We’re all fighting many wars. The culture war. The political war. The war over whether to go to new wars. The war over whether to leave old wars. And then there are those poor bastards fighting on the front lines of the real wars.
What’s frustrating about most of these wars is that nobody’s winning. Everyone appears to be locked in a permanent stalemate.
But there’s nothing staler than French-kissing your mate, if your mate is a smoker. And that’s why the good news is that the good guys are winning at least one war: the war on smoking.
I am an insufferable reformed smoker. I don’t know why I was ever able to inhale cancer sticks as if they were good things. And I don’t know why my body reacts with disgust to secondhand smoke now. But it does. I immediately get a sore throat, watery eyes and nausea.
Why do I react this way? I think I’ve figured it out. Because cigarette smoke is poison gas. It contains carcinogens. Why wouldn’t my body react that way?
That’s why I’m as happy as Myron Cope with a pitcher of toddies that Allegheny County is pondering a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.
I mention Myron because he has recently appeared as a spokesman for the old guard. In an hysterical, if pathetic, defense of smokers’ rights in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Myron writes of one medical doctor from Western Pennsylvania who says there’s no evidence that secondhand smoke causes health problems. Then he denigrates the U.S. Surgeon General, who says there’s plenty of definitive evidence it does.
Myron says the “smoke Nazis” are after us. I’m not crazy about using the “Nazi” label, but if there were any Nazis in this debate, they’d have to be the smokers. They’re the ones who want to kill us with poison gas.
Statistics show that only about 20 percent of people smoke these days. That’s why it’s absurd to argue that a ban on restaurant smoking will kill business. A smoke-free bar will probably attract more of the non-smoking majority. A recently completed study in New York City shows that businesses are thriving since a smoking ban went into effect in the Big Apple.
But I understand the denial on the part of smoking-in-public advocates. After all, they’re addicted to a drug. That’ll lead to all kinds of rationalizations like the canard about the government reaching into our private lives.
Hey, smokers: The government already requires us to wear seatbelts. The government requires restaurants to be rat-feces free. The government imposes standards to help keep us safe. The precedent is there.
Allegheny County’s Board of Health and the County Council are working on a ban of smoking in bars and restaurants. Apparently, County Executive Dan Onorato is still concerned about a state law that says you can’t have local anti-smoking ordinances, and says any ban has to be statewide. County councilors are prepared to go forward and be sued. That’s the right approach.
C’mon, Danny O, get with the program. Do you want us to be perceived as a forward-thinking progressive community, or the Flintstone-agers we too often are? I’m here now to declare victory in the war on smoking in bars and restaurants. Because it’s going to happen. Even the Health Department’s Dr. Bruce Dixon, long resistant to developing this legislation, seems to be getting a clue.
So get ready, cancer-inhalers: You’re going to have to smoke in your car and in your home and walking down the sidewalk. But when I’m eating my almond-crusted Chilean sea bass or even a cheap greasy cheeseburger I will no longer have to have a side order of your poisonous smoke.
In your defense, few things in life are more pleasurable than the mild stimulation and addiction achieved by sucking smoke from a weed and blowing it out. Except just about everything else I can think of. Dude, time to quit.
Go ahead and write a “smoke Nazi” letter to the editor. It won’t matter. We’ve won. We have met the enemy, and it is yinz. And we have defeated yinz.
But don’t despair: There are still plenty of private places you can kill yourself. You might want to take into consideration any family members or friends you may be poisoning. But if you thought about that, you wouldn’t smoke.
This article appears in Aug 3-9, 2006.
“OPEN LETTER TO THE MAYOR OF PITTSBURGH”
Dawn Naret’
P.O. Box 2315
Pittsburgh, Pa 15230-2315
4-5-07
Mayor Luke Ravenstahl,
I tried to forward you a copy of a very important article, but this contact system would not accept the size of it. Please read my copy of it A.S.A.P. at:
http://www.dawnnaret.blogspot.com
This is not a typical letter to the Mayor. It is being sent to you, for your protection. There is about to arrive, a stirring of angry demonstrations and revolts against violations of Constitutional Rights and discriminations against smokers.
It would be beneficial to you and your staff to read this very informative article and familiarize yourself with all of the valuable information, that could help you have clear confidence, to support smokers in the “Burn the Smoking Ban” conflict.
I realize that you could feel more obligation to support the preferences, of what you imagine, to be the majority of the constituent opinion. However, the majority often has cross-over voters, as you are aware.
If you are not able to influence the County “steam-rollers” to cease discrimination and abuse, and to get these illegal laws and policies completely off the books, in Pittsburgh City and County, you could very well witness a prime example of “Majority Leverage” going bad.
You are possibly not aware of just how illegal and discriminatory this new ban is and every rule or policy that tries to dictate the activity and choice of a consumer who is using a legal product, is an illegal policy.
And just as illegal and discriminatory is the on-going practice of loading unassociated taxes onto tobacco products, “where smokers have to pay to provide increased funding, but non-smokers do not contribute”.
I guarantee you, that 100% of the smoking voters will turn on any politician who supports the continuance of these abusive dictates and practices. Their numbers may be considered the minority, but the non-smoking majority may not approve of everything on your record, and could be crossing-over to the smokers side, at least on a general election debate. So, you cannot have a guarantee that their majority over smokers is a clear sailing majority acceptance of the ban and the continued abuses against the smokers.
A more appropriate and definitely more legal philosophy and policy toward non-smokers demands, would be the “if you don’t like it leave…” practice, advised for theaters of “XXX” rated film rights and porn shops in unwelcoming neighborhoods.
How have these unsavory businesses survived?? Remember? it was because of their Constitutional Right to choose and exist. Are we expected to have any LESS democratic democracy protection extended to honorable, working, citizens, who just happen to smoke cigarettes, a legal product to consume?
Regards,
Dawn Naret’
“TO GRANT SMOKERS’ RIGHTS OR NON-SMOKERS’ WRONGS”
http://www.dawnnaret.blogspot.com
“TO GRANT SMOKERS’RIGHTS OR NON-SMOKERS’WRONGS”
I have been concerned alot about the 1-sided equality of rights being given to non-smokers.
I am a smoker, admitted..confessed..BUT, still qualifying as an American Citizen protected by the Constitution of the
United States.
Why have I been banished, by a large segment of society that does not smoke? I have not banished them…Why would they wish to banish me?
I see great validity in non-smokers complaint that they are afraid that smoking is dangerous to their health. Surely we have all read the Surgeon General’s Reports. We have also read that the tobacco industry has been investigated for adding over 400 chemicals to their product.
Were they ever fined?
Did they ever have to pay increased tobacco tax for various city or state expenditures?
Are they still putting all that unnecessesary chemical additive into their product?
Have they been banished to conduct their work 15 feet from the building?
These are valid points that I do not believe are getting enough attention in this “Smokers vs. Non-Smokers” conflict of mushrooming issues and restriction creating passtime of the non-smokers.
Granted, we have been told of the dangers of smoking.
But is it still a legal product to use?
Is it still a free choice to consume?
Is it a right of the smokers to smoke or not to smoke?
Is it a right of the smokers to have their health considered and protected, if necessary, by new rules and by-laws even though they choose to “endanger” their health by smoking?
How about by drinking?
If drinkers choose to consume a legal product that could endanger their health, could they lose their rights of protection in other arenas related to health?
If they choose to drink, are their rights to health protection waived? What about their alcohol breath?
Could it be inhaled by us and therefore make us drunk or vulnerable to cirrhosis of the liver, if we stand face to face and breath enough of their alcohol breath? (I have definitely detected a foul scent of alcohol on my clothing after spending too much time standing next to a drinker, or standing in a drinking arena).
Could there be such a thing as second-hand alcoholism or related illnesses?
Or even second-hand bad-breath?
I think these are probably silly notions, but no sillier than the current bashings being layed on smokers. I, personally, have never been convinced of the “second-hand smoke” theories. My personal opinion has been that there are far too many toxic contaminants and untoward effects of technologies, in the environment, that no one is addressing adequately or honestly.
I believe that Smoking has become the “fall guy” as an excuse for why are so many of our citizens becoming ill? I believe that someone, possibly trying to buffalo the E.P.A., said, “not us…we didn’t do it”, and blamed it on the smokers.
But, the question arose, of why were even NON-smokers getting ill? Oh !! That’s the ticket !! Second-Hand Smoke !! Of course !! Blame it on “second-hand smoke” !!
Well, if smoke vapors can enter the lungs of a NON-smoker and create illness…could not alcohol vapors also be entering your lungs and also exist as a health danger?? Would drinkers then be banished the same as smokers??
Should we have “drinking” and “NON-drinking” party areas at the office or in restaurants?
Should we load all new tax income collections onto the alcohol consumption products?
Should we banish the first, second and third martini to be consumed outside the building at least 15 feet from the door?
Should we run help-wanted ads inviting only NON-drinkers to apply?
Should we run house for rent ads inviting only NON-drinkers to inquire?
Would these actions not be viewed as discriminatory?
Would they not be viewed as prejudice?
Would they be taking a personal dislike of NON-drinkers preference and using it to violate the equal-rights of the drinkers’ preference?
This is exactly what is occurring to smokers. These are serious issues, that have been debated, with rhetoric upon rhetoric upon memorized, repetitious rhetoric. I am tired of hearing the same old memorized lines of debate coming out of the mouths of previously intelligent folks who were never against the constitutional rights of anyone.
My right to health considerations is just as valid and deserving as those considerations for the health of a NON-smoker.
Because I smoke, Does anyone have the right to banish me to the outside of a building, in ALL inclimate weather conditions with no shelter from the rain, the snow or the temperature with a lack of comfortable and hygienic seating available, just because the NON-smokers are concerned about their health.
What about MY health? Am I not now, forcibly being exposed to and vulnerable to becoming too chilled, too rained on, too frozen, to unrelaxed or break-rested? Might I even now be more vulnerable to catching a cold or developing pneumonia or receiving an over-exposure to exhaust fumes in the street?
Why is MY health considered any less valuable, to warrant receiving less protection, than the health of a NON-smoker?
Why is the solution to their personal health concern going to be to eliminate any concern for MY health?
Do you have any idea, those who do not smoke, just how many illnesses are resulting from the inconvenience of being thrown out into the street, every time you want to have a cigarette?
Do you realize that Jobs ARE being withheld from smokers!
Do you realize that Housing IS being refused to smokers !
Do you agree that these are “inalienable rights” protected by the constitution?
Do you want your inalienable rights ripped away from you?
Do you think you have any right to rip away the constitutional rights of others?
I really do not think that most NON-smokers are trying to destroy the rights that the constitution grants to ALL citizens. I believe that a force of rhetoric and terroristic media have brought many of them to the brink of a state of paranoia with cigarettes and cigarette smokers.
First it was separate areas, in the same room demands. OK, smokers are considerate people, no problem. We did not want to cause them any discomfort.
Next, it was separate rooms. Now hold on…we will miss socializing with you…but, if it makes you happy…
Then it was outside the building. This is where the serious violations and symptoms of paranoia began exposing themselves.
Now it is at least 15 feet from the building as their latest demand…..Where does it end??????
The symptomology of continued complaint and instant gratification demands and expectation are now becoming a mental health stability concern about the NON-smokers. Why is enough never enough?? Once they receive cooperation and pacification, they return again…and again…and again…with the same complaint and new, more expanded, more controlling, more discriminatory, more banishment oriented demands than those of the last time. And nothing new has occurred, to validate a repeat of the complaint, to begin with, whatsoever.
Where does it end? It has become, already, a violation of constitutional rights. Does it have to become assassination or deportment to a leper island to satisfy their now obsessive control and segregation issues?
What have they done to these poor NON-smoking intelligent people, to cause these very serious mental health related symptoms to be emerging more and more strongly with every discriminatory demand, that they repeat their obsession with? These were GOOD people. How did they become so discriminatory and self-centered that they are now willing to violate the constitutional rights of every smoker in the country?
I am sure that a reality check, by those who have been steam-rolling with the rhetoric command post, will see the ugly portrait that is developing of their now highly suspicious efforts.
Soon, people will not feel comfortable socializing with them, because they have revealed a tendency toward these obsessive/compulsive discriminatory mental health issues.
For their sakes, as well as protection from discrimination against the smokers, I definitely believe that we need to redirect the solution seeking to the appropriate source of the problem. That would be the manufacturers with their continued health endangering practice of adding unnecessary chemicals to the natural tobacco.
The tobacco plant, of itself, is not a toxic or poisonuos plant. It is a natural, God created, domestic, green vegetation, ranking it the same as basil, parsley and oregano. Grasshoppers eat the leaves as the mainstay of their diet, including the nicotine. The natural nicotine is actually of a very low level and possibly not even addictive to many humans or grasshoppers. Which could explain, why the manufacturers may have considered additional addictive additives.
It is these chemicals that are dangerous to the health of organic, mammal humans, not the tobacco leaf. Why then, are the manufacturers not properly addressing the problem, of health concerns, by eliminating the chemical additives and offering a clean, safe, organic product?
How many millions of dollars, a year, would they have already saved in law-suits?
How much of their profit could they have saved, on the overhead cost, of the chemicals?
How many customers could they have kept, if the product was not labeled a health risk?
How many new customers might be obtained, if the product were safe and even shown to have health benefits, when uncontaminated with chemicals?
All of God’s green creations contain health benefits. Even those thought to be dangerous. Doctors now prescribe a green plant named cannabis, A.K.A marijuana, for over a dozen different ailments. At the turn of the century, circa. 1890, Doctors also used to prescribe cocaine for calming the nerves. It is also a natural plant. When I was a private nurse for Miss Helen Clay Frick,
Pittsburgh, Pa, The family never threw anything away. Among the bathroom medicine cabinet items was a leather pouch, of glass medicine vials, prepared by the family physician as an assortment of “might need remedies” while the family was on cruise to Europe and could not be treated by their private physician. Among the vials was one, full of white powder, labeled “cocaine – 1898”. Natural plants were always legal and accepted for medical treatment.
Cigarettes have been reported to ease, and in some cases, to stop the low to moderate chemical and or gas vapor induced lung and cardiac spasms. These spasms could cause instant death; in emphysema, asthma, C.O.P.D., CHF and cardiac arrithymia patients.
I would like to see more research done on this, because I am convinced that the organic tissue, violently rejecting a chemical or gas vapor invasion, would be soothed by the counter-induction of organic vapor. The positive, expandable components, of the organic, super ceding the densifying and contracting physics of the negative. But this is only my personal, scientific theory of how cigarettes could actually be serviceable, as a health benefit, if left untampered with.
If we could all do an honest facts reality check and stop the false information, and terroristic rhetoric, the smokers would be healthier, The non-smokers would be safe and secure from any paranoia of being around smokers or cigarettes, and the manufacturers would be free of law suits and diminishing market share profit percentages.
That would be the wisest solution for the satisfaction of everyone. And it would end the discrimination and dangers of paranoia.
There might be one unhappy camper left, and that would be the chemical manufacturers and pharmaceuticals sales to sick patients, but ….they created the additives, the harmful to humans insecticides, disinfectants, solvents, etc…etc…etc. To that, the wise old sage, “KhanDawnUs” say; “the dog who bites….could end up with bloody tail.”
I would hope that they would redirect their focus to preventative health enhancement, by producing safer protective products. We all know that health benefiting microbes are destroyed, along with the dangerous microbes, when using current remedies. Bulletins, against excessive use of antibacterial agents, were published.
This is because there is no such thing as a dangerous microbe, of itself. Dangerous microbes are merely normal microbes malfunctioning. It is usually an invasive episode, into the microbe, of a toxic agent (antibacterial) or negative energy, that creates a sub-atomic molecular clustering, inside the microbe. These clog the emission of gas, that it produces by converting waste material that it has ingested from us.
The gas is obstructed, from escaping the body of the microbe and it is required to accomplish osmosis, of the microbe, moving in and out through solid matter walls of our cells, veins and arteries. The microbe delivers nutrients and removes waste, as a cleaning service for us.
When they become sick or malfunctioning, they clump into tumors and clog cells, veins and arteries, of the humans.
More effort must be made to expand the populations of healthy microbes in the environment and in the physical body.
Cigarette smoke and organic cleansers would actually clean the air and enhance the home environment, for optimal equilibrium and physical health functioning.
These gifted researchers have the ability to produce the greatest benefit to the human species…….LIFE.
I am not a prejudice person, or an easily manipulated person. I prefer to investigate the facts and eliminate the facades. I study Sub-Atomic ( most minute-smaller than an atom) Quantum Physics, as recreational reading material, and I knaw the available facts into expanded theories.
I wish to promote good health, extended life and the pursuit of happiness to every human. Lets all do a fact finding reality check and no one has to fear being banished 15 feet from the building.
We must erase the errors, committed against not only smokers, but against all humans and put an END to the violations of everyone’s constitutional; civil, and human rights, before they are a lost and obsolete memory of Democracy.
Thank you for smoking ,
Dawn Naret’, Author of “We The People” P.O. Box 2315 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-2315 http://www.dawnnaret.blogspot.com, http://www.dawnnaret.blog.com
http://www.dawnnaret.wordpress.com
http://www.dawnnaret.workpad.com
text.reply2dn@gmail.com, reply2dn@gmail.com, dawnaret@yahoo.co.uk