Secondhand Bullshit

(reprinted from May 21st, 2004
since then both cities HAVE inflicted
bans, and many bars have closed)

Now we have both St. Paul and Minneapolis considering a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. The city council members may decide what is good for us... what is medically true and not true, and then force that decision on us... not just on smokers, but on the owners of bars and restaurants. This is not a form of Minnesota Nice, this is Minnesota fascism in action (yes, Hitler was an anti-smoker too). This is do-gooderism raised to mass madness. I have no doubt that the city council members are as duped as most non-smokers about the truth surrounding so-called second-hand smoke. They probably believe they will be doing the public a service if they vote in favor of the ban. The problem is that they're considering forcing a lot of people to do something they don't want to do, based on ignorant, nonsensical beliefs.

There are so many oft-repeated lies about smoking and its effects that it has to be the most believed hoax in the history of man. There is no evidence that second-hand smoke has ever killed ONE person, much less the thousands that are claimed by anti-smokers. NO EVIDENCE, period. This whole hullabaloo is junk science... the art of fabricating results to justify another agenda.

You've been told that smoke causes throat cancer, lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, asthma, low birth weight, impotence, and any other problem that needs a straw villain to attack. You've been shown photos of cancerous lungs and told they were smokers' lungs. You bought that, ignoring the fact that people never even exposed to smoke develop cancerous lungs too. Truth is, there are NO diseases or conditions that smokers develop that non-smokers don't. None. If smoking was as terrible as we've been told, there should be SOME damned evidence, shouldn't there?

I understand non-smokers not liking smoke. There are a lot of things I don't like. Will you join with me in banning city buses, with their terrible whine during acceleration, and their noxious exhaust fumes? Perhaps you haven't noticed, if you have A/C and drive with the windows up all the time, but us po' folks notice, because we're the ones who have to get close to the buses and gag from that crap.

If you don't like smoke, take a stand, but stop perpetrating the lies in order to justify forcing others to abide by your likes and dislikes. At least be an honest socialist and admit that you just enjoy making others do what you think is good for them. It's as elitist as forcing democracy down Iraq's throat... it's good for them, isn't it?

The lies about smoking are so blatant and so easily uncovered that it's insulting to have to repeat them again, when every one of you who has bought into the lies need only do a little investigation to discover the truth. A little common sense is, in fact, all that is needed.

1. We all know that non-smokers die of the same diseases smoking is blamed for... but you choose to ignore what is staring us in the face.

2. We all know that, since HALF the smokers have quit, no diseases have even diminished, and that asthma has INCREASED. Ignore that one too.

3. We can all easily discover that there are other nations with far more smokers and no smoking restrictions, that have lower rates of cancer, and heart disease, etc. Ignore that one too.

4. We all know some really old smokers, don't we? Oh, yeah... those must be the exceptions that prove the rule.

As a bonus, we also know that people who quit smoking gain weight. Now we're facing the latest in a long string of "medical crises"... obesity. There couldn't be a connection, could there?

"You're damaging our lungs!" It used to be that I was damaging MY lungs, but when the anti-smokers discovered that I didn't believe it and wasn't interested in stopping... they INVENTED second-hand smoke. Yes, invented. Smokers wouldn't buy the health arguments because they didn't feel unhealthy, so a whole new approach was invented... making smokers feel liable for the health of others. It has been a very successful ploy, but it has absolutely nothing to do with science or health. It's nothing less than a full-blown, massively successful hoax.

Here's a tidy little piece of evidence against which to judge what you've bought into... smoker's lungs are black and gooey, and bound to fail, aren't they? I've seen non-smokers actually imagining my lungs and feeling pity for me. They watch me sucking that evil smoke into my lungs, and think I'm insane. We all know it's true, don't we? We've seen the photos. Who in their right mind would want lungs like that? MAYBE YOU?

Dr Judy Morton, a respiratory physician at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, will tell a conference in Sydney today that there is no evidence patients who received lungs from smokers faced a shorter life expectancy than other lung transplant recipients.

"There isn't evidence to say that lungs that are damaged by smoking and still functioning well do any worse than perfect lungs," she said. Dr Morton said several other conditions apart from smoking, including asthma and infection, rendered lungs less than perfect.

I really can't tell you whether smoking is more or less healthy than not smoking, any more than I could claim omniscience about the coffee or diet pop I drink. I can tell you that my physical reaction to lack of coffee is stronger than my reaction to a lack of cigarettes... and I drink plain coffee, not espresso, the favorite drink of so many anti-smokers. I can tell you, but you surely already know, that we've been bamboozled so many times about health risks that we should be extremely suspicious of all of them. Saying something 10 thousand times does not make it so. "They" say a lot of things, most of which are bullshit. You know that too, don't you? The simple truth is that nobody can tell you much about the effects of smoking, and they can't tell you a damned thing about second-hand smoke, because they DON'T KNOW.

To a non-smoker, and certainly to an anti-smoker, smokers must be idiots. You may feel sorry for us, because you've heard that we're addicted and just can't help our poor selves. It just couldn't be that smokers smoke because it does them good... could it? Remember, we used to believe that smoking marijuana was only good for good feelings. Here's a recent news story you probably missed:

Nicotine Found to Prevent Some Diseases

For years consumers have been warned about the dangers of smoking, but now doctors say one ingredient found in cigarettes may hold the key to good health.

Studies have found that smokers using the nicotine patch to try and kick the habit were less likely to develop a variety of diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's because nicotine can stimulate receptors in the brain that deal with learning, memory and concentration.

"Nicotine by itself, independent of the smoking issue, can in fact turn out to be a very useful medication," said Dr. George Bartzokis, director of the University of California's Alzheimer's Center. "In fact there's a lot of evidence that it may turn out to be a very useful medication."

Researchers also believe that nicotine could help younger people fight illnesses such as short-term memory loss, attention deficit disorder (search) and depression.

Golly gee, folks... haven't we been hearing a lot more about ADD and depression among our kids... as the war on smoking has progressed? Nah... that couldn't be cause and effect. It couldn't be possible that smokers smoke to make themselves feel better, to concentrate better, or to combat depression? There I go again, forgetting that we're all too stupid to detect what's good for us.

Are you sure you want to drive all smokers to quit? Isn't that where this is going? Maybe just cut way back, or smoke all we want, just somewhere else? If you're an anti-smoker, decide what you really want. I met one person who had been convinced that I should be prosecuted for murder, for my secondhand smoke. I already avoid a lot of restaurants that will only accommodate non-smokers. I'm quite willing to avoid eating out at all if necessary, and certainly willing to never again eat out in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul, should the councils decide that's what they want. If they think for a minute that I'm going to accept a smoking ban and still spend my money there, then they've made a serious misjudgement. If the downtown merchants don't mind, I don't.

Smokers pay through the nose to do something they believe is beneficial to them (woops, I forgot again - we're stupid). Smokers pay $16.2 BILLION in taxes on cigarettes... $16.70 for each carton... an average of $630/year/smoker. Non-smokers and anti-smokers - do you really want to lose all that tax money? Hell, that's enough to support a war for months. If we all quit, it'll put a serious crimp in our "promotion of democracy" around the world.

Come to think of it... maybe the government should be responsible for my expensive habit. When I was in the Navy, C-rations came with a pack of cigarettes, and military bases sold cigarettes at way low prices. I suspect they still do. Naturally, being stupid enough to have enlisted, I probably got hooked then. Shouldn't I be eligible for some sort of compensation from the government, instead of being bad-mouthed, lied about, and pushed around? Shouldn't I be treated as a victim rather than a perpetrator?

As a natural optimist, I'll remind myself that it could be worse... I could own, or work for, a Twin Cities bar or restaurant, and know that I could be soon out of business.