The success of prohibition is not solely the fault of corrupt institutions and pharmaceutical marketing schemes. It is also largely the fault of the victims – although this is not something that the victims like to hear.
That is because the victims too (like most of society) are, well, victims of the neo-Communist personal responsibility deflection mentality. Something like this: McDonald’s MADE me fat, Philip Morris MADE me smoke, and so on in an endless sequence. If we bring that stupidity to its logical conclusions, we can safely state that if there was no entity that MADE the victim be what he or she is, the victim would be… nothing. Is nothingness health and perfection?…
This article of ten years ago by Bruce Herschensohn is certainly worth dusting off with 20-20 hindsight, as the piece nails the problem of the smokers’ rights defenders right on the cross of logic whilst demolishing the “smoking-is-bad-but…” absurdity. It is sufficient to read the first two paragraphs of this short and powerful article to understand the logical contradiction that is at the foundations of the fatal failure of the "pro-smoking" side. That contradiction – in the past and in the present – has been and is the main cause of the public rejection of the pro-smoking argument above and beyond the exposure of the epidemiological trash science of antitobacco. If you don’t respect yourself, you can’t expect that others will.
‘ If smoking becomes prohibited in most places of the United States, which is certainly the direction in which the country is moving, it will not be because of the success of the anti-smoking forces alone. In large part it will be because of the failure of those who believe in liberty to fight back.
Frequently in interviews with smokers on television and radio and in the press, the smoker doesn’t talk about liberty and personal choices at all but, rather, the smoker gives ammunition to the other side.
Just imagine what would have happened if the battles of other minorities were fought as this one is being fought:
“I’m a Black man — but I wish I wasn’t.”
“I’m a Jew, and I practice Judaism — but I’m trying to stop.”
“I’m a member of the (Republican or Democratic) party — but I don’t want my children to be.”
Too many people who enjoy smoking are bringing about their own restrictions by their sheepishness and their inability to express the real issues that are at risk in the United States. They somehow feel that they will be “better accepted” if they say negative things about their own pleasure and give a boost to what the elitist trend is demanding.’
You know what is really diabolical? The fact that after ten years of failures, and after that this stupid but fundamental contradiction has been pointed out by very many parties (and FORCES has done that all along), there are still those who stubbornly apologize for smoking – but want their right to smoke respected!
It is emotional, you see? “I” don’t want to be proven wrong – and I will continue in my way until I am extinct along with those I am defending. But, at least, we will not go down without a fight. We sink with pride! …Where did you put that electronic cigarette/inhaler, again?…. I have to go out to dinner!
What about not surrendering but winning, instead?… It all starts with self-esteem — and with smoking right in the face of our adversaries – and not only figuratively.
__________________________________________________
It’s Time to Choose Sides
Written By: Bruce Herschensohn
Date Released: 7/25/97
If smoking becomes prohibited in most places of the United States, which is certainly the direction in which the country is moving, it will not be because of the success of the anti-smoking forces alone. In large part it will be because of the failure of those who believe in liberty to fight back.
Frequently in interviews with smokers on television and radio and in the press, the smoker doesn’t talk about liberty and personal choices at all but, rather, the smoker gives ammunition to the other side.
Just imagine what would have happened if the battles of other minorities were fought as this one is being fought:
“I’m a Black man — but I wish I wasn’t.”
“I’m a Jew, and I practice Judaism — but I’m trying to stop.”
“I’m a member of the (Republican or Democratic) party — but I don’t want my children to be.”
Too many people who enjoy smoking are bringing about their own restrictions by their sheepishness and their inability to express the real issues that are at risk in the United States. They somehow feel that they will be “better accepted” if they say negative things about their own pleasure and give a boost to what the elitist trend is demanding.
Pleasures are marvelous parts of life, and it’s true that all pleasures bring about their own risks: Former President Bush enjoys jumping out of airplanes. Not me. But if that gives him pleasure, and he’s old enough to have evaluated the risks involved — good for him. I know a couple of people who went bunji-jumping. I didn’t even want to watch. But they enjoyed it, and that’s fine with me. When I was in high school, a girlfriend of mine wanted to ski, and she did exactly that. She went to the slopes and came back home with a life-long disability. She had one half-hour of pleasure in Aspen, while in contrast to that, Deng Xiaoping of China had over 70 years of smoking which he enjoyed. He died this year at the age of 93.
The eternal question is, “Would you want your kids to smoke?” That’s an easy one. I don’t want kids to take risks of any kind until they get to the age when they can make their own judgments based on having lived enough years to evaluate choices with some knowledge. While they’re kids, I don’t want them to smoke, to drink, to drive, to gamble, to look at adult magazines, and I don’t want them to vote. There is a long list of things I don’t want them to do while they’re kids that I would never want restricted from adults, where liberty becomes the issue.
For sure, I do not want government to become the “new parents” of my children when they become adults, telling them what choices cannot be made. After becoming adults, if they tell me that they smoke, I would not beat my head against the wall. There are too many things I can think of that would be much worse news that they could deliver.
Anti-smoking groups, realizing they are unjustified in interfering with the liberty of others, have adjusted their argument to say the reason they oppose smoking is that “secondary smoke” hurts those who don’t smoke, and they quote the EPA report. If they read it, they would know that the EPA used faulty science, manipulated scientific data, ignored studies that contradicted its conclusions and used methodology not generally accepted by the scientific community.
When those people are told that the science is far from conclusive, they don’t like it, and they want to disregard or attack those studies that do not support their ideology. Wouldn’t you think they would be glad? Wouldn’t you think that if the health of others, including their own health, is really their concern, that they would hope “secondary smoke” is not harmful? Not at all. They want it to be a killer. That gives righteousness to their cause that, without such justification, is nothing more than dictating the choices of others. And they know it.
How do I know which reports are true? I don’t with any certainty. Although I have read dozens of reports on the subject of “secondary smoke,” I feel that logic is the most convincing report of all. Naturally, smoking with someone standing next to me in a phone booth would be outrageous. But so would prohibiting smoking in Dodger Stadium. That’s when the subject becomes one of liberty.
Why don’t I stop smoking? Because I like it. A lot. I believe that most of the 50 million smokers in the United States like smoking, even those who give self-conscious smiles and say, “I wish I didn’t,” and “I want to stop.” Come on! All they’re doing is showing off how weak they are in wanting others to make the choices for them. I sure don’t want them in my foxhole in battle.
As a smoker, are you an addict? It’s human nature to repeat doing the things that are pleasurable, therefore under the new definition of addiction, everyone could be thought of as being addicted to many things. But smoking is not, as some say, comparable to being addicted to hard drugs. I wouldn’t think of stealing money to get a pack of cigarettes. I have never become violent because I “needed” a smoke. No one has to worry that I’m driving recklessly because I smoke. Those I know who have stopped smoking have done it cold turkey without going to a rehabilitation center.
Last week while I was smoking outside a public building, a woman walked out of her way to come up to me and, stopping short of giving me a speech of righteousness, simply asked, “How many cigarettes do you smoke a day?”
“Oh, it varies,” I answered, “but generally I smoke around a pack and a half a day. But now that we’ve established that my personal habits are your business, I’m sure you would agree that the reverse is appropriate. How much do you drink? You ever get smashed? Do you buy lottery tickets? How many? How about horse-racing or casino gambling? I notice you have a wedding ring. How often do you have sexual relations with your husband these days? Ever cheat on him? Do you have any money put away that he doesn’t know about?”
Of course she walked away from me. By walking away she was telling me that her pleasures in life are her own business. She was right.
Bruce Herschensohn is a distinguished fellow at the Claremont Institute in Claremont, California. This article was originally published in the National Smokers’ Alliance website.
0 Comments