Re: Here's a thought

Mouse wrote:
Briarroot wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

If someone tomorrow discovered a medical remedy that addressed all
the health problems caused by smoking, the day after tomorrow someone
would STILL come up with a reason try continue to ban smoking. The
antis are not interested in our health. They are interested in being
in charge ...


Well obviously, that isn't going to happen. Meanwhile, the anti-tobacco zealots have switched from talking about the health of smokers to talking about the health of non-smokers who are exposed to second-hand smoke. Fear, not concern, is now the most useful weapon in their effort to capture the hearts and minds of the populace.

North Royalton, a suburb of Cleveland, just passed a law banning outdoor smoking in parks and city owned areas. Our local newspaper's "Sound Off" column this week was devoted to an informal man-on-the-street poll on the ban. Of the eight responses printed, three people expressed outrage at this abuse of power, one complained that there were more important issues to be addressed such as road repair, and four heartily approved the measure. Here's what those who approved said:

"Yes indeed, smoking should be banned anyplace where your smoke reaches another person's body. Period. Smokers have no right to pollute our air - anywhere."

"Great news! There is nothing more disgusting than to see parents light up while watching their children at play! Now children, joggers and pets will not be exposed to second hand poison."

"Whatever can be done to control these smelly, ***-littering pigs is OK with me."

"Thank goodness for the ban. I'll certainly feel much safer in North Royalton! Now if only the rest of the cities would follow suit, we could walk the streets and parks without fearing for fearing for our lives."

As you can see, fear of second-hand smoke is a feature in three of the four cases. (Note: even though at first glance that last response appears to be mockingly ironic, I've concluded that it's a genuine expression of belief, incredible as that may seem!)

As a result of being inundated with propaganda about second-hand smoke, many people, perhaps even a majority, have now become fearful of its effects; foolishly no doubt, but fools are still allowed to vote. It's unfortunate that the powers-that-be haven't devoted as much effort to exposing the contents of automobile exhaust. If they had we'd all be driving 3-cylinder econo-boxes and our oil import problem would look a lot rosier. And if they ever launched a drive to publicize the amount of toxic fumes dumped into the air by coal-burning electric generating plants, nuclear power would suddenly become our number one priority!



Geeze, Tim, you keep trying to apply rational solutions to the problem.


It's a failing. ;-)


When are you going to learn that in this culture that's not going to work? There's a quote somewhere about the futility of addressing emotion with rationality....


You're right, of course. It's possible, however, that at some point (probably when the pain finally becomes unbearable) people *will* come to the realization that their own fears and foibles are the real source of their problems and that a recognition of reality is the first step in the search for solutions. The anti-tobacco zealots, whether by design or through ignorance, are intent on creating a tide of public feeling which can only result in further destruction of those Constitutional liberties which allow free peoples with differing and divergent values to amicably co-exist in a nation such as ours. But let's not be too quick to condemn the antis. After all, most of us cheerfully approve of The War On Drugs and think that Social Security and Medicare are proper functions of government. <sigh>

Regards,

Tim Parker ... Escudo in a basket billiard

--
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities. With such persons, gullibility, which they call
faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." - Thomas Jefferson
.

Loading