How I Stopped Worrying about Tobacco Companies and Loved Second Hand Smoking
by Yervand KocharI quit smoking years ago but love second hand smoking. I especially love watching women smoke. It is more of a cinematic fascination. It looks good. Women are magic and when they come with their own pyrotechnic effects, they are precious.
There’s nothing more American than a strong, beautiful woman blowing smoke in my immigrant face. It makes me feel like a full-fledged American citizen. I’m enchanted by the smoky veil of the American dream and feel the mighty fume coming out of the American land, a Native genie rising from the bottled mysterious desert of endless imagination…
Tobacco was the first intimate bridge between the European settler, the American land and its native population. Smoking tobacco was one of the first peaceful cultural exchanges between settlers and natives. Tobacco was also one of the first uniquely American exports to the world and through the burning of this magnificent plant the New World covered the old world with the purifying smoke of freedom.
Burning tobacco became like burning sacred incense on the altar of freedom, the special effects of the American Spirit, a uniquely American substance which, as with everything uniquely American, can either liberate if used consciously or destroy if used in excess.
The ferocious campaign to extinguish the use of tobacco has much less to do with health concern than with the unconscious urge to demystify the American spirit by stripping it off one of its unique elements.
Most of the anti-smoking health concerns are as genuine as Toyota selling hybrid cars because it cares about environment.
Other anti-smoking health concerns are passionate, such as those I hear in abundance from the same dopey girls who love to jog on the sidewalks of Hollywood during rush hour where their lungs absorb twice as much carbon emissions all in the hope of being discovered by some politically concerned agent or producer stuck in traffic as he listens to a publicly funded Marxist-socialist radio channel which speaks of the benefits of illegal immigration which, by in large, has caused the traffic he’s stuck in.
When the traffic becomes unbearable even the producer wants to light a cigarette, but he won’t. Not because he’s concerned with his well-being — just last Friday he was damaging his brain sniffing glue — he doesn’t smoke because Rob Reiner said he shouldn’t and because he himself donated to the campaign to replace the Marlboro cowboy billboard on Sunset strip with a billboard of some metrosexual ecstatically dancing to his Ipod.
Feminism and anti-smoking campaigns are twin sisters; actually brothers. These two movements are unnatural encroachments of a totalitarian mindset on individual freedom. If you can convince a woman to cease being a woman and you can control an individual’s biological urge to smoke and partake in the mystery of smoking, you can control everything else as well.
This is why every totalitarian state wages vehement anti-smoking campaigns as if the very survival of its people depends on their ability to quit smoking (enter the Soviet Union) as well as a strong control and conditioning of femininity and her sexuality seen as the source of all individual disobedience (enter the Sharia law in the Islamic world).
The desire to be feminine for a woman is a strong urge, just as smoking is a strong urge for both women and men. Suppression of smoking is directed at the eradication of the eternal cosmic reminder of our independent nature. In its core it diminishes our importance as a vessel in which burns a ritualistic smoke of mystery and flames the fire of the Promethean enlightenment.
With all this being said, it is dumb not to acknowledge the apparent health threats that smoking, especially excessive smoking, can cause. It is also true that feminism as a movement is complex and I don’t want to diminish its achievements and importance just because it made some wrong turns along the line. In many cases, it is an umbrella term for various liberation movements of which I am a sincere supporter.
So, yeah, feminism in many ways is good and smoking is bad in many more ways.
Yet, the urge to smoke is primordial and ancestral, it is mysterious and ritualistic. The smoke and fire contain the symbolism of the first primitive steps to human freedom – the harnessing of fire, use of tools, elevation above and mastery of the external world of brutal forces.
It is the war against this symbolism and attribution of individual and social freedoms that are the real underlying themes of such radical campaigns.
Obviously by smoking alone, one is not going to drop the shackles of ignorance. I mean we have a whole hippie generation as a living, or rather, retiring testimony of this. Yet, smoking may in some cases ignite the inner fire of our ancestral memory and that alone is a direct threat to the controlling totalitarian mindset. A mindset that can discourage many to smoke by tricking people into believing that it is done for their own benefit, just like it successfully diverted women from their real and quiet liberating power to a loud imitation of men’s insecurities and illusions of grandeur.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
127 Comments
I LOVE that you put that pic in of Ingrid Bergman. She does look ridiculously seductive with that cigarette in her mouth. Scandalous!
This brings to light the smokey veil (pun intended) of the subversive nature of the lefts mission to remove personal freedoms. Smoking, fast food, tanning beds, GUNS, profits and talk radio are all expressions of freedom and the left want them gone! Freedom be d@mned.
Not just tanning beds, but sun-bathing in general.
Men and smoking is it's own sexiness too. James Dean? Christ, it's almost iconic. I mean, one of the first times I looked upon the Mighty Gary Sinise and said DAMN, was with a cigarette in his mouth. There's prolly other examples, but can people finally admit one thing? Smoking is sexy. Dangerous, but sexy.
*MissQuinn*
Lauren (Betty) Bacall looks even better, dontcha think?
Much as I love Bacall, I would disagree. I think Bergman is just about the most beautiful woman who ever lived. So I'm a little biased.
There is no anti-smoking crowd or campaign. It is a facade. No one wants tobacco use to cease in the USA because it is a handy and reliable source of bloody revenue.
I wonder how many social programs would die if all tobacco use stopped in the USA today this minute forever.
When a woman smokes, she might as well be cramming a log of excrement into her pursed lips. It's one of the most repugnant things a woman can do to herself visually.
I really don't understand the conservative love of smoking. I've been a republican since i've been able to grasp politics, but this is one issue that I just see has baseless and childish. It's a filthy dangerous habit that has no place in our society.
I don't either Matt L. In fact, I'm not sure there is a conservative love of smoking. Maybe Yervand's love of smoking, except he was smart enough to give it up. Give me guns, lower taxes, and I'll even take Rush, but you can keep the cig.
Individuals can make their own choices, just don't smoke in public places where I usually go about. Smoke in your own home, pay your own medical bills for the cancer treatment, and if you want to look sexy doing it, go nuts. The science is hardly up for debate, the way global warming is.
To each his own, that’s what freedom is all about. Smoke’em if you got’em!
I think that Kochar has demonstrated, in spite of the opinion that smoking might be "filthy" and "dangerous," that it does have a place in our society.
I've always been suspicious of "smoking risk studies" since apparently you can never exercise, eat a pound of bacon and six eggs for breakfast, be 300 pounds overweight, and after the heart attack kills you if you had even one smoke a day it's marked down as smoking related.
Whenever they talk of banning smoking indoors due to the second-hand risk, I think the real problem is lack of sufficient ventilation. I worked at a plant that did that, with several OSHA-required thick MSDS binders around detailing all the other carcinogens we were exposed to, and the stink of the place just soaked into your clothing. As part of this great health drive push they also wanted us to switch to decaffeinated coffee, until I dropped on the lady in charge several reality-based medical studies showing no risk to actual benefits from brewed caffeine-rich coffee. Great concept, banning things that keep the workers alert and focused.
Banning smoking outdoors is ludicrous, there are greater risks from legal tailpipe fumes and emissions from frying food. They already try to recapture those passing gasoline vapors from when you fill up, by the anti-smoker standards trained crews in hazmat suits should run gas pumps. If they really want to stop outdoor carcinogen risk, the most good can be done by banning sunlight.
I saw a study online only a few years back, smoking is actually helpful to society. While the end-of-life costs can be higher (cancer treatments, etc), long-term smokers die sooner thus draw less Social Security and Medicare payments, and pay many tobacco taxes before that, resulting in a net financial gain for society. Good luck finding a copy that hasn't been scrubbed from the collective data bank.
Maybe I'm being a bit too literal and pragmatic here, but I currently work at a V.A. hospital and spend part of my day escorting 70 year old men to their cancer treatments.
Smoking lost its freaking romance a while ago.
I have to agree with you– it's a nasty habit. My husband is even more vehement than I am on how repugnant it is.
That said, I could care less if someone else lights up. I worked as a waitress through college and was one of the only girls who didn't fuss about working the smoking section ( I grew up with a chain-smoking father so my lungs have already been wrecked against my will) because, oddly, the smokers tipped better.
I think the author here needs a nicotine patch!
For years, smoking has been glamourized but you never saw the stinky truth of bad breath, smoky and ashy clothes, hacking coughs, and yellow teeth in the movies. It's not sex-ay. Neither is death by emphysema or lung cancer.
Count me as another conservative who loathes smoking. I don't miss smoky airplanes or offices at all. Unfortunately, since leftist nanny state do-gooders have taken on smoking to excessive and overreaching levels, many conservatives and libertarians have clung on to cigarettes as yet another way to stick it in the liberals' faces, a way to flout political correctness. Won't work with me. Thank God I never got hooked on the darn things.
Tobacco, coffee, and alcohol are all things that help us cross cultural barriers. There is risk involved in anything, and yes, I agree that the suppression of smoking is in large part an attempt to control the way that people interact. I cannot abide tobacco smoke myself, but then again, some people don't abide riding motorcycles or downhill skiing or any number of other dangerous things.
That image of Bacall is from "Young Man with a Horn", is it not?
I type too fast!
Nobody should be smoking in Restaurants or Bars.
Take it the F ….outside!
How the liberals went after the cigarette companies was terrible and anti-freedom. No argument from me there. However, smoking is a dangerous and ugly habit. Even if you (and I don't) concede it isn't dangerous, it is still ugly. It ruins teeth, makes for bad breath, and the smell lingers in everything. Anti-smoking, as posts here have shown, is not a "liberal" thing.
your bias is understandable… but from a guy's perspective she's smokin' hot in that shot…
First, the findings from studies of second-hand smoke are not controversial. Among other interesting results–and these have been repeatedly found in several regions–is that smoking bans are followed by decreases in the number of emergency room visits for heart failure. Moreover, the decreases affect both smokers *and* nonsmokers.
I'm presently studying from my MBA at the University of Chicago, and we looked at the tobacco industry and the effects of the tobacco litigation in one of my classes. Three findings of note:
(1) The tobacco industry intentionally attempted to cloud the waters with regard to research. They didn't push the belief that smoking was not harmful; they pushed the theory that we "didn't know" whether it was harmful, as if there was still controversy on the matter. Of course, they knew all along that smoking caused harm. Same goes for second-hand smoke.
(2) Take a look to what happened to share prices of the major tobacco companies after the settlements. The share prices went UP! I don't have space to explain why, but the settlement was actually as "good" for the tobacco industry as it was for public health. Who got hurt? Smokers, who saw pack prices increase to cover the financial obligations
(3) Smoking isn't sexy. At all. For anyone.
You miss how the sin tax scheme works. Fund an entitlement by taxing "sinners." Those sinners have it coming to them for their disgusting habits, they'll say while glaring down their elitist noses held high. Then they'll keep jacking up the taxes, many of them hoping to eliminate something they find offensive to their superior world view. Then when the revenues drop off despite continued raises, and they can't find another suitable sin to demonize, they'll declare how uncivilized it'll be to leave an entitlement so many depend on not properly funded, and shift it over to regular taxes.
I'm looking at a $10 a carton federal excise tax increase come April 1. Barry promised me that since I make less than $250,000 a year my taxes won't go up a dime. Does that mean I can keep my receipts and write it off my taxes?
nor is drinking alcohol, eating Allan Bros. steaks (yum!!) bike riding (for males) driving on New Year's Eve,
dating ex-models, tubing down the San Juan river, vacationing in Mexico- at what point does personal responsibility supercede the nanny state?
Is the air you breathe on a regular basis any cleaner than tobacco smoke? I doubt it.
Last time I checked, I couldn't second-drink your booze, second-eat your steak, or second-ride your bike, although you probably sloppy seconded a few of my models.
If you decide to have a few drinks and eat some steak, it doesn't make my stomach hurt. I don't get the hangover. My eyes don't burn, and my throat doesn't itch.
As far as personal responsibility, your rights end where mine begin.
And no photo of Marlene Dietrich with a Cigarette? Its funny I heard Peter Bogdonovitch tell a story about meeting her once in Las Vegas or something and when he told her he was trying to quite smoking she told him, no, he should not quite smoking, she had and she said it makes you fat.
The woman lived till she was 91. If I didn't have lung issues I'd probably smoke. It is an interesting cultural time capsul, the cigarette, the cigar, the pipe.
Matt I don't think Lauren Bacall, or for that matter Katherine Heigl care what you think. I know Marlene Dietrich would down her prussian nose at you and smirk. Funny little man..
I have to disagree that the studies of second-hand smoke are not controversial. The great program, Penn & Tellers B*S* in 2003, explored the issue of smoking and the bans a couple of years ago (Season 1, epsiode 5). First off, what most people do not know is that the initial second hand smoke studies were done to look at the effects on newborns and infants. That's fine, you probably shouldn't be blowing smoke into the face of babies. But what has happened is that every study since then has been based on this study. So all of these expected effects on adults have been based on the effects of infants. That is disingeniuous to say the least. If there have been new studies, based on new observations since 2003 I would like to see it. If you think about it, this was the test run for global warming. Find some science point that you could build the rest of the arguement on. Get some politicians behind it, declare the "science settled", find a group/company to demonize and the 'victims' to put on display, and suddenly people are ready to exchange individual responsibility for government mandate and control. For people who claim that choice is the greatest right, they sure are quick to take it away from others.
who said anything about blowing smoke in your face, pal? if it's so bad, ban it- not tax it. Personally we don't smoke much (a few cigars a year, the occasional dip while 'lumberjacking') but think people should be able to exercise their legal rights without being made to feel like lepers.
And YOUR seconds- you should be so lucky…
When the state of North Dakota attempted to completely ban tobacco, who stepped forward to block the legislation?
The North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association. All groups with a large financial stake in people continuing to smoke.
This demonstrates, more clearly than anything, how thoroughly people have been manipulated. Even here, among the so-called "lovers of liberty and freedom", you read comments from people mindlessly regurgitating the standard complaints about tobacco. It is this vilification of smokers and tobacco that has allowed the Government to raise taxes on roll your own tobacco TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY NINE PERCENT. Yes, that is not a typo.
The Government raises taxes by 2259% ("Effective April 1, 2009 the federal excise tax on RYO tobacco will increase from $1.0969 per pound to $24.78 per pound ") and no one even bats an eye. My elected representatives have chosen not to respond to my letters regarding this outrageous tax increase. If you're not a smoker who rolls his own cigarettes you probably haven't even heard this before.
Everyone should be outraged by this. Even if you don't smoke, this raping of your fellow citizens shouldn't go without comment. What they have done to smokers, they are attempting to do to other groups as well. Fatty foods, soft drinks, etc. all seem to be on the table. Remember what Thomas Paine said about the liberties of others:
"He that would make his liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." — (Thomas Paine)
All the smoking "science" is a bunch of BS, just like global warming. I understand how people don't like the smell of smoke, and it can be irritating, if you don't like second hand smoke for that reason, you are absolutely right. But saying it is a health risk is complete BS. Please look at the Heartland Institute's website, explaining the ridiculous war against smokers including to links to numerous studies. http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/
bravo, Kevin. Like all other liberal dragons 'shine a little light on it' and watch it slink away…
"…a Native genie rising from the bottled mysterious desert of endless imagination… "
Great article, Yervand! Beautiful lyricism buttressing a salient point about the prevalent PC war on Individualism. In ATLAS SHRUGGED Ayn Rand had Dagny, in quiet repose, ponder the embodiment of man's triumph over the brutal forces of nature, as represented by the glowing tip of the cigarette held in her fingertips.
Great points, you raving immigrant! And masterfully delivered.
just want to clarify, Second Hand smoke as a health risk is BS, but I won't deny that it is bad for your health to smoke.
Note: SHS = second-hand smoke.
Conclusion from a 2007 article in Annals of Epidemiology: "Lifetime SHS exposure appears to result in a greater decline in lung function and risk of cardiovascular mortality, taking into account confounders and the mediating effect of FEV1 and baseline cardiovascular disease."
Conclusion from a 2006 study published in the medical journal BMC Pulmonary Medicine: "Directly measured SHS exposure appears to adversely influence health outcomes in COPD, independent of personal smoking. Because SHS is a modifiable risk factor, clinicians should assess SHS exposure in their patients and counsel its avoidance. In public health terms, the effects of SHS exposure on this vulnerable subpopulation provide a further rationale for laws prohibiting public smoking."
Conclusion from a 2005 study published in the medical journal Thorax: "Directly measured SHS exposure appears to be associated with poorer asthma outcomes. In public health terms, these results support efforts to prohibit smoking in public places."
Conclusion from a 2008 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine: "The number of admissions for acute coronary syndrome decreased after the implementation of smoke-free legislation. A total of 67% of the decrease involved nonsmokers. However, fewer admissions among smokers also contributed to the overall reduction."
From a 2006 article in JAMA: "Smoke-free legislation was associated with significant early improvements in symptoms, spirometry measurements, and systemic inflammation of bar workers. Asthmatic bar workers also had reduced airway inflammation and improved quality of life."
I could go on. And on. And on.
BTW… though a non-smoker for decades, I still savor the aroma of the first few puffs of someone's else's cigarette, second hand, when they light up. A vestigal yearning for a long-lost freedom? Maybe — but i just dig the smell. Athough, after the first few puffs, I gotta say…it starts to stink.
Hey, how about developing the Three-Puff Cigarette! "Light up, relax — it's the best 20-seconds of your day!"
No..? Ah — been watching too much MAD MEN….
Heartland Institute is a tobacco industry-funded PR group. Read the tobacco industry ties section here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartl...
Citing Heartland Institute on smoking health issues is like citing Daily Kos for objective analysis of Nancy Pelosi's governing skills.
I have to agree with you there, Mr. Graham. It is an exquisite aroma to savor. Of course when it's all in your clothes the next day is a different matter.
My sister smokes like Bacall. She smells terrible, coughs all the time, and is very wrinkled. I love her to death, but I sure wish she'd quit.
That said, I think the gov't should butt out of our business and if you want to smoke – knock yourself out. But it's not sexy at all.
notice the verb 'appears'… the CDC was politicized years ago, and while no one will say SHS is good for you the verdicts on it's effects are similar to the global warming thing- namely a 'consensus'
believes. Smoking in a well ventilated area and with limited exposure to it would seem to be such a minor concern. So, as Mr O'Reilly would say, 'wise up, sir'…
I can't second drink the booze, but my family can get erased when you hop in your pickup after tossing back a few cold ones.
People are definitely divided on the issue of smoking. Personally, since moving out of North Carolina, I miss the ubiquitious smell of cigarrettes.
FWIW, I think the author would have a touch more of my sympathy (fully support indoor smoking bans, fully against outdoor ones, overall in favor of legalizing ALL narcotics) if what we were smoking TODAY had even a sliver more relation to the "ancestral" tobacco he mythologizes. Smoking wild-grown (or even naturally-cultivated) tobacco (or marijuana, though that comes with it's own issues) is as different from smoking the chemically-treated stuff we've got today as you can reasonably get.
You know, in Obama's efforts to Frenchify the USA, supporting anti-tobacco legislation is a step in the wrong direction. Second-hand smoke is more present in France than in Winston-Salem, NC.
The verb "appears" is pretty standard stuff for scientific research. I'll note that it doesn't appear in either of the last two conclusions i posted.
I'll also add that I agree with your penultimate sentence. If there's good ventilation and limited exposure, then there's little health risk. Furthermore, I agree that some anti-smoking initiatives have been aimed more and punishing smokers than at addressing health or quality of life issues. I'm fine with bans for restaurants but not for bans on smoking outdoors.
I do wish, however, the smokers wouldn't constantly litter. Few things ruin a day at the beach quite like finding dozens of cigarette butts in the sand.
Most women I know who smoke and have wrinkle's also lay out. That has as much or more to do with it than anything. the worst thing a woman can do to herself is tanning. My aunts all tanned to, my mom smoked like they did. Mom still has no wrinkles and they had them by the buckets full. As far as I am concerned tanning is the worst thing in the world. I don't do it. I don't care how certain people think it looks so awesome. It does, when your 18, but, not 40.
What happened to the reply I posted here a few minutes ago?
Thank God for the Indians in Phoenix. True capitalists, every one, and they make a fortune out of passing their tax breaks on to the rest of us. The busiest tobacconists I've ever seen have been on the reservations, where cigarettes still cost less than $7.00 a pack.
You guys are exactly right. Who believes those negative studies anyway. The Liberals just trying to take our rights away. "Its my house, I get to chain smoke around my toddlers and teenagers. Its my right, my property. My wife chain smoke whiles she drives around with the kids."
Only a true addict, would think they have some intellectual argument. Smoking kills 30% of the people who can't quit. Second hand smoke is "assault" under the law. For sure, child endangerment if you idiots smoke in your house or car and you have little ones.
In Michigan, the Restaurant Association lobbied to prevent "indoor smoking legislation" They should be so proud. What a contribution to nothing.
You are a mental midget if oppose smoking bans. That's a fact, IDIOT.
They ought to start mass-producing those kick-the-habit cigarettes from The Fifth Element.
You remember them? It was a throwaway gag, one you would easily have missed… they came ten to a pack and the filter took up half the length.
now you're talking… you sound more grounded. Litter is a rude and hurtful practice and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Selective cigarette bans (planes, hospitals, etc.) make sense. No argument there…
Don't like the message? Attack the messenger.
If you don't like my second hand smoke, try this: POLITELY tell me. Odds are very good I'll apologize and put it out immediately. I always have. On the other hand, if you make faces and faux-cough, you're liable to get a faceful.
Ted, if a person is willing to invest the money in a business, they should get to decide whether anyone smokes in THEIR business. If you do not want to be in THEIR business, don't go. You can also start your own business and not allow smoking in YOUR business.
Thanks. Really, if people want to smoke, be my guest. I don't even especially mind being around smokers, so long as I'm not being suffocated. And there's no doubt that some anti-smoking zealots want ridiculous laws and misinterpret science to their ends, although as I noted above, the science definitely finds harmful effects.
Anti-smoking laws should be like anti-noise ordinances: do what you want, so long as you affect medon't
RogerF…
How about I punch you in the face instead?
I love smoking. Fortunately I was able to quit doing it every day years ago, but there's nothing like a nice scotch and a smoke. Sure smoking is risky, but so is life. 40,000 people a year die in automotive accidents, but that's a risk everyone seems willing to abide. Something I can't abide is self-righteous anti-smoking Nazis. There are plenty commenting here. It amazes me how worked up these people get. There is something perverse about the obsession and sheer bile these people exhibit when talking or writing about smoking.
Yes, some people get sick and die because they smoke. But I want to share something with the health obsessives: We are ALL going to die. What? Nobody told you? An extra 10 or 20 years is great, but eternity is much longer. I think life was better when people were more concerned with their souls then their carbs and abs. Rid the world of God and that is all you have, your slowly decaying flesh, whether you smoke or not. Eat, drink and be merry . . .
Ah, I found some of that study data! Link: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/857476...
With all this whining about SocSec and Medicare going under, they should pay people to smoke, not penalize them.
Never smoked a day in my life. I really don't care if others smoke or not. However I, as well as others that posted here, do not miss it in restaurants, planes, etc. Second hand smoke does bother me but I am not militant about it.
Like I said in my earlier post, I don't care for smoking, directly or secondary, because I believe in those majority of studies that say both are bad. Unlike global warming, the anti-smoking "side" has done real tests proving the harm. You don't agree with those studies? Hey, go nuts.
After reading some of these posts, however, I think there is a real conservative argument to be made against smoking bans on indoor restaurants. Afterall, as the owner of the establishment, why can't I make that decision? If I lose most of my nonsmoking customers, as well as my good waitstaff, don't you think I will change my mind pretty quickly? Aren't we believers in free market and individual choices?
Eloquent post, I love the connection between primal, innate freedom and totalitarian oppression.
Citing funding sources as a measure of objectivity is a little tricky. After all, who funds most of the studies on SHS? The American Cancer Society, the anti's and a pharmaceutical industry that makes millions selling nicotine replacement therapies (e.g, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation). No bias there..
I must assume you meant $7 per carton, not pack, that'd be pretty pricey here in PA. I smoke filtered "little cigars," main differences from cigarettes are pure shredded tobacco leaves and a "natural" paper that withstands rain showers. Once you get used to them, cigarettes are like flavored air. Plus without cigarette taxes they're only $20 a carton. I'm now set up to reap a huge investment windfall, since after April 1 any I buy now will have appreciated 50%, without income taxes! Too bad my profits will go up in smoke.
This is just one more way the liberals want to remake us into Canada, and I don't mean socialized medicine. After they upped their taxes to about $8 a pack, robbers stopped grabbing the cash and just stole cartons of cigarettes. I'm seeing that happen more right now in the local news, and expect much more of that starting next month.
I must assume you meant $7 per carton, not pack, that'd be pretty pricey here in PA. I smoke filtered "little cigars," main differences from cigarettes are pure shredded tobacco leaves and a "natural" paper that withstands rain showers. Once you get used to them, cigarettes are like flavored air. Plus without cigarette taxes they're only $20 a carton. I'm now set up to reap a huge investment windfall, since after April 1 any I buy now will have appreciated 50%, without income taxes! Too bad my profits will go up in smoke.
This is just one more way the liberals want to remake us into Canada, and I don't mean socialized medicine. After they upped their taxes to about $8 a pack, robbers stopped grabbing the cash and just stole cartons of cigarettes. I'm seeing that happen more right now in the local news, and expect much more of that starting next month.
Then I'll kick you in the ba*ls.
Then I'll kick you in the ba*ls.
*smokes a fine cigar* and drinks a single malt wearing a low cut dress and high heels.. *exactly dear*
Axl
If you wanna smoke-go ahead, but take it outside. Its common sense, not militancy. If the 'Free Market' exposes innocent people to a cancer causing agent, what good it it? Its a fairly weak argument to support "choice" when it comes to "indoor" smoking. I do think "Cigar and Martini" Bars are okay to smoke.
Cigarette Smokers live in fantasy world where they think their smoke does not hurt other people.
The cigarette sin tax is a laffer curve bonanza. Great source of revenue. Let's tax it some more, then some more, and then, oops people stop smoking and there's no more revenue. On the other hand, many didn't really stop smoking, so now there is a big black market for cigarettes. No tax revenue, but a huge new criminal enterprise. More people dying from running gun battles than from secondhand smoke, in quantum numbers.
But look how much we've saved the public in medical costs by eliminating smoking. Pop! The sound of another smoking myth balloon bursting. We smokers are courteous enough to die younger, thus eliminating millions of old folks in diapers tying up the publicly-supported hospital beds.
I agree with a couple of qualifications: (1) Heartland Institute isn't a research organization; they don't, to my knowledge, conduct any studies themselves. It's purely PR. (2) I checked the funding sources for the studies from JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine, and they weren't funded by any of the "usual suspects."
I can't stand the taste or smell of alcohol. People dying all over the place from cirrhosis, heart attacks, brain damage and automobile crashes. Slobbering drunks with stained pants wandering all over the streets stinking the place up. Husbands beating their wives and kids. I think we should ban it. Oh, wait, they already tried that.
I can't stand the taste or smell of alcohol. People dying all over the place from cirrhosis, heart attacks, brain damage and automobile crashes. Slobbering drunks with stained pants wandering all over the streets stinking the place up. Husbands beating their wives and kids. I think we should ban it. Oh, wait, they already tried that.
And, in a nutshell, that's what it comes down to a lot of the time. The more secular society becomes, the more people believe that this life is all there is, the more they have to preserve it at all costs, even if it infringes upon others' rights to live as they please. The trouble is, once people get into this mentality, the more it spreads into other areas of life. Even if you don't personally smoke, once the anti-smoking crowd has achieved many of its victories, they are going to come after your alcohol, or your fatty foods, or your gas-guzzing cars, or something else in life that you personally enjoy.
I don't smoke, and I would hope those around wouldn't for the sake of their personal health. But I also have no desire to tell someone else how to run their business or live their life. If I get into their face about their smoking, what's to stop them from getting in mine and grousing about something I enjoy? ("Don't drink those soft drinks! They are bad for your teeth!" "Don't eat those fatty foods! They'll clog your arteries!") Excuse me, but who died and made you my parent?
While I fully understand the arguments with the nonsmokers, market forces should dictate whether you run a smoke free establishment or not – the law has no business legislating behavior. IMO, this was the first assault at personal freedom, even though the message is clear – smoking can harm your health. But now the floodgates have opened, next booze, then food, then guns, then electrical consumption. There is no stopping these dingbats until they has destroyed every personal freedom, and taking our free market economy down the drain with it. Whether it's global warming or second hand smoke – studies are done by people using weighted methodology. It may be right, or it may be wrong, but I would argue – it's not set in stone.
Ted,
I think you missed the point of Axl's last post. The solution he posits protects everybody's rights, as well as preserves everybody's freedom. In short, you could choose to patronize or work in a non-smoking establishment and I could choose a smoking establishment because both would exist. Free choice and nobody is exposed to anything to which they don't want to be exposed.
This is the most "American" solution, yet the smoke Nazis never accept it. This is, in poker parlance, the "tell" which shows their true motive, i.e., bullying smokers into quitting.
Take a look at this if you don't believe me http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
This guy is anti-tobacco activist/doctor who writes a blog detailing the perfidy of the anti-smoker movement.
Because only smokers get cancer?
Amen, and thank you. I've never smoked myself, but I have inhaled a few times. It's way less toxic than the idea that those who smoke are somehow less human or less intelligent than those who don't. My grandma smoked almost to the end of her life (and drank probably as much coffee as I do). She also oozed natural poise and grace. She committed the heresy (according to "lib-think") of being way more concerned with the state of her soul than with that of her aging organs. My dad quit smoking cigarettes when I was a baby, but he still occasionally enjoys a good cigar–as well as good scotch, good bourbon (Maker's Mark is a family favorite) and good beer.
I'd never argue the health risks associated with smoking and if pressed, I'd readily admit that I wish I had never started smoking in my teens. That being said, I resent the demonization of what is, at its core, a personal decision. Furthermore government mandated smoking bans in bars are ridiculous. Business owners should be the ones who control what activities are allowed in their establishments. If an establishment chooses to allow smoking, individuals who wish to be free from the assault of second hand smoke are free to avoid patronizing or seeking employment at said establishments.
Isn't smoking just a straight-up addiction no matter how hard you try to cloak it in worldliness and sex? How mystical and primordial is it if you can get rats and chimps hooked on it with ease? Didn't some cigarette companies up the nicotine to make them more addictive so people would buy more? Do what you want, but it's a straight up, cleverly marketed legal addiction with absolutely no benefit to the human body, and likely much more harm. (Alcohol has been shown to have some benefits in moderation, or at least I choose to believe the studies that say so). I think the author has a straight up smoking fetish, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I just wonder why if it's so great and sexy he quit in the first place? I also agree that outside smoking bans are pretty dumb, but I'm really glad that there's virtually no smoking in restaurants anymore, or in the workplace…I never did like coming home smelling like an ashtray. I'm old enough to remember smoking in airplanes and movie balconies. Don't miss that at ALL. The great movie stars of old certainly looked sexy puffing away but you know what? The average guy or gal really doesn't.
unfortunately you are might be mentally deficient if you think all problems can be solved through inherently coercive government and futile attempts at legislating away problems while taking away freedom from the individual. should we ban automobiles as well? open electic sockets? hot stoves? get real here
Mr. T,
Smokers live in a fantasy world where they they think their exhaled cigarette smoke is not dangerous.
Conservatives should be embarrassed by the "intellectual support" they have give to Big Tobacco over the years. I know we have been taking it on the chin, but search your soul. You know there is no rational position in opposing smoking bans. Slavery was about "property" too, doesn't mean is was right. If you own anything, and you let people be exposed to Second Hand smoke, they should be able to sue you for damages. Business Owners cannot operate with impunity because they are "business owners"
Second Hand Smoke is not a good position to invest yourself in.
Mr. T,
Smokers live in a fantasy world where they they think their exhaled cigarette smoke is not dangerous.
Conservatives should be embarrassed by the "intellectual support" they have give to Big Tobacco over the years. I know we have been taking it on the chin, but search your soul. You know there is no rational position in opposing smoking bans. Slavery was about "property" too, doesn't mean is was right. If you own anything, and you let people be exposed to Second Hand smoke, they should be able to sue you for damages. Business Owners cannot operate with impunity because they are "business owners"
Second Hand Smoke is not a good position to invest yourself in.
I have searched my soul, and I have no trouble supporting Big Tobacco (a product I am not stupid enough to use), any more than I have trouble supporting KFC (a product I am too stupid to avoid). I say this believing perfectly well SHS is dangerous. Several other people, including myself have in fact given perfectly rational positions in opposing smoking bans. I'll make it again, in plain English – if you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, don't eat at Restaurant X. Its that simple. Take it outside? Now people who walk by Restaurant X are exposed. I can choose not to eat at Restaurant X, but I may not have the option not to be out in public. I don't have to "invest" myself in SHS to protect individual's rights.
What does slavery have to do with anything? Handguns are dangerous, and "property". Why don't you throw that into your nonsensical argument?
I have searched my soul, and I have no trouble supporting Big Tobacco (a product I am not stupid enough to use), any more than I have trouble supporting KFC (a product I am too stupid to avoid). I say this believing perfectly well SHS is dangerous. Several other people, including myself have in fact given perfectly rational positions in opposing smoking bans. I'll make it again, in plain English – if you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, don't eat at Restaurant X. Its that simple. Take it outside? Now people who walk by Restaurant X are exposed. I can choose not to eat at Restaurant X, but I may not have the option not to be out in public. I don't have to "invest" myself in SHS to protect individual's rights.
What does slavery have to do with anything? Handguns are dangerous, and "property". Why don't you throw that into your nonsensical argument?
They tried to ram through an increased ciggie tax out here. The revenue was going to go to children's healthcare. I _might_ have been tempted to vote for their little sin tax if they had made it a closed-loop system where the revenue was to go strictly to pay for smoker's healthcare or smoking cessation programs, but that's the catch: it didn't. So, when the inevitable fall in cigarette tax revenue occurred, the rest of the tax-paying public was going to be left holding the bag, and I made sure everyone knew it. I voted "no" as did most people I knew once I got done with them.
I'd agree that it's a nasty habit, but it's the choice a person makes and not anyone else's business to tell you whether you can do it or not.
I'd agree that it's a nasty habit, but it's the choice a person makes and not anyone else's business to tell you whether you can do it or not.
Let the business owner decide if there's to be smoking in his or her establishment.
Fine then, I suppose someone could theoretically make the case that:
1.) stress is harmful to one's health
2.) children cause stress
3.) someone else's screaming children at a restaurant cause stress to other patrons
4.) children should be banned from public eating establishments for everyone's health
So are you on the 2nd-hand children should be banned bandwagon?
(Don't get me wrong; I love kids, but I find this argument to be as ridiculous as 2nd hand smoke. You cannot remove all unhealthful things from your environment entirely.)
Axl,
Its my property, my house, my restaurant, my bar. That give me the "authority" to chain smoke around my children. That is what I meant by "property"
I don't wish to insult your lack of humanity. You are wrong. Again, you are pretending you have a moral position. It is criminal activity to harm people. What about the kids being exposed to their parents chain smoking? Should they choose to go some where else? Its the parents right cause they own the house?
"Several other people" are also idiots on this issue. Fact.
If you weren't too busy trying to refute the Heartland Institute's qualifications, and actually looked at the studies which they have links too, you'd see that the research comes from refutable sourses including many university funded studies. Yeah, so tobacco provides funds to the non profit think tank The Heartland Institute, that doesn't make the studies listed on their website insignificant. Typical liberal bait and switch, can't answer the actual issues so lets make something else the issue.
Very mature response, Ted.
I'd recommend against it.
No. Smoking is not "straight-up addiction" any more than fine dining is simply eating food. You grossly oversimplify to make your point.
Ted,
There is an old saying I think you should spend some time thinking about. "You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
If you are that concerned about your lungs, and the lungs of those around you, have you given up your car? If not, do you have it tuned up every couple of months to make sure those emmisions are kept to their lowest possible level? Are you working to switch you state's power generation to non-polluting nuclear?
Or do you just enjoy running around telling people you disagree with that they are idiots?
Then why do people who try to quit go through the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal and need the patches, gum, hypnosis, etc? Why do smokers get jittery and "need" a smoke? Nicotine's addictive. Fine dining _is_ 'simply eating food,' just not eating 'simple' food. I'd rather eat a freshly grilled rib eye than go through the drive-thru for a dollar burger that's been sitting under the heat lamp, but both will serve my bodily needs, and both end up in the same place. The human body needs certain amounts of protein, sugar, salt, fiber, etc. to survive. Stop eating altogether and you will die. Stop smoking and you'll likely feel a lot better and your body will run more efficiently.
good topic, as it shows a lot of emotion on both sides. I am sorry to see that the anti-smoking types have so few manners, and lack the couth to set the argument in the terms of what i feel to be the real issue, liberty.
what we have seen by the anti-types is an assault on those who choose to indulge themselves with the use of tobacco. Rather than to use their energies towards creating venues that feature being non-smoking (providing opportunities for employment and building enterprise) and letting the market decide who profits and who doesn't, they spend their days screaming about the children, and how they are sorely offended by the smelly smokers.
and that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? the modern liberal believes that they have the divine right not to be offended. and that divine right supersedes all logic, all reason, all common sense, and any observation of others rights. they will fabricate, obfuscate, repudiate, and legislate.
as far as i know, i only have the right to pursue happiness, i am not entitled to it.
libs, beware those whom you seek to deprive of their liberty. while our patience seems boundless, there are limits to it.
This is the point that you keep tragically missing: in a free society, there has to be freedom. Our power in this nation was supposed to go from God to man to government. The idea is that we cede some our collective power to our government to do the things we cannot, but because of the way our rights and powers derive: God – man – government. You cannot cede to the government the right to do anything that you personally cannot do. So, is it right for you to go force people to stop smoking? You personally? If not, then it shouldn't be right for government to do it either.
I take back what I said about punching you in the face. Let's have a cigarette.
Look, this is not the most important issue in the world, but its one simple thing we could get right. Insert Cliche here and this was a great debate because I crushed all counter arguments. If you are creative person, perhaps you can better send the message, "kids should be exposed to second hand smoke, take it outside "
-Then we need to legislate laws that they get fined for tossing their Butts wherever they please.
Peace Out.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em,
but take it outside
Well that was the typo from hell.
Kids should NOT be exposed to second hand smoke. Take it Outside.
I'm not denying that smokers are addicted to nicotine. But I'm saying that by stripping it down to just the addiction is as misleading as saying that fine dining is simply eating, playing golf is simply chasing a little white ball around, or hugging your kid is no more than gently squeezing a child.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't oversimplify something that complex. Adults CHOOSE to smoke for a number of reasons.
Good enough. Kids probably shouldn't be exposed to second hand smoke any more than they should be exposed to auto exhaust, Grandma's perfume or the left's half-truths. But, on the other hand, it's not the worst thing in the world, either. Many of us were raised in homes where one or both parent's smoked, and we're just fine.
For the record, I have smoked since I was 16. I have always been considerate, never lighting up in someone else's home without asking first, even if they also smoked. I don't throw my butts on the ground, instead I flick off the cherry and put the butt in my pocket.
That's why I resent like hell, the broad brush painting smokers as stupid, inconsiderate, disgusting, or filthy. Why should I bother, if I'm going to get slammed no matter what I do. <shrug>
Today, they want to ban smoking as both a personal health risk and bad for society on the whole. Tomorrow, the same goes for red meat, it's bad for you and the energy-intensive production methods wreck the environment for everyone.
As was well learned from the 2nd Amendment rights battles, the best way to stop the creeping erosion of freedom is never let it start. And agreeing with them that even one thing is bad, even something you personally don't like, then allowing it to be banned provided they leave everything else alone, does not work. They'll always find another bad thing they don't like and want to ban, no matter what they promised you last time.
The most common reasons to start smoking I've run across over the years are the cool factor, to lose weight, and to piss off mom and dad, none of which struck me as terribly sensible. I'll defer to the smokers here to supply more profound ones. At the end of the day smokers seem to keep at it because bottom line it's just too hard to quit. (although I suppose many would consider golf an addiction as well.
) It was interesting to see last summer when gas prices went through the roof how quite a few smoking friends of mine suddenly found the strongest argument of all to quit–it just got too damn expensive.
You must be logged in to post a comment.