Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Smoking Nazi's

While growing up, both my parents smoked like chimneys.  I hated it, but figured that it was a good lesson for me to NEVER smoke.  It never occurred to me to become a smoking nazi and make sure that no one else would ever be exposed to smoke.

How do these do-gooder, control-freaks who want to control every aspect of our lives get the balls to tell people what they can or cannot do in their own personal space such as their cars, homes, etc?  And the ironic part is that they want to tell me I can't smoke, killing no one but myself.  But don't you dare tell the unmarried 19 year old girl that she should think hard before she has the abortion she's scheduling because she wants to go to Europe this summer, instead of lamaze.

These same people want to put graphic pictures on the packs of smokes, thinking that will deter people from smoking.  My dad has had two major heart attacks and several smaller warnings.  And ya know what?  He's still lighting up.  My mom too.

But since we're at it, let's make sure and ban french fries, and big macs, and many food products for that matter.  Should we put a picture of a big fat ass in a thong on the doors of the local McDonalds/Burger King/Wendys as a warning?Let's put warnings on car doors that show large pictures of car crashes and put warnings on home doors that shows what happens during a house fire.  Big grisly car accident photos and nasty corpses that are nothing but charred flesh.

Or maybe lets let people make their own choices and if that choice causes cancer, so be it. There's plenty of people out there who never smoked a day in their lives who also came down with lung cancer.  What happens when the boogeyman of tobacco goes away?  What will these Nazi's go after next?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you really believe that's what freedom means?!?! The reason your parents are still smoking after heart attacks is because they are addicted to the nicotine in them. Freedom is the right to make your own decisions WHEN YOU HAVE THE FACTS to make an informed one. People started smoking in the 50s because it was "cool" and thats what they saw on TV. They weren't aware of the costs of smoking. But now we are. So why not educate people about the risks so they can make their own choice. Are cigarettes illegal? No. So why are you making such a big deal about freedoms being compromised here? If anything, these warnings stop people from being ignorant f*cks. - Like the people who believe the Gulf Spill is Obama's fault. Sure - Ok, then 9-11 was Bush's fault. Seems fair, right?

Webproze said...

So, if people started smoking in the 50's because it was cool and what they saw on TV, why do people smoke now? Following your argument, no one would want to start smoking now, because it's definitely not cool, nor is it on TV.

And when I talk about freedom, that's exactly what I talk about. I don't care about the warnings so much as I care about the government telling private owners of businesses that they cannot allow their customers to consume a perfectly legal substance on their property any longer. When governments pass these laws requiring that restaurants go smoke free, they're essentially telling businesses that they no longer are no longer in control of their own businesses and that a single bureaucrat with too much time on their hands could put them out of busines.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. We live in a democracy where are rules and regulations are governed by the majority. If you truly believe in American freedom, you understand that the democratic freedom in our society is not without bounds. If I came up to you and shot you in the face, is that freedom? No. We live by a set of rules that governs right and wrong according to the majority.

We now know that smoking causes a slew of health problems such as cancer, emphysema, and heart disease. We are smarter than our parents and now know that smoking causes these things. Freedom to smoke? Sure. As long as that freedom doesn't kill or harm others. If you think about it, you are supporting the freedom to kill or at least cause harm to others.

As one final example, if you were a pregnant woman living in our times - knowing what you know about how smoking can lead to problems in pregnancy including mental retardation and even premature abortion - would you really take the risk? You have the freedom to do that. The government advises against it. But essentially, you have the choice. You have the freedom to choose. Why choose what we know is wrong?

Anonymous said...

Now that I realize this - I will post it as well. I have a feeling you are pro-life when it comes to the abortion debate. Your reasoning is because life is sacred. Yet, you completely contradict yourself in this post by saying you should be given the freedom to choose even if that means harming others, where abortion is just that! You are harming another!

So which is it? Should we be given the freedom to choose - whether its smoking in front of others, knowing it can cause cancer and painful death - or whether its aborting a fetus, knowing it will prevent a child from being born? Or should the government regulate it? Seems like you think freedom is the freedom to do things your way, rather than freedom to let the majority decide.

Webproze said...

Actually we live in a representative republic. It was created that way to prevent something called "tyranny of the majority". In this particular case, tyranny of non-smokers over those who choose (note the term, not who are forced to, CHOOSE) to smoke.
What you're failing to recognize is that the smoking battle is merely a microcosm of the infringement upon the liberties of the citizens of America for the last 100 years. "Sin Taxes" are designed to stop a behavior that some self-righteous jackass decides is immoral. Who the hell gave them the right to decide that my actions are immoral and need to be taxed? Nothing in the constitution says anything about that.
Additionally, our freedom is not without bounds. My right to swing my arms ends at the tip of your nose. The problem comes where you decide that even though my swinging my arms affects only myself and I've yet to touch you, you decide that my behavior may lead to some sort of outcome you dislike and therefore you move to stop me from swinging my arms, whether it affects you adversely or not.

Finally, second hand smoke has been found to cause health issues with unborn children. However, there are very few other reliable studies out there that have shown much else that second hand smoke will do. Yes, it will irritate people with asthma and emphysema, but so will pollen and humidity. Going to outlaw that?
What you're failing to recognize is that the non-smoker is CHOOSING to patronize the place that allows smoking. When the non-smokers begin to vote with their wallets, places will stop allowing smoking (or when they majority commit tyranny on the minority and outlaw it). Too many non-smokers were willing to accept the stink, haze, and general discomfort and go to the bars/restaurants that were not smoke free and as such, the restaurants had no motivation to go smoke free. If people really cared that much, they wouldn't have needed a law to make non-smoking bars a reality.

Anonymous said...

Ok, in general, I would agree with you about this freedom debate. But I didn't realize that you weren't aware of the fact that second hand smoke is so bad for you. Typing it into google gave me 300,000 sources, one of the first ones which summarizes it fairly well:

http://heartdisease.about.com/od/smokingandheartdisease/a/2ndhandsmoke.htm

Basically, the point boils down to health. People can do what they want, smoke outside, in their own homes...yadda yadda...because it will not harm anyone except themselves. If the government was so evil, they would ban cigarettes because they have no health benefit. But that doesn't happen - they give people the right to choose to smoke as they please. Doesn't it seem unfair that the people who chose not to HAVE to be subjected to the (if you read the article) risks of coronary heart disease because people think they have the freedom to make others suffer with their choices.

The reason the small business owners have their own place is to give a service to the people. Your point is the same as saying, "Sure, lets let all business owners let people shoot guns randomly through their store." Same thing! Are we really living in the old west where people hurting others in a public place is ok? It's important to protect not only our rights, but ourselves as well! Wouldn't you agree that if you had the choice to either give someone heart disease or not, it would be morally wrong to say "Yes"? "But I have the freedom to choose to harm others!" No you don't! In our society, you have the freedom to make your own choices. Not the choices of others. That is why murderers go to jail and people who smoke to kill themselves don't.

Anonymous said...

Also, if this is a place to openly talk about ideas, why must you screen what people write before they appear on the comments?!!?

Anonymous said...

Also, Nazi's promoted the death of innocents. Isn't that what you're promoting?!?! LOL

Webproze said...

I'm not screening what you write, I'm ensuring that idiot spammers don't fill up my comment areas with links to malware and scam sites.

As you have experienced, I don't censor responses I don't agree with, I just make sure it's not something that will infect my reader's computer....it may infect their minds, but that's kinda the idea...