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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Many of them were as smug as you...

Tell me, Doc, is it only smokers who come to you with cancer? Are they the only ones in respect of whom you have to tell loved ones there is nothing you can do?

Have you ever smoked? Or asked a (honest) smoker what they get out of smoking? I can't speak for all smokers, but I can tell you that I get enormous pleasure out of a smoke. And, I get that pleasure numerous times, every day of my life. Not simply in a couple of extra arthritic, bladder-challenged ones at the end.

Smokers aren't the only ones in society who engage in risky behaviour which they consider enjoyable and others consider fraught (eg. skydiving, mountain-climbing, etc.), but they're the only ones singled out for special ridicule, segregation and taxation.

So, as a doctor, have you ever asked why people smoke? Or do you just think they do it because they're addicted and for no other reason? Come on, if it's that hard to give up, why are there as many ex-smokers as there are smokers? Sure it's hard to give up, but is it because it's addictive like heroin? Or because it's addictive like sex? When I do give it up (and I do, from time to time) I'm not a trembling pile of gelatin writhing about on the floor. I'm more like a person in mourning for a lost friend. So, this is the start of your education as to why people smoke. If you are really the concerned professional you intimate to be in your post, you should start to learn a little about your patients, not just say, "There goes another smoker - hopeless case, sad really." I'll bet you have many patients who, for one reason or another are sad (mentally or physically) regardless of whether or not they smoke. Do you have any patients who you can say, "There goes another smoker - he/she seems happy." One shoe has never fit all the customers. You should know better than to make broad-brush generalisations that all smoking is bad for all people in all cases. That shows an unsophisticated, unsympathetic view of the world.

Are there other risky behaviours engaged in by your patients which you feel compelled to comment on publicly? (eg. said sky-diving or mountain-climbing?) Or is smoking a particular issue for you?

Finally, would you dispute that 1 in 3 non-smokers will contract cancer and 1 in 4 of them will die in "horrific pain"? If not, would you dispute that by giving up smoking, I'm avoiding a 1 in 33 chance of getting lung cancer, but I'm still going to have a 1 in 3 risk of getting some other form of cancer? My point? Smoking is risky, life is much riskier and life, unlike smoking, is 100% fatal. You call that smug, I call it a more dispassionate assessment of the situation than your paternalistic "you'll soon be dead" attitude.

Next time you get a committed smoker into your surgery, you might do well to ask them why they like to smoke so much and try and understand them, rather than simply saying, there goes another smoker - poor addicted fool. If only they'd been like old Mrs Smith - she got cancer too, died terribly at 85. Didn't drink, smoke, or stay out late. Dashed unlucky, that!

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.