I took my first puff of a cigarette when I was 15 years old. It was so cool to smoke then and practically everyone did, from teens to parents and even grandparents. It was socially acceptable and in fact, encouraged as a great stress reliever.
Boy, have things sure changed!
Not only is it now unacceptable to smoke, smokers are made to feel like social outcasts whose only goal is to kill others with their second-hand smoke. No longer are people allowed to light up in work places, many metres from the entrances to hospital, bars, hotels, football stadiums and anywhere else designated as a place where the public gathers.
As well, some companies refuse to hire smokers and have threatened current employees with dismissal, even if they smoke at home. Also, some doctors are refusing to treat patients who smoke and are (here in Canada) threatening to refuse surgeries to smokers.
The next step of lobbiest is to take away a smoker's ability to light up in their own car or even their own home!
While I realize that the health hazards are now proved and that cigarette smoking is a dangerous habit, it is beyond me to understand why we are now so blacklisted in society. No one told us of the dangers, before we were hooked so many years ago.
And what really frustrates me is that there are places drinkers and drug addicts can go to get treatment, but there is absolutely nothing like that for smokers. Yet, it is a known fact that smoking is a very strong addiction. Yes, you can contact the Cancer Society, and get information and so-called tools to help you quit. You can buy nicotine gum, patches and God knows what else, but the bottom line is that you still have to "get over it" yourself.
While the aforementioned things are enough to get some people off cigarettes, there are those diehards out there, like me, who actually enjoy a good puff. I have spent good money on several things, including acupuncture and hypnotism in an effort to stop. This won't do it folks! And all the bullying by non-smokers won't help either. If anything, it makes me so nervous that now I really need that smoke!
Here is a notice I just got from MyChoice.ca about their Bibby Awards:
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="600" align="center" border="0"><tbody><tr><td width="134">June 8, 2006
Â
The votes have been cast, and mychoice.ca is pleased to announce the recipients of its first ever Golden Bib Awards.
The winners were selected by you, our members. The nominations in each category were chosen because they demonstrated the following "nanny state" qualities:
- unfaltering confidence that they know best;
- uncommon zeal in trying to save us all from ourselves;
- achievement in setting new precedents that increase the ability of our betters to impose their personal wills on our private lives and choices.
There were five categories: "Best Nanny Government," "Best Nanny Municipality," "Best Nanny Organization," Best Nanny Individual" and "Best Foreign Nanny."
The winners will be sent a Golden Bib plaque.
To view the entire list of nominees in each section, click on the link for each category.
And the winners are...
Best Nanny Government:
The Bibbie goes to the Liberal Government of Ontario, for ignoring its own economic experts along with smokers, charities, war veterans, bar owners and anyone else who will bear the brunt of its actions, and rushing through its province-wide anti-smoking ban with only token public hearings. And for also ignoring their own ministry reports which show major negative repercussions from a province-wide smoking ban - possibly up to $500 million a year in gaming revenue losses as well as more than a thousand jobs.
Runner up:
The NDP Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the Conservative Government of New Brunswick for continuing to pretend they know best and that their province-wide bans, have not hurt bars, charities, casinos etc, or divided communities, or left smokers seeking alternatives on First Nations Reserves or staying home in droves.
Best Nanny Individual:
The Bibbie goes to Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman, for never reading an anti-smoking lobby claim or study he didn't like or hearing an anti-smoking argument he didn't agree with, and for apparently never reading any other studies at all – even his own government's economic ministry reports, or listening to the opinions of anyone who might contradict his opinions. Mr. Smitherman also gets nominated for officially extending the justification for smoking bans from protection of the general public to trying to punish smokers into quitting.
Runner up:
Mr. Smitherman's Quebec counterpart, Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard, for all the same reasons as him, plus the fact that he is on the record as saying smokers have no rights because they are under the influence of a substance.
Best Nanny Municipal:
The Bibbie goes to the City of Kingston, Ontario, for banning both indoor and outdoor patio smoking.
Best Nanny Organization:
The Bibbie goes to the Ontario Coalition for Action on Tobacco for not being satisfied with winning a provincial law that kicks smokers out of private clubs, Legions, charity bingos, separately enclosed and ventilated DSRs everywhere, covered patios, underground garages and more. Soon after the law was passed they were vowing to get the law amended to ban smoking on patios, nine meters from any doors, in cars, private homes, and more.
Runner up:
The World Health Organization for its alarming and offensive new employment policy to no longer recruit smokers. Anyone who says they smoke and would continue to do so if hired, will not be invited to an interview.
Best Foreign Nanny:
The Bibbie goes to the State of California because it got the total indoor ban rolling and is trying for the second time to ban smoking in cars, on beaches and anywhere else it can think of.
Runner up:
The Michigan health care company Weyco for decreeing that employees who smoke would be fired if they did not quit smoking, and then firing four workers who refused to submit to testing to see if they had been smoking on their own personal time away from the office.
We'd like to thank members for voting and for helping us recognize those who best exemplify the "Nanny State."
</td><td width="10">Â </td></tr><tr><td>Â </td><td colspan="2">Â </td></tr></tbody></table>Despite all the hype against smokers, I'm quite sure I will be taking my final puff within seconds of being lowered into the ground. I know. I should know better. I've heard all the lectures from family, friends and doctors. I am an honest to goodness socal outcast, but as my mother used to say: "If I have to die, damn it, I'm going to die happy!"
(No lectures please!!!)
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 17
That said, too many smokers have no concern for the environment. They just wantonly throw butts on the ground wherever they are standing! That is not only rude, but those butts can get into the ecosystem and the watershed, hurting fish and other animals.
You may have already seen my Gather article "they pased a new law in Canada today" about what happened to me when a smoker invaded my personal space, at a local cafe. I have no problem with smoke as long as it doesn't get in my way. I think it is too much for the government to tell people what to do IN THEIR OWN HOMES AND CARS, but in public, I really don't want smoke in my face.
I am not against smoker's bars, smoker's restaurants, and smoking sections that are totally sealed off. I'm not against that at all, just smoke in my face,
I do tolerate it if I am in the home OF a smoker, because it is their home, after all.
Same thing with smokers. Yeah, lung cancer is awful, as is emphesyma, and second hand smoke is harmful, but why the vehemence?
I guess people just need someone to hate, and you're it.
I watched my best friend die of lung cancer. It was not a nice thing to go through. However, the government who is now telling smokers they cannot smoke in public is the same governing body that allowed tobacco companies to put addictive chemicals in their products. That makes me sooo angry. And what about the millions of dollars that the government will lose in tax revenue? They are going to cry like babies in a few years. Also, it's already been stated by many businesses that non-smokers will pay for the smoking ban because prices will be raised to compensate for lost business of smokers. Go figure.
I have been a smoker/non-smoker on and off for years. It's a horrible habit and addiction that I don't know if I will ever truly beat. The desire is always there no matter how long it's been. For my health and the health of the people around me I know that I cannot smoke. But it's not as simple as a choice.
Stephanie: You have a point about butts being thrown around, however, around here people just toss coffee cups or whatever else they want to get rid of right out of their car windows. Kids dump chip bags and candy wrappers. All that stuff is just too much.
Leah: At least you have a tolerant attitude toward smokers. I would never invade the space of another person who didn't smoke.
Nancy: Yes, smokers feel like the enemy here in Canada.
Kevin: At least I'll be remembered for something.
Mary: Only about 20 per cent of all Canadians smoke today, yet the air is a million times worse than it was 50 years ago. Go figure! The government is in bed with big corporations, because they get them elected. There's no way they want to tick them off.
Jayne: Thanks for that thought.
Ferrero: The Canadian government may think they're suckering me into paying higher prices, but I don't get my smokes at the corner store, if you know what I mean. I'd have to be crazy! I admire you for being able to quit at all. That is something I don't seem able to do.
At present, I smoke maybe, 5 or 6 cigarettes a day and never in my house. I smoke on my open porch. That's a far cry from the pack a day smoking and inside the house where everything smelled of smoke. Yuk!
Ameasha
Ferrero, My husband had three heart attacks in 2000 and underwent triple bypass surgery in 2001. The doctors told him he had to stop smoking and drinking. He did drink quite a bit at that time. He was able to quit drinking without a problem, but continues to smoke. It's a very hard habit to quit.
Mary: Thank you also for your input. I am not at all surprised that your hubby managed to kick the booze, but not the smokes. It is so damn hard.
And I am particularly indebted to Stephanie who has given me yet another excuse to put off quitting -- the Chinese are attacking us with coal fumes! Yippee.
The problem is that too few people understand what the purpose of government is. First and foremost, government is to protect the people. Cigarettes are directly linked to deadly diseases which are too many to list. The scientific evidence supports that and the studies are too many to cite. Therefore, it's the government's job to protect its citizens from the effects of smoking. Quite simple, I think.
It's easy to call a government a dictatorship because you disagree with them. It's lazy hyperbole and sensationalism at best and defamatory at worst. Explain to me why a smoking ban is dictatorial. Develop your argument. If a government builds roads, does that make it dictatorial simply because dictators also built roads? Think before you type!
And please don't just tell me that it's a matter of personal liberty. Our personal liberties are regulated in myriad ways in the western world. Most countries and regions of the world have speed limits on their roads. Are those regulations unjust because they infringe on my personal right to drive as fast as I want? Obviously, the line must be drawn between personal freedom and public health and safety. Of course, there are issues where the line is not so clear, like euthenasia, stem cell research, abortion, etc. The line is abundantly clear when it comes to smoking: as long as you're not negatively affecting anyone else, i.e. in public spaces, go ahead and light up.
Some smoking rights defenders say that a legal activity should not be regulated or banned. Um, would that argument be valid during the days when slavery was legal? Smoking is legal today because it was socially acceptable for hundreds of years before we knew the health risks. More importantly, it's legal today because it is extremely profitable to sell cigarettes. Of course, the fact that smoking is addictive is also a major factor.
I know that everything I just typed is obvious. That's what makes it so infuriating. I didn't think about the health risks of second-hand smoke before because I was making a good living (via smoke-filled businesses) and I just assumed that if my community accepted it, then it was OK. I think that complacency best defines my state at the time. No more.
I've fantasized about embarking on a personal guerilla campaign to eradicate this plague. I imagine myself getting one of those little water-squirting plastic bottles and just going to town on all the public smokers. Civil disobedience, Simpsons-style (I saw it on an episode a few years ago). These thoughts are tempered by the fact that if I started doing this in the bar that I own, it probably wouldn't be too good for business. I don't think my partners would be too happy about it either.
I guess I'll just settle for writing rambling online posts and pestering my local politicians till the inevitable happens. And it is inevitable, smokers...your public-smoking days are numbered.