I'm Joeverkill, and this is Notes from the Right-Wing.
Our federal government is continuing its war on anything fun or stimulating. From the AP:
The House on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed legislation that for the first time would subject the tobacco industry to regulation by federal health authorities charged with promoting public well-being...
The bill would further tighten restrictions on tobacco advertising and impose new federal penalties for selling to minors. But its most far-reaching provisions would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco, from cigarettes to new kinds of smokeless products.
Okay. First let me say that I love smoking. I think tobacco is awesome. From a more objective standpoint, however, I defy anyone to look at the body of research on the psychoactive effects of nicotine and claim that it isn't a miracle drug. It can prevent Alzheimer's, ameliorate the effects of Tourette's, improve alertness, boost cognitive functioning, increase metabolism, and bolster both short-term and long-term memory (here's a link to a summary of studies). And let's just face it: smoking is fun, and it makes you look cool. It's a relaxing, low-cost thing to do.
Sure, tobacco can have ill effects. If you get addicted to it. As you know, I'm a conservative guy. I don't blame inanimate objects for human foibles. If you shoot someone, you can't blame the gun. If you rape somebody, you can't blame the skirt she's wearing. If you get obese, you can't blame the delicious BBQ bacon stackers you've been eating every day. Same goes with tobacco. Everyone knows the risks. If you think you might get addicted, don't smoke. And if you do get addicted, don't demonize tobacco because of it. Not everyone reacts to it the same way you do.
The article continues:
While the [FDA] could not outlaw tobacco or nicotine, it could demand the reduction or elimination of cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke.
Unbelievable. There are cancer-causing chemicals in everything. Imagine what would happen if the government demanded the elimination of cancer-causing chemicals from charcoal briquettes. No more charcoal briquettes, no more delicious charcoal flame-broiled hamburgers. Or if the FDA demanded the elimination of cancer-causing chemicals from soft drinks. No more diet soda, Mountain Dew, Mellow Yellow, most flavors of Gatorade, or any other drink with Blue #1, Blue #2, Yellow #6, or Red #3. I could go on. Damn near everything has cancer-causing agents in it.
And:
The bill would prohibit candy flavored cigars and cigarettes, and would give the FDA authority to ban menthol — by far the most commonly added flavoring.
Okay, first of all, this is racist. Black people love menthol cigarettes. I know, some of you are saying, "Hey Joeverkill, you're a racist for assuming that." But don't take it from me, take it from the The National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, which "has withdrawn its support for the bill, saying an outright ban on menthol is needed to protect the health of black communities."
Secondly, banning flavoring in tobacco products is like banning frosting on donuts. This is not to say that I don't enjoy tobacco with no flavoring -- indeed, I love the unadulterated taste of artisinally-grown tobacco products. But I'm a proponent of variety, of diversity, and of freedom of choice. Attempting to ban flavorings in tobacco products is yet another step in our government's quest to demolish anything fun or stimulating from out culture. If you take the flavoring out of my cigars, cigarillos, snuff, snus, and dip, sir, the terrorists have already won.
I'm Joeverkill, and this has been Notes from the Right-Wing.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Notes from the Right-Wing: The Tobacco Witch Hunt Continues
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 responses:
Yeah, I definitely have mixed feelings about this, that being said, I've never been tempted to take up smoking. I'd've rather had the smoking ban on bars be something akin to getting a liquor license, or let's not mince words, some sort of "health tax" paid by establishments who want to offer this solution. I do wonder how smoke-free bars would fare against the other kind if put in competition with each other.
So yeah, you can do whatever you want to your body, I'm really more concerned about second-hand smoke, but even then I'd err on the side of human choice.
Actually, Mr. Bautista, there is no statistically significant evidence that shows that second-hand smoke poses a health risk (other than to fetuses in the womb).
This is from the study that the Surgeon General claims "indisputably" proves that "secondhand smoke is serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.":
TS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
To quote Penn & Teller, the myth of secondhand smoke is bullshit.
Post a Comment