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.
Who said I wanted to do this? I don't. I'm a conservative in the true sense of the word. I do however object to the "smoking is not really bad for you - just look at Winston Churchill" mantra that passes for debate on our forum.
Whether you like what the Dr. is saying or not, he sounds like many of the fine Dr.s today who deal with cigarette deseases. Your comment is unfair. Do you want doctors encouraging cigerette smoking?
I guess you have to be an oncologist, specially trained in tunnel vision, to run out of arguments that quickly.
Self-righteous boob.
Sure ,but why should you care. I almost agreed with you . Almost.
Every person, whether it's cancer or some other disease, goes through denial ,anger, selfishness, fear. Only an ignorant man would think otherwise.
I'm almost sixty years old
Really, I'm glad for you. Me too. Not next year though.
As someone who has seen many, many, many more people who have died of cancer than you have, I stand by my conviction that everyone cries at some point...and there's nothing "weak" about it...
Agreed.
Have a nice day, Dr.
Nor are shopping malls. Streets are, though unless they are just public access easements and not dedicated rights-of-way. They can ban smoking on the street but not on easements.
So.......you think that if one doesn't smoke, one is going to live FOREVER? If people didn't smoke, then they would put YOU out of a job, am I not correct? Or is smoking the only thing that causes lung cancer? How about "black lung." Many miners get black lung and many do not smoke.
You know, Doktor, life is full of choices. Its your job to heal the sick, not bitch about HOW they got sick!
And about that "40-year-old father who cried buckets in the end": No one FORCED that man to smoke! No one put a GUN to his head to puff on a cigarette everyday!
That's pretty young for a guy to die of cancer. There has to be something else in play here. Although you won't admit it! Your just a die hard anti smoker, admit it.
I bet your bed side manner for an obese person who is dying from kidney disease is a LOT different. Well, thank God I will never have to have Doktor LUV as MY physician!
Oh yes, if your truely a Doctor, how much is YOUR hospital receiving from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation? They give huge grants to dis the smokers!
How true he was and how foolish of me to think otherwise...
Yep! That's me!!!!!!
Ah, yes, but most of the folks who lived to be older than anyone else in the world--8 of the oldest 10--were not wealthy and did not have the alleged benefit of medical attention, but they did smoke.(No, I'm not saying that smoking is necessarily "healthy," only that it has been tarred with a too-broad brush.) In fact, just last week an article profiled Hava Raxha who has smoked for 105 years and plans to celebrate her 122nd birthday on August 14th in the village of Shushice, in the district of Elbasan, Albania.
When I first came to FR over two years ago, I received advice from a fellow physician that, until today, I have studiously followed. "Never engage a smoker on a smoking thread. There's not one thing that you can say, not one painful experience you can relate that will make them change their minds."People on both sides sometimes forget that the important debate, in a political sense, isn't whether or not smoking is bad. It's whether or not the government should be banning it (or forcing private businesses to), in order to "protect" us from ourselves. The same point is often forgotten in the WoD debates.
-Eric
Just my opinion.
What do those patients and their families who do NOT smoke do when you tell them there's nothing more you can do and an early death is likely because of cancer? Jump for joy because they have nothing to blame?
Many of them were as smug as you...
I recently read in the Journal of the American Medical Association that doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country. I'll bet many of them are as smug as you...
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.