

[Madame Dufarge]

And when they lie on their beds facing the inevitable when they lived what they thought was a "risk-free" life, they all look up and say "How could this happen?" because you and people like you have made them believe, even if only subconsciously, they will live forever if they don't do x, y or z.

A gold star for Max!

[Great Dane]

You must be great fun at a party.

OH dear, the mere thought of being at the same party. :-}

[mysterio]

I think he said he doesn't want government legislating where smoking is allowed. He is just passionately defending an anti smoking position. He doesn't support anti smoking legislation. Since he is a doctor, I would expect no less. He would be derelict in his duties if he did not come out against smoking. I think the reality of the situation is that most of the people who smoke are going to die from it, and many will be unable to quit. Anyone who smokes can tell that it is unhealthy. However, that gives government no right to try to protect us from it. It is a legal product, and a free choice to be made. Smokers are quite valuable citizens, because the excessive taxes they pay provide money for all of the statist programs that society demands.

I think that smoking is a choice that people should make for themselves, fully informed. I struggle with addiction to it, so I understand. I don't support anti smoker legislation, though, and I certainly don't support demonization of smokers because non smokers don't like the smell. As a scientist, I also know that sidestream smoke is so dilute that the effects on health for the nonsmoker are almost nonexistant. However, it kills the smoker quite often.

[mysterio]

Also, it should be noted that although sidestream smoke does not cause cancer or emphasema, it can cause asthma attacks in those susceptable, especially small children and the elderly. As with any asthma attack, it can be fatal. Do with this information what you will.

[metesky]

Personally, I think the hysterical outbreak of asthma we're seeing is the fault of single mothers trying to protect their little bastards from anything connected with germs and the little bastards themselves vying for attention.

[Madame Dufarge]

That and the fact that my IQ is over 100...

And where would we find the evidence of this?

You seem unable to comprehend the arguments of posters on this thread regarding risk-taking and personal choices.

You seem to think that we are all 18 years old and have never had personal experience with loved ones' dying. These personal experiences, I would submit, have a much bigger impact on these individuals than they do on you, unless you want to argue that you're intimately involved in the everyday lives of your patients. But I know you're too intelligent to do that.

So when people express points of view that don't conform to yours, they're called smug, stupid, by implication ( "That and the fact that my IQ is over 100..") and not only that - their English skills aren't up to snuff!

Doctors like you are the reason I avoid doctors.

[Dr. Luv]

This thread has been a fascinating read and a real learning experience for me. For example, I have learned that:

What I know is “junk science”;

The outbreak of asthma we're seeing is the “fault of single mothers trying to protect their little bastards from anything connected with germs”;

Real men don’t cry when they’ve been told there’re going to die before their time;

I want to create legislation to prevent people from smoking or engaging in other activities which harm their health;

That my young patients who die of lung cancer must really die of something else – I’m just not admitting it;

I’m nicer to fat people with cancer than I am with smokers with cancer; and,

I’m not a doctor at all.

Evil people can believe what they want, but I know this to be true:

Smoking cessation effectively reduces the risk of lung cancer in both men and women, This effect is significantly greater for small cell lung carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and is most marked in women and in heavy smokers.

There is an association between smoking cessation and a reduction in the risk of all major histological types of lung cancer and as the number of years of abstinence from smoking increased, the odds ratio decreased progressively. This is true for all types of lung cancer.

Smoke or don't smoke - just know the risks. To see young people die well before their time makes people like me very, very angry. To see apologists on this forum refute science at every turn in order to justify their own smoking is a dispiriting exercise...

[Madame Dufarge]

Real men don’t cry when they’ve been told there’re going to die before their time;

And who determines that "time?"

Evil people can believe what they want, but I know this to be true: Smoking cessation effectively reduces the risk of lung cancer in both men and women, This effect is significantly greater for small cell lung carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and is most marked in women and in heavy smokers.

So smokers are not only stupid, but evil because they know the risks and choose to take them.

I know this to be true: you are obviously a savant, who understands nothing about life.

[Dr. Luv]

"So smokers are not only stupid, but evil because they know the risks and choose to take them."

The truly evil are the ones that downplay the risks. People like you for example...

[Madame Dufarge]

The truly evil are the ones that downplay the risks. People like you for example...

Another example of the vaunted high IQ.

I accept the risk; you wouldn't. Therefore I am evil.

Keep talking, no one could damage you more than yourself.

Water?

Microphone?

Maybe I could fluff your pillow up a little.

[metesky]

There is not one person on this thread that made the claim that inhaling tobacco smoke into one's lungs is not harmful in some way, a$$wipe.

You merely stigmatize smokers on this thread because they won't heed the clarion call from the great Dr. Luv.

Shove it.