Posted on 08/05/2002 5:09:05 AM PDT by 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.
Smokers are smug.
Smokers are less than contrite.
Smokers have a sub 100 I.Q.
Smokers who type too quickly can not be English teachers.
Smokers can not produce evidence with any credibility.
Smokers must admonish themselves for their life style choices.
Smokers are evil.
Smokers are all these things because, gosh darn it, an oncologist said so.
What you have not learned:
The majority of smoker's have the ability to think for themselves and don't give a rat's @ss what you think.
You and many of your smug, sanctimonious, smoking friends have done everything you can to minimise the facts and attack the messenger.
First let me state that I do not smoke. However, you missed my central point completely. Life is full of risks. We all take risks everyday. Sometimes we take these risks unwittingly and sometimes with full knowledge.
Ever smoker I know, is aware that smoking increases his risk of developing some sort of disease. If they decide to smoke armed with knowledge of the risk they take, its their business, not mine, nor yours.
You never responded to my last question. Do doctors live longer or shorter lives, on average, that us other mortals? I think the correct answer is: as a group their life expectancy is shorter. If so, choosing to practice medicine increases the risk to your health. But, thats your business, not mine.
mysterio, I don't want to argue with you; I agree with virtually everything you've said. However...doctors are not gods and they didn't all graduate at the top of the class. I have a friend who heads the pulmonology department of a major teaching hospital here who tries to bring some reason back to this issue. He says he's "willing" to help any smoker who asks him, but he's "unwilling" to push his help on anyone because it is counterproductive. He's right. He would no more talk down to a smoker than to a skiier with a broken leg.
I think the reality of the situation is that most of the people who smoke are going to die from it,
Two of three smokers will never suffer any "smoking related" illness during their lifetimes. Everyone dies, but smokers don't die appreciably earlier than anyone else who engages in risky behavior--including overeating. Remember, everything is relative so to make a statement like that without putting it in the broader perspective is specious.
and many will be unable to quit.
No smoker in the world is "unable to quit." Changing the definition of addiction to include smoking has made it more difficult--unintended self-fulfilling prophecy--but when not smoking is more important to a person than smoking, that person WILL quit. Because I lived in an era prior to that change of definition, and because I've seen many, many people quit and have quit myself, I know this is true. I also know it can only happen if it's the smoker's will, not something that's forced on him.
You, in your smug sanctimony, hear nothing but the sound of your own voice.
We know the message and accept the risks.
You can't accept the fact that there are some of us who won't be reduced to a mass of whimpering, weeping jelly sitting across from your desk and begging you for help when our lives are ending.
How horrible for your self esteem, not that you don't apparently suffer from a surfeit of it.
I'd rather eat dead lizards...
I, for one, thank you for trying. I'm a smoker trying to quit and your words have helped me for this moment. I watched my mother and father-in-law die of lung cancer, both before the age of sixty. It is not pretty, and yet still I cannot put the d#@$ things down!
And by the way, Mr. Christ, you are not the messenger.
Ok, more water then.
And hey you guys, turn up the volume on the doctor's microphone.
Nasty little nico-Nazi, aren't ya?
No one here "minimises" the facts, nor do we minimize them. The facts are these: SMOKING IS A RISK, as are many other things we choose to do. IT IS NOT YOUR BUSINESS what risks we take with our own lives. When "the messenger" insults other autonomous adults, he or she should don a flame-retardant suit. Be careful who you call "smug," it reflects on you.
Now he's doing his best to impose his own brand of totalitarianism on us poor saps.
Thank you ...and I would like to ask those of you who even care....
You DO care yes??? WTF IS it you care for besides death and destruction?? You had better care for something....
Trust me...I cannot tell a lie...if we want to turn your town into "a glass parking lot"....we DO have the means
This guy is just plain dumb. Either that, or a 14-year-old playing Doctor. ack!
You tell em, Madame! We have been fighting with this guy who is playing Doctor ALL DAY! I'm sick of it!
I have come to the conclusion that he is a 14-year-old boy, Professer. And this has been going on all day. We can't get rid of this creep to save our lives!
SYSTEM ADMIN, THIS GUY DESERVES THIS ONE! PLEASE DON'T DELETE!
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.