Don't Tell Me What to Do!
Trina L.C. Sonnenberg
Over the years, cigarettes have gotten an increasingly bad rap. Cigarettes cause cancer, has been the major cry from the non-smoking public. News reports claim that cigarettes contain cancer causing chemicals.
Whereas I don't doubt that cigarette smoking can lead to lung cancer, I became curious as to what these deadly chemicals are, and why they are used.
So, I made a trip to the Phillip Morris web site to find out. I am a menthol cigarette smoker, who has tried several times to kick the habit, unsuccessfully. My last attempt lasted all of two months.
On the Phillip Morris web site, one can look up the specific ingredients included in each brand of cigarette they manufacture. I happen to smoke Marlboro Menthol.
I was actually surprised to learn that many of the ingredients used in the manufacture of cigarettes are natural. These are the ingredients in the brand I smoke:
* Tobacco
* Water
* Sugars (Sucrose and/or Invert Sugar and/or High Fructose Corn Syrup)
* Propylene Glycol
* Glycerol
* Licorice Extract
* Menthol
* Cocoa and Cocoa Products
* Carob Bean and Extract
* Natural and Artificial Flavors
Of the 126 listed ingredients used by Phillip Morris, 99% of them are added for flavor. You can view a complete list here: Phillip Morris U.S.A.
I am a smoker who does not appreciate being told where I can and cannot smoke. I understand the feelings of non-smokers, but while they are complaining about having their rights stomped on, they are stomping on the rights of those of us who do smoke.
I think that if the government is going to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies and where they can do such things is crazy. Just as the law states that minors cannot drink alcohol, the law states that minors cannot smoke, and that is fine. But to ban smoking inside public buildings, for adults, is like banning alcoholic beverages from restaurants. Non-drinkers have to put up with those who do drink, and in some cases, suffer the consequences of that drinking. So why is smoking so different? If a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, does the person he kills have the ability to say no, don't crash into me, or kill me?
If non-smokers are offended, then they should keep away from those who offend; they should not be able to take away the rights of the smoker.
Just as drunk drivers offend me, I keep out of bars and stay off the road at night, when they're more likely to be driving. If you don't like that someone lights up after a meal, then don't eat out in that place, or get up and leave. No one is forcing you to sit there.
Should alcohol be banned in public places? We tried that once and it went over like a lead balloon. Why, because drinking alcohol is socially acceptable. Smoking used to be socially acceptable too, but a group of non-smokers had to whine to the government about it, and now public smoking has been banned, inside a building.
Why have we, as adult members of this society, been stripped of our rights where personal choice is concerned? And, where will it end?
Humans have been smoking tobacco, and marijuana for the matter, for millennia; long before we knew how to distill spirits. Alcohol destroys lives every day, but we keep drinking.
I choose to smoke, and I am addicted to smoking cigarettes. If I die of lung cancer, I don't expect pity. It was and is, my choice to make.
Video games are addictive, yet I see no plans to ban them, or restrict their sale. And who is getting addicted to these video games? Children! Heck, pornography is addictive, and I see no plans to ban that crap! So why does the non-smoking public have such a hard-on for this, when there are so many other things that are bad for us, that should be focused on? I say pour your energy into saving meth addicts and alcoholics. Shoot - ban Chinese made products from the U.S..
Non-smokers should love us... we pay more in taxes. As of 2008, 73% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes was tax. Imagine the reduction in the federal deficit, if we legalized and taxed marijuana in the same way. Said another way, a pack of cigarettes, where I live, should cost about $1.65 (no tax at all). However, the price of a pack of cigarettes is $4.99 plus an additional sales tax. So, the cost a single pack of cigarettes includes a $3.64 tax. It is referred to as a sin tax; sure, it's a sin to charge it. The tax on alcohol is referred to the same way. I wonder how many non-smokers are drinkers? Probably not many... the two seem to go together rather well; although, I am a smoker who is not a drinker. I drink coffee when I smoke.
I don't understand how adults, who were once children, think that making a thing difficult to do is going to make it stop. As children, we push the envelope all the time, with our parents. Now our kids do it to us. The further from one's reach you place a thing, the harder they strive to have it. It's human nature not to give up.
Do I have plans to quit smoking? Yes, I do. As soon as we move into our new house, I will quit for good. I have a plan... (It has everything to do with the new house smell.)
Now I will admit that I truly have no idea why I am writing this piece; except to say that it was on my mind. That's what I do, when something is on my mind... I write about it.
Hey, thanx for reading through my rant.
Have an awesome day!
Copyright © 2010
The Trii-Zine Ezine
About the Author:
Trina L.C. Sonnenberg
Publisher - The Trii-Zine Ezine - Your Trusted Source for Internet Business and Marketing Information. EST 2001. ISSN# 1555-2276
Author of: My Journey A Lifetime of Verse, ISBN: 978-0-61516405-2
Comments
I think most non-smokers would say that the difference between smoking and other behaviors is the second-hand smoke. As Trina said, there are plenty of other behaviors and products that are potentially harmful or deadly but none I can think of that have a potential negative affect on the health of others in the immediate area. There is no 'second hand alcohol' (or crystal meth, or bacon cheeseburger, etc).
That said, I think the anti-smoking rules and regs have gone too far in some cases. For example, I don't see why restaurants and bars cannot have a smoking section that is vented to the outside -- so that air comes from the non-smoking area to the smoking area and out. I don't like to be in a room full of smoke, but I don't mind someone having a cigarette as long as the smoke isn't blowing in my face. In fact, I like the smell of tobacco smoke as long as it isn't too strong.
It should be up to the owner of the business whether or not he/she will allow smoking. Here in MD, before we had no-smoking laws, some bars and restaurants were non-smoking, some had designated smoking sections, and some allowed smoking just about anywhere. Customers were free to choose which establishment(s) they gave their business to. It worked very well. The government is over-reaching when they tell people whether or not they can use a _legal_ product on private property. Here in MD, Montgomery County prohibits homeowners from smoking in their own home if they are expecting a contractor or appliance repair person! In fact, they are supposed to stop smoking one hour before the contractor is expected to arrive!
I don't understand why people became so hyper-focused on this one issue. As Trina said, we have plenty of other more serious concerns -- dangerous and/or poisonous Chinese products, alcohol and all the related problems (violence, abuse, negative affects on health, drunk driving, assaults, loss of time from work and/or school, divorce -- the list goes on), junk food (obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure) -- not to mention all of the potentially dangerous activities that people voluntarily engage in (and then expect the rest of us to pick up the tab via higher health insurance premiums when they get hurt). There are plenty of people who sky dive; bungee jump; rock climb; cliff dive; ride motorcycles without a helmet; snow ski; scuba dive; race horses, motorcycles, and cars; go mountain climbing; hang gliding; contact sports, etc.
We are told that the so-called "sin taxes" on alcohol and tobacco are meant to cover the additional costs to society from the use of those _legal_ products. That's fine (as long as those taxes aren't over the actual costs) but then why don't we tax junk food and charge fees for people to engage in dangerous activities? For example, I couldn't care less if a biker doesn't want to wear a helmet -- as long as they pay a higher insurance premium to cover the potential additional serious injuries they may suffer as a result.
I realize that those things will never happen, but in a fair, rational world it would. Why should some potentially harmful substances.activities be targeted for special taxes and others not? Junk food creates more costly health problems than smoking, yet we continue to see it advertised and promoted rather than taxed.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
Sherman
Add Comment