| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| D-Day |
| 2004-06-07 |
| You can’t smoke at the Legion any more. The veterans have been told to butt out almost everywhere, and municipalities won’t give Legion Halls exemptions from the proliferating anti-smoking by-laws, because that would invite legal challenges from private bar-owners wanting exemptions, too. Think of this for a moment -- think of our half million surviving vets, many of whom (as my late grandpa) were going there for decades to drink and smoke with their cronies. (Old friends are the best.) Almost all of them smoke, or would smoke -- it’s a social thing. Everybody smoked in the Second World War, everybody smoked in France -- read any diary, look at the snapshots, from that age before the triumph of tight-assed political correction. And especially in bars, which have been smoking zones since they were invented. This is all about freedom: why our vets went to war. In case you’ve never heard, Adolf Hitler was a non-smoker. He was the pioneer of anti-smoking regulations (as Bismarck before him was the pioneer of the welfare state; we ’re all German now). Hitler tried to ban smoking throughout the German civil service. To be fair to the man, he gave up when he realized that he didn’t have the power. To the non-smoker, the right to smoke is a minor thing, surely not worth defending. Why should anyone persist in smoking, if I decide I don’t like it? After all, what’s another person’s freedom? Democracy rules, and now that a majority are non-smokers, they can vote to make the minority behave. (It’s an excellent example of democracy and freedom in direct conflict.) My non-smoking readers -- not all of them, just the "health fascists", the ones with the ants in their pants -- may well argue I am being petty by bringing this up. Smoking is "minor", death on the battlefield is "major", why should I reduce the 60th anniversary of D-Day to some irrelevant rant about smoker’s rights? But for the guys who landed in Normandy, smoking was not a minor thing. It was a poignant symbol of freedom. We blew the Nazis off the cliffs, and then we had a smoke. We ducked into the trench under a Moaning Minnie, and then we puffed. We liberated Paris, and after we’d done that, we lit a Gitane. The baguette and the glass of Bordeaux were optional. A dear friend in the Yukon has compiled the memoirs of a certain Sgt. Red Anderson, Calgary Highlanders, transcribed from oral source. It is a most wonderfully entertaining document -- hysterically funny, yet clanging everywhere with the ring of truth. It cries out to be read, by generations who know nothing of war -- which alas is the very reason no Canadian publisher today would have the guts to print it. For it is utterly free of neurotic moral posturing. Take, for example, this succinct explanation for a place marker, somewhere inland from the Norman beachfront: "I remember one German soldier that was shot in the middle of the road. All the tanks, trucks, and Bren gun carriers (even me) would run over him. After a while (five days) he was nothing but a spread-eagled grease spot. ... It was at a road junction, so everybody called it ’Flat Man’s Corner’." It’s the stuff they talk about in Legion Halls, where the old guys go, or used to go, to smoke and drink. To talk about stuff that people who weren’t there wouldn’t understand, wouldn’t want to understand -- the "boomers" and their progeny, the people raised in luxury and peace, who haven’t heard that evil exists, who no longer know what it takes to contain it; the people of the mall culture. Red Anderson again, after a good shelling: "When it was over, I went to check on the boys. I was no braver than anyone else, but being a sergeant, you were supposed to act brave, so the men would think you were okay. Checked each man and everybody was scared and shook up. I asked Mac how he was doing. He said: ’Red, I am so yellow I could give a blood transfusion to a lemon.’ That broke the tension and we all had a good laugh." Sixty years later, the world is changed. Peace has brought the tyranny of the jackass, aptly symbolized by his anti-smoking by-laws. We have forgotten everything. For instance, that freedom is laughter. That it’s a glass of whisky, an off-colour joke. That freedom was freedom when freedom was a smoke. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #27 Dunno where this guy is, but our Legion Hall and our VFW you smoke all you want at the bar. Nobody says jack - if they aren't members, they aint getting in to bitch about it anyways. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-06-07 10:55:01 PM |
| #26 The really pathetic thing about the anti-smoking hysteria is that a lot of it was ginned up to support the Big Tobacco Lawsuit which started out as a way for the Democrats to defund the Republicans by demonizing a contributor and got out of hand when the trial lawyers and the States AGs realized how big the pot could be. I grew up when half the country smoked. Now I live in California where you can smoke marijuana but not tobacco. The sign at the airport says "Welcome to Smoke Free California - Breathing Easier Yet?" It has become a power trip out here for shrill shills to campaign against the evils of smoking by continuing to increase the tobacco taxes and decrease the number of places you can smoke. And yes, they are trying to make it illegal to smoke in your home or in your car if you have children (second hand smoke = child abuse). It's just one more atrocity brought on by an educational system that turns out people incapable of rational thought and totally devoid of scientific, mathematical, or historical knowledge. They learn PC pseudoscience and the history of obscure tribes, but they can't balance a checkbook. The truly funny thing is that since they have made smoking so onerous, the amount of tobacco sold is dropping and, consequently, so is the amount of revenue leached from smokers. The anti-tobacco types are upset at the loss of income and want to increase the taxes to replace the lost revenue. (I guess the fable about killing the goose that laid the golden egg wasn't pc enough for their curriculums) By the way I don't smoke, but I'm tempted to light a cigar just to blow smoke in the faces of the anti-smoking Nazis that run loose in California. There is a simple rule at work here, if you don't like smoking in a place, don't go there. It's not like your life would be forever damaged if you can't go into a place and impose your will on all the people there. The sneering condescension with which the anti-smoking crowd addresses normal people is the sort of thing that destroys respect for the law and belittles us all. If the SOBs were really concerned about second hand smoke, they would shoot the environmentalists so that we could have rational forest management and prevent wildfires that fill the air with soot and ash. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-06-07 3:58:30 PM |
| #25 Maybe we should start a civilian security force and give them black turbins and sticks. They can smack people who smoke and drink and take excessive liberties. |
| Posted by: Johnnie Bartlette 2004-06-07 3:20:56 PM |
| #24 How long till someone, somewhere, starts banning alcohol, now that they've managed to ban smoking? That's been tried before. I hope they do it again so I can become an instant millionaire. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-06-07 3:04:04 PM |
| #23 The Smoking/Non Smoking question should be left up the to owners of the businesses in question. Customers, like dcreeper, who don't want to be exposed to smoke can go to other establishments that cater to nonsmokers. I think it's funny that those who want all-out bans on smoking engage in all kinds of "unsafe" behaviors that damage, or are potentially damaging to themselves and/or others. They are usually very defensive about those behaviors, I might add. Personally, I used to be against smoking in restaurants. At this point, I think personal liberty interests outweigh any other concern. Otherwise the "thought police" think they've got a green light, and begin encroaching into other areas of life. Most restaurants have nonsmoking sections anyway, and enough have banned smoking all together. But here's the weird thing: we used to like to go to a certain Outback Steakhouse--good atmosphere, good food. Then they banned smoking, even in the bar. Now it's bad atmosphere, and we don't go anymore. We go to another Outback Steakhouse, which still allows smoking. But, I'm glad there is no smoking on airplanes. Hey--I wonder what the terrorists are up to today? I could be wrong, but I don't think they differentiate between smoking and nonsmoking "infidels"! Also, if our soldiers need to be able to smoke to deal with them more effectively, then so be it. The whole nonsmoking hysteria from the left is probably aimed at removing the privilege on the fields of battle so our soldiers are compromised. |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-06-07 1:24:04 PM |
| #22 Next thing you know, they'll be banning cupcakes in schools... |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-07 1:07:30 PM |
| #21 hey B, On picking your battles wisely, tactics dictate you pick the enemies softest spot, closest to the home front. Certainly anti smoking laws are an easier target than afganistan. Now bars are private places, not public places - its a common error to assume that a place the public can meet is a public place, but since the public can meet at your house, this is obviously wrong. Guests patronize the bar at the bar owners grace, not their own. So do you want the Gov to regulate your behavior at home? If you support the smoking ban, you have given them that right. Enforcement is a problem today, but technology advances... Am I overreacting? Yes, I am, because I'd like to see it stopped now, and the limits set. Stop smoking, drink water, excercise daily, no fatty foods are all valid health concerns, and could all be implemented based on this thinking. If we must pick our battles, start here and now. |
| Posted by: flash91 2004-06-07 1:05:05 PM |
| #20 I'm a non smoker, always have been. I used to have chess matches where my opponents would light a cigerette and hang over the board to make me lose concentration, I was once told by a karate instructor that, in matches, guys would attempt to have offensive smells, bad breath and body odor, so I respected this tactic. I love the smoke free space, but I hate, with all my heart, the nanny crap about smoking. The blokes are making the best points in this thread for me. And another thing. Smokers, god bless them for they have paid and paid and paid and paid. (Taxes) |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-07 12:48:40 PM |
| #19 To paraphrase Kim du Toit, "Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms" is a great name for a store, not a government agency! |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-06-07 12:29:18 PM |
| #18 They came for the smokers first, but I wasn't a smoker, and didn't care for the habit, so I didn't object. Next, they came for the hunters, but I didn't hunt, so I didn't protest. Then they came for the drinkers. I only drank in moderation, so it didn't seem worth protesting. Then they came after the noisy. I prefer peace and quiet, so I didn't shout. Finally, the smokers, hunters, drinkers and party animals came after intolerant authoritarian bigots like me. Damn, did I get a pounding... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-06-07 11:48:35 AM |
| #17 kelvin, I agree, when you go out to a bar you should not have to stop and wonder if your ability to hear stuff is going to be permantly damaged as a result. At the very least the places should be force to put up signs publicly notifying you that the sound levels are kept at X level and your ears can be damaged by too much exposure and add in a requirement of free earplugs for any employees who want 'em (yeah pennies, but if the company creates the hostile enviroment it should supply the safety gear for the employees) after that you dipped into satire, buh I guess I'll comment on it anyway.. smoke from fireplaces is vented and the little bit that you do get is not a health threat of any sort. I personally have no problem with permitting group health damaging activities provided there is some kind of big sign, making it clear that by entering the establishment you are endangering your health in X ways due to X causes (it goes with the whole right ends at the nose thing, you can swing your fist at my nose if I like it / say it's ok, you just can't do it if I don't say it's ok, the big ol' sign makes it clear what sort of activity occurs within the establishment and then it's up to the consumer to enter or not and thus saying they are kosher with the health risks) the direct restriction stuff is a little heavy handed tho |
| Posted by: dcreeper 2004-06-07 11:44:30 AM |
| #16 Smoke 'em if ya got 'em boys. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2004-06-07 11:31:56 AM |
| #15 Growler--If they ever do pass a universal health care, then in addition to banning those extreme sports I listed above they had better regulate weight as well. After all, we shouldn't be taxing the fit to pay for the fatties and their resultant health issues from being so overweight! My chief issue in this thread is the more government interference, regulation, and presence in your life the less free you are. It's a necessary evil, but it needs to be contained--somehow it keeps extending and creeping into our lives and our personal business more and more! B--Point taken. If the American Legion is not private enterprise, then my arguments don't apply. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-06-07 11:04:55 AM |
| #14 The bad effects of secondhand smoke are a myth, based on junk science and pushed by health Nazis. And those of you who say it's no big deal most likely have never smoked. A truly free society should let owners of bars and clubs decide what they want to allow in their establishments. (If it's legal.) And those who don't like it can take their business elsewhere, or get a job in a smoke-free environment. This is akin to the FCC trying to regulate "decency," when the viewer/listener who doesn't like it is always free to change the station. When they come around trying to pass legislation to regulate obesity, then maybe you'll listen. |
| Posted by: growler 2004-06-07 10:50:33 AM |
| #13 ahhh...but this is an argument about the American Legion. Not exactly "private" establishments and I'm guessing the majority of the ol' vets are non-smokers these days. Enough for me. Don't know why I'm fighting this one as I could care less either way. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 10:45:57 AM |
| #12 I'm a non-smoker, so personally I like going into smoke-free businesses, but my point of contention is that it's the business owner's right to determine if his business will allow smoking or not--it is NOT the government's! As far as the health aspects, you are entirely within your right to walk out of a business that allows smoking and patronize a business that bans smoking. That's capitalism--vote with your feet and your dollars! And nobody is forced to work there either--they can just as well seek employment elsewhere. If the government wants to ban smoking in government buildings, fine! But they have NO right to extend it to the private sector. Personally, I think they have more right to ban smoking in a house where there are minor children living than they do to private business. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-06-07 10:42:44 AM |
| #11 just to lighten things up a bit and because I'm really not all that personally invested in fighting this battle - isn't it funny that the left tries so hard to legalize marijuana smoking while at the same time it tries so hard to make cigarette smoking illegal? |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 10:27:09 AM |
| #10 Kelvin Zero - I accept your point that "If I want to have people smoke in my establishment the government should have no damn right to tell me that I can't" My point is you should pick your battles wisely. This is one you already know you're going to lose. Knock your head against the wall if you want to...but the majority of people don't understand why the non-smoking vets (majority) have to suck up unwanted smoke because the smoking vets are too damn selfish to take the simple step of stepping outside. How hard is that really? Not much is really lost here, except your battle to win hearts and minds on the bigger issues at stake. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 10:19:36 AM |
| #9 You're right B and dccreeper. So since loud noises above 100 decibels, which a loud bar can get to easily, have been shown to cause long term hearing loss then we shouldn't allow loud music either. Oh and we'll have to outlaw all fireplaces in all public places as well. Smoke is smoke after all and since occasional contact is so devastating.... This is a government versus personal responsibility issue. If I want to have people smoke in my establishment the government should have no damn right to tell me that I can't. It really should be that simple.For the moment smoking is still a legal activity. I do love how people are OK of the curtailment of freedoms as long as it doesn't affect them. By the way, laws against public nudity I think are just as wrong, but even if I didn't, using two completely related subjects and saying the one is OK to ban because another is banned is beyond stupid. |
| Posted by: Kelvin Zero 2004-06-07 9:39:50 AM |
| #8 How many people actually end up in accident and emergency because of smokers in bars? And how many people end up there because of drinkers in bars? And how obnoxious is a silent whiff of smoke compared to a drunken, abusive and aggressive lout? Seems to me before banning smoking in bars, they ought to ban drinking. Drinking is by far the greater 'evil'. How long till someone, somewhere, starts banning alcohol, now that they've managed to ban smoking? How long till the government and/or local authorities ban games machines? Ban swearing? Ban distasteful jokes? Your right to make a joke I find offensive ends at my earlobe. Why should the authorities protect us from the choices we are free to make, e.g. which private bar or restaurant we chose to have a drink or a meal in? Can't drinkers and smokers choose for themselves? Do you want people to have the freedom to choose, or not? Do you want all of us to pay to uphold laws protecting you from having to make a choice, because you don't like smoking? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-06-07 9:36:28 AM |
| #7 :-) and cigarette smoke really doesn't bother me much. JMHO...but if you're looking for a poster issue to illuminate our sinking into a nanny state - stick with the skateboarding or "supersizing" issues. You'll get more support when you don't alienate half your supporters from the get-go. It just isn't that hard to step outside! |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 9:27:14 AM |
| #6 a million freaking people are going to die in Sudan this year. North Koreans are starving as dear crazy leader makes a nuke. Jeeze...pick your battles. If they say you can't smoke in your own home or you can't smoke period...then get upset. Otherwise step outside and quit whining. Nobody else likes your stinky smoke. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 9:16:35 AM |
| #5 that's bs howard, someone talking loud does not directly affect my health, someone smoking does. your right to smoke ends where my nose begins, just like your right to swing your fist |
| Posted by: dcreeper 2004-06-07 8:59:46 AM |
| #4 A non-issue? What happened to the freedom of a club owner or restaurant owner to decide whether or not his establishment is smoking or non-smoking? We don't need the f'ing Nanny State telling us every business is non-smoking, nor do we need them telling us we have to wear seatbelts and we have to wear helmets. This is about personal freedom. The issue is not about smoking. Of course, if we pass Hillary's grand vision of government-paid (i.e. taxpayer-paid) health care someday, then I will agree with all these rules and more. For example, I want skateboarding, hang-gliding, skydiving, BMX, rock climbing and all those other extreme sports BANNED in this country--why the hell should my tax dollars go to patch up somebody willfully doing something so stupid and dangerous? I want kids covered in pads and helmets 24/7, too! Little nits are always getting banged up... |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-06-07 8:47:35 AM |
| #3 Whilst bigger issues exist this is one symptom of the all pervading political correctness currently blighting society and posing the same threat to personal liberty as the WOT - what will they try to stop us doing in bars next? - loud conversation can sometimes become irritating... so ban talking. Thin end of the wedge B... before you know it you're living in some Orwellian nightmare behaving like automata. (aka The EEC) Be warned! |
| Posted by: Howard Uk 2004-06-07 8:33:37 AM |
| #2 and... by the logic listed here, the guys who fought in the VietNam and lit of joints to relax, ought to be afforded the same privilige. This is a non-issue. No one's saying they can't smoke. Just step outside. BFD. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 8:31:13 AM |
| #1 While I respect the argument put forth, he's right when he says, "may well argue I am being petty by bringing this up." We aren't allowed to do lots of things in public places. We can't walk around buck naked nor can the vets still shoot someone prior to lighting up. It's not that big of a deal to step outside to have your smoke. Non-smokers are indeed the majority these days....so it seems logical to me that the minority of smokers don't selfishly demand all the non-smoking veterans be the ones to suck it up. This falls under the, "deal with it" category. Move on to bigger issues. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-07 8:21:55 AM |