| | Okay, so perhaps the title is a little melodramatic, but that's what it
seems like. I am, and have been for for going on a decade, a smoker.
Comparatively, I'm on the lighter end of the spectrum: I drift between
a pack and a pack a half a day, and I've been in this mode for some
time now. I gauge this by hours awake, mind you. I'm generally up by
eight in the morning and in bed by one or two in the morning, so 20-25
cigarettes in a 16-18 hour day doesn't seem so bad. I've been called a
chain-smoker, but to me the definition of such is someone who lights a
cigarette with their last cigarette. I tend to smoke more when I'm
stimulated, so if I'm sitting here, talking with you, and I go through
half a pack during a lengthy conversation, consider yourself an
intriguing person. If I light up a couple, its boredom.
I was almost denied my promotion at work because the owner was
concerned that, given the freedom to come and go as I pleased, I would
leave a bustling lunch rush to enjoy a long burn. This is indicative of
the fact that he was grasping for some reason not to give me a raise
(in the end, I got the promotion because I threatened to leave if I
didn't, after being promised for close to five months. Excuse me while
I knock a little dirt off my shoulder.) I do not deny I have picked
poor times to smoke, I do not deny that I have chain-smoked, and I
certainly do not deny that it will some day kill me. To most
nonsmokers, this seems ludicrous, like some collective dementia amongst
me and my kind. I like to put it in a more enlightened frame. I've seen
death first hand, at a formative age, and it scarred me. Or, rather, it
is a protective scab that reminds me, regardless of the choices I make,
I will someday be a bag of bones.
Of course I'm stating nothing new here. The "Everyone dies someday"
defense has been implemented since it was obvious cigarettes are legal
poison. I'm surprised it was never really heralded as a right-to-die
precedent. Health issues are really beside my main point, actually,
suffice to say everytime someone tells me "Those things'll kill you," I
supress the urge to push them in front of a large public transit
vehicle, just to prove a point. Anyone who denies cigarettes are lethal
is not invited to this debate. The same goes for anyone whose only
defense is that they are.
The question of harm does enter this discussion when it comes to
second-hand smoke, a minor quabble that will lead to my main thesis.
Does second-hand smoke negatively affect the population? Some say yes,
some say no. It is popular opinion that those who say yes (doctors,
trial-lawyers, Coop) are right, and those that say no (Limbaugh, Big
Tobacco) are evil cocksuckers. I can only work off personal experience.
And, you know, logic (albeit my own brand, but still...) My question to
you is, outside the possibility of a nonsmoker sharing close quarters
with a smoker, day in and day out, with no entry to the outside world
and "fresh air", no open windows, doors, ventilation, etc., do you
honestly think walking by a smoker on the street is going to kill you?
Or even spending an hour and a half in a restuarant where people on the
other side of the building are smoking? Or a bar, for god's sake? Come
on. Think of it this way: I know people personally in their 80's, who
have smoked since before the cold war. And yes, they have health
problems. But fuck, they're 80. Did smoking cause their health
problems? It was certainly a factor. But they're 80! They've been
smoking for forty or fifty years, if not more. Do you honestly think
that half a minute here, a few hours there, is going to kill you? If
you're comfortable breathing exhaust and fumes you encounter daily in
any populated area, then a few wisps of evil cigarette smoke should be
the least of your worries.
I gracefully accede the point that smoking should be prohibited in
certain places (cancer centers, offices, maternity wards), but the area
where I can light up is dwindling to the point of absurdity. Smokers,
for the most part, are very acquiescent when it comes to nonsmokers. We
understand our habit bothers you, so we will gladly take it outside.
But when you start cordoning off smoking areas with caution tape (as in
the smoking area outside my local wal-mart), and moving us further and
further away from wherever we happen to be, the time has come to slap
(or perhaps blow) some sense into you people.
Perhaps the problem is maturity. When children see something they don't
like, or smell, or hear, they want it taken away, never to return.
Americans have been so coddled by government that they've convinced
themselves that if something bothers them, they have the right to
demand that it be removed. Let me be the first to pop that little
bubble of yours. If you are driving around in broad daylight, and
someone pulls up next to you blaring violent, mysognistic hip-hop, can
you call the cops? Probably, but what level of importance do you expect
the po-lice to rate that? Especially if, which is likely, the driver is
white and driving a brand new Escalade? You have the right top be
annoyed, and the right to complain. But how exactly does your right to
not be annoyed outweigh the driver's right to listen to his music?
I'll admit that's not the best example, but I'm in a rush to get to
work, where if it is raining, and snowing, even hailing, if I wish to
smoke I am forced to step out back with no protection. I'm sure the
more vehement among will say, "Good, you have no right to protection."
Well, my friend, neither do you.
p.s., this is incomplete and sloppy, so expect a revision when I have more time and wits.
|
| | Posted 2/28/2008 2:18 PM - 18 Views - 2 eProps - 1 Comment
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
