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.
I first perused this thread when I came home for lunch, and Herr Doktor had been quite active by then. I see he's still going - all the golf carts musta been out for maintainence and all the caddies on strike at the country club today. None of my doctors ever seem to have that much spare time.
Must've been Soviet Georgia. I've never known anyone from the great Southern state of Georgia go "on holiday"!
Kneel when addressing an oncologist, cur!
In the immortal words of the late, great Lewis Grizzard, "Delta is ready when you are".
And it won't be a longer life....... it will only seem that way.
Doc, you're suffering from a problem common with professionals. As an oncologist, virtually every patient you see has cancer. Whereas the average person might experience a loved one or friend with cancer once a decade or so (until they get up towards average lifespan), you see more people with cancer everyday than people without cancer.
I know a couple of public prosecutors. They have a skewed view of certain racial and social groups in society, because every day - day in, day out - they see people of these particular racial or social profiles being charged with crimes. Ask them their opinion and they will say that, while they're not all criminals, the majority of them are.
I've known these people since university. I can assure you, they weren't like that back then. But, because they do not see a representative cross-section of society in their professions (or even a representative cross-section of these sub-groups of society), their viewpoints have been badly skewed. It is difficult for them to see that this is the case.
Tell me, when you see a smoker, do you see a person enjoying themselves? Or a cancer waiting to happen?
When you see someone sunbathing on the beach, getting brown, then red, do you see someone getting a tan? Or a cancer waiting to happen?
We're not downplaying the risks. We know the risks. How could a smoker today not know the risks? You are overstating the risks, because you are suffering from a syndrome common to professionals - where they see so many "clients" that they start to people in everyday settings as either present "clients" or "clients-waiting-to-happen".
Moi most 'umble apologies, master metesky sair. It won' 'appen agin m'lord. Oi know me place now - oi'm jus' a dirdy ol' smoker, oi am!
You seem to be mixing apples and oranges here. Lots of things cause painful and unneccessary deaths every year. There is a difference between relational and causational - they are not interchangeable. As to "millions" I would love to see the credible proof of this alleged "fact." Even the CDC, with their overinflated computer generated guesstimate numbers, only claims in the range of 400,000 per annum.
I have a hard time accepting your condemnation of much of what has been presented in this thread. The information is very credible. And much of the flaming you received, I'm sorry to say, was deserved.
You were asked some very valid questions, to which you conveniently kept silent. Including one in reference to smoking being the only possible cause of a young person's impending deat due to lung cancer. You appear to be of the opinion that this person would not have gotten lung cancer had he not chosen to smoke. I do not believe for one minute that you truly believe that, I believe you made that comment just to get a rise out of the others and you succeeded.
I honestly think that if you were to take a step back from your anti-smoker stance for a moment and paid attention to what some folks are saying you would realize that that the positions of you vs. the smokers are not very far apart. I say the same to the smokers.
Your contention you do not agree with the legislative methodolgy of dealing with smoking got lost in the flame war because of the attitude of an anti-smoker with which you began. Far too many of us that post on these threads have been dealing with abuse from anti-smokers for years, both on the internet and in real life. Many of us are fed up with it.
But as was pointed out to you several times - this is not about smoking - it is about the nanny-state creeping into our lives, it's about adults being permitted to make their own decisions for themselves, it is about protecting pivate property rights - but above all it is about protecting freedom and liberty.
I love your posts.
I do agree that Dr Luv, while an anti, is also a conservative.
As you say, it's very noteworthy that the majority of this post has been spent on his attitude towards smoking's health effects, not how much he hates the smell, or whether laws should prohibit the practice. A commendable conservative attitude.
It's a refreshing change from some of the other anti's, with their "I hate smoking, it should be banned in everyplace closer than the Gobi Desert" mantra.
I agree he stated he did not think it should be outlawed and that it is personal choice. And in some ways his message got lost in the turmoil. But the same can be said in regard to his reaction to the posts of others.
He came across as being more interested in castigating and insulting smokers than being friendly or willing to discuss specifics that were brought up.
As I try, probably poorly, to explain in a post to him...many of us who regularly post to these threads have been dealing with this issue for many years, on the web and IRL. The good doctor's comments regarding the IQ's and typing abilities of some posting to this thread today are child's play compared to come of the things that have been said to and about me, and some of the others. We're all tired of it.
It's not fear on our part in the sense I think you may have meant. There is some fear, but the fear is for the loss of freedoms and the right to make our own decisions on how we choose to conduct our lives, and how we wish our private property to remain so.
But the vast majority of the emotional reactions is out of sheer anger. We are abused, abased, called names and force-fed propoganda from a very well paid and professional enemy - and we're just everyday joes who are sick and tired of the enmity to which are subjected day in and day out.
That deserved repeating - well said!
I only smoke a rare cigar.
I know that smoking is harmful. That said, my problem is these public health ninnies(not to be confused with doctors). The big govt left wing elitist statists that want to ban anything remotely harmful. These people don't care about my health. They are control freaks, and need to be stopped.
I enjoy a beer. Alchohol can be harmful. I like a big juicy steak. Pizza. No one forces me to consume that. Then there is the fact that these public health fascists are gun grabbers as well.
I know ALL ABOUT these lobbies. I see where their funding comes from. People like George Soros. The Tides Foundation etc.
They all can go F--- themselves. And they can count on one thing. I will make sure that they waste as much money as possible, when they try their BS in Lansing, since anything these jerks try something, I will alert every contact here that I have to their freedom grabbing, and the price the legislators will pay. After the ciggy tax here, it looks like three legislators may very well be sent back to the private sector here tomorrow....
Yes it is. and the interesting thing I've noticed with a lot of the antis is that they are slipping more and more into that mode.
And while it may be more honest than the bogus second-hand-smoke junkscience - I find it to be even more dangerous - because it further opens the door for other things.
I love shrimp, but I have a very strange allergic reaction to raw shrimp - should I be seeking legislation that bans raw shrimp from any place I may be someday? But that is exactly what the antis have been doing over the years.
Because THEY don't like it THEY expect to be "protected" from it everywhere, so they will never have the inconvenience of being confronted with something that they don't like or offends them or makes them uncomfortable.
GREAT NEWS, Dan
Then along come the Luvs and their ilk.
If you go back over the thread, you'll see that many people, including myself, tried to post positively back to him, being polite, posting links (which he ignored), in general trying to keep a civil tone.
Twirps like him think we are all below him, that we're too stupid to know that smoking might harm us. They put words in our mouths, twist our meanings, and when they are ignored resort to insulting our intelligence.
As you say, we're tired of it. These people aren't gods. There's only one God that I know of and he lets me make my own decisions, right or wrong. (Well sometimes, there is that annoying inner voice that kind of brings one up short.)
We all are familiar with the negatives of smoking tobacco, and the main point is that, to us, these threads are about property rights and individual sovereignty, that the Luvs never address.
To he!! with 'em.
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.