A smoker's confession: It's easier to avoid debate on ban

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, August 7, 2007

Jacquielynn Floyd jfloyd@dallasnews.com

Once every three or four weeks, I buy a pack of cigarettes. I usually pick a convenience store in a seedy part of town where nobody will recognize me.

It's just too embarrassing to buy something so shameful at our neighborhood supermarket.

The teenage clerks there invariably mount an agonizingly slow search for my brand while the soccer moms, their carts full of organic produce and whole-bean gourmet coffee, shield their children's innocent eyes.

It's easier to go someplace where all the other customers are shopping for liquor and dirty magazines.

So you can count me out of the next round of fightin' over public smoking in Dallas. There's a move afoot to extend the current ban to the remaining preserves of legal tobacco consumption: bars and outdoor restaurant patios. A quick head count at City Hall suggests there may be more than enough votes to get it done.

I won't protest. Why bother? I have mixed emotions about this, anyway: Viewed as a political question, I think business owners should have the right to decide whether to permit smoking on their premises.

But if you're talking about public health, of smokers and nonsmokers alike, I think more restrictions will have the cumulative result of less smoking, which is a societal benefit.

Here at The DMN, both sides of this argument have been persuasively articulated in recent days on our blogs and in letters to the editor. Few topics get so many people so overheated so quickly.

It's worth noting, though, that you rarely hear from what is arguably the most interested party of all – smokers themselves. Smoking in our culture has become so indefensible that its practitioners don't really have a place in the debate.

Even the philosophical free-marketeers who decry the hectoring expansion of the "nanny state" tend to preface their remarks as did our own editorial columnist (and my esteemed colleague) Rod Dreher: "Though I can't stand being around smoking, I oppose expanding the city's smoking ban ..."

This blogger responds: "I'm an asthmatic nonsmoker, but I'm with Rod on this one ..."

It's the kind of boilerplate you'd use to defend the right of bookstores to sell Mein Kampf – you want it made clear that your argument is grounded in principle, not personal preference.

If you smoke (and admit to it), your opinion, to many people, is automatically invalidated.

I found this out the hard way a couple of years back, when I was invited to appear on a local radio show after writing a column saying that businesses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking.

The first question the host had for me was "Do you smoke?"

I started to tell him the truth – "Yes, on occasion, never more than a pack in two weeks" – but he interrupted rudely: "Then you have no credibility with me." After that, I still smoked, but I quit doing radio interviews.

There are a lot of people like me out there: secretive, occasional, back-porch smokers; people who know they ought to quit but who ration themselves fairly strictly. Did Barack Obama kick the habit? Are the rumors about the first lady's occasional indulgence true? Hard to say, because for a lot of people, it's just not a secret you share.

I have dim memories of an era when people smoked virtually everywhere: airplanes, movie theaters, offices; when parents casually told their kids after dinner to "run and get me an ashtray"; when "nice" people kept an ornamental cigarette lighter on the coffee table and everybody lit up as soon as supper was over.

That era's over for good, and I'm not sorry. Smoking has been de-normalized – if that's a word – and we're all better for it.

I expect a lot more fighting on this issue between the virulent anti-smokers and the free-market libertarians, although it seems pointless – smoking has become a moral issue, a battle between righteous parties from which the sinners themselves are increasingly excluded.

For the record, banning smoking outdoors seems a little far-fetched from a health-and-welfare standpoint. But if the goal is to outlaw the practice in all public places, it's the next logical step.

Either way, I'm not making a big fuss. I don't need the shame.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnew...dition1.422014d.html
Fixed the Link

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gilster,

I am NOT ashamed that I smoke, it is my choice and I will try to continue to smoke even if is no longer legal.

People who have a physical defect are trying to make all of us responsible for it. The medical profession continues to create these people to expand their customer base. These invalids continue to reduce the rest of us to their level.

In a modern society, these people survive and prosper. In previous times, times when America prospered, these people would be forgotten memories.

I am not ashamed. I smoke. I will continue to smoke.

Survival of the fittest.

This is a microcosm of how the health nazis swept all over the world - and the 'dirty masses' cowered and hid their 'forced' shame.

Shut up -Hide - And pay the Taxes for your Shame.

quote:

I started to tell him the truth – "Yes, on occasion, never more than a pack in two weeks" – but he interrupted rudely: "Then you have no credibility with me." After that, I still smoked, but I quit doing radio interviews.

This needs to be fought with Scientific Proof.

The Shamed will never Fight for Freedom.

This is why we are losing.

There simply aren't enough smokers with ample backbone to stand up and be counted.
According to the Smoke Nazi's "most smokers want to quit".
Oh really!?,..all 50,000,000 of us!!?
I smoke and I have no desire to quit.
I thoroughly enjoy every nerve calming, soul soothing, spirit lifting blue-grey wisp of smoky satisfying goodness, BUT,...unfortunately it still comes down to money.
They have it all and it used to be ours.
It's now used to tell us, and everyone else how bad, evil, sick or immoral we are.
I COULD BE all those things if I chose to campaign against someone elses civil liberties,... but I think I'll smoke instead.

I thoroughly enjoy every nerve calming, soul soothing, spirit lifting blue-grey wisp of smoky satisfying goodness,
----------------------------
You should!!!

From CDC data:

Smoking Rate:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind...=16&typ=2&o=d&sort=n

1. Kentucky

50. California

51. Utah

% of adults reporting poor mental health:

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind...=14&typ=2&o=d&sort=n

1. Utah

4. California

46. Kentucky

This message has been edited. Last edited by: gkayser30,

quote:

Originally posted by gilster:
This is a microcosm of how the health nazis swept all over the world - and the 'dirty masses' cowered and hid their 'forced' shame.

Shut up -Hide - And pay the Taxes for your Shame.

quote:

I started to tell him the truth – "Yes, on occasion, never more than a pack in two weeks" – but he interrupted rudely: "Then you have no credibility with me." After that, I still smoked, but I quit doing radio interviews.

This needs to be fought with Scientific Proof.

The Shamed will never Fight for Freedom.

This is why we are losing.

I agree. The author's very attitude as shown in the above article is the problem. Many smokers (with the exception of people on this board) feel ashamed. This is EXACTLY what the Anti's hoped for. The "days where people smoked everywhere and nonsmokers had lighters and ashtrays and everyone lit up after dinner" were not that long ago. Thanks to an orchestration of brainwashing unseen since Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1932, the practice of smoking has become denormalized and we are now on a social level akin to that of child molesters. The brainwashing has been so effective, that, as the author put it, we "have no credibility" in the eyes of obvious Anti's such as the radio host.It's bullshit. And Fascism. Period.

quote:

I agree. The author's very attitude as shown in the above article is the problem. Many smokers (with the exception of people on this board) feel ashamed. This is EXACTLY what the Anti's hoped for.

The anti's hope for this because; then, no one ever asks 'WHY'.

Remember how your kids used to drive you crazy with the "why" questions?

On the rare times that one can,just asking 'why' and 'what' will drive anti's crazy,almost all of them have no knowledge and do not know about what they are talking.

Making them sputter and stammer serves no real purpose;but, it sure is a lot of FUN!

You know, I've filled up this white space three times now and erased it and started over again trying to express my thoughts about this article.

I think the problem with trying to pick it apart is that it speaks for itself so well.

It's like a photograph.

The author of this article is misinformed. The latest Gallup poll (found this on that other blog as some may recall) shows 1 out of 2 smokers now does feel resentment toward smoking restrictions. Six years ago, it was only one of three, so the author remembers a day when the majority of smokers were self-hating. This news indicates that's been changing --

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28216&pg=1

quote:

The first question the host had for me was "Do you smoke?"

I started to tell him the truth – "Yes, on occasion, never more than a pack in two weeks" – but he interrupted rudely: "Then you have no credibility with me." After that, I still smoked, but I quit doing radio interviews

The good thing about this article is that it demonstrates the kind of consciousness that needs to be raised. She should have more shame for letting someone intimidate her from participating on credible footing. Indeed, of the the two of them, as the smoker (though an occasional one) she is the one with the knowledge of the subject through experience. I forget which philosopher it was who said this, but if one isn't speaking from experience, that person is the one who does not have the knowledge, and therefore is the one that lacks the credibility.

I wasn't able to download the link to the article itself..It was reposted here anyway, but I was so incensed by the author's remarks that I E-mailed her, letting her know that her attitude of shame is the root of the problem. I also pointed out that bans are not "good for all," because they are a mere prelude to having freedoms stripped one by one. As examples, I cited Trans Fat bans, soda-pop bans in schools, and cameras that record motorists' speeds on highways. Oh, and of course, how shs is a big lie......

I'm probably wrong on this and we'll never find out either way, but am I the only one detecting a bit of a rope-a-dope here?

I know that journalists put themselves out there, but writing something that personally revealing for public consumption would have me tossing and turning all night. It screams out "I'm as beat down as you want me to be, so will please stop hitting me now?"

It may be that the writer herself is unaware that she's doing it. It has all these passive-aggressive undertones. It's like she's baiting anti-smokers to congratulate themselves for making her miserable. I have to wonder if she's writing it to see how her anti-smoking readers will respond; possibly to confirm something that she's always suspected.

Here's the one thing that really gets me. I said before that the article was "like a photograph" and, I'll admit now, that I edited that comment before I posted it.

It doesn't read like an actual experience. It reads like a synopsis or a character study of what anti-smoking wants smokers to become. If I were to read that article in that context, say as a post here, I would think it was really, really good. It seems too "on the nose", too "portrait of a contrite smoker".

So, what I originally wrote was "It's like a Pulitzer Prize winning photograph".

The reason I deleted those words was because you have to strip away the whole ugly sentiment of the article, and that's difficult to do, especially when it deals with something you feel so strongly about. If you flip it into the "What antismoking wants you to be" context, it's a really a good portrayal.

Someone is going to misunderstand what I'm trying to say here, I think.

Of course, I'm probably overthinking it and this lady has just had her head in the rat cage long enough to cry out "I Love Big Brother!".

If that's the case, that article is really, really frightening. That Far Left Guilt is pretty damn poisonous. If people really go through life thinking this way, Nightlight's "Death Curse" hypotheses carry a hell of a lot of weight. Can you imagine what thinking this way does to your body? Man, oh man.

Goodnight, everybody. It's late and the neighbors won't see me, so I'm off to a bad neighborhood to buy some smokes.

Good grief!

It seems as though this columnist is making excuses for herself and her character weaknesses, by such statements as "…That era's over for good, and I'm not sorry. Smoking has been de-normalized – if that's a word – and we're all better for it."

And "…If you smoke (and admit to it), your opinion, to many people, is automatically invalidated."

And "…It's just too embarrassing to buy something so shameful at our neighborhood supermarket."

Ms. Floyd obviously suffers from low self esteem, and most likely did not deal well with bullies as a kid. (Just guessing). This shrinking violet would not be a good candidate for a morale coach in any capacity, including a kindergarten class.

Also, I bet this lady caves in fairly easy in all areas of her life, not just the smoking issue. She certainly doesn't sound like somebody I would want as a crew member on my bullet riddled boat.

Just my opinion…

quote:

Originally posted by WinstonSmith:
Of course, I'm probably overthinking it and this lady has just had her head in the rat cage long enough to cry out "I Love Big Brother!".

I think She Gave Up, she IS rubbing elbows in Mass Media after all.

Here's some of her archived articles:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnew...jfloyd/vitindex.html
Nothing too controversial or line stepping.

If she wants that Pulitzer, she should fight the establishment - not cower to it.
Woodward & Bernstein anyone?

She has helped the concept of the shamed smoker, further putting us into neat closets.

I can just see her next article:
"A Drinker's confession"
"Being beaten down by societal eyes, I scamper off to liquor stores out of my neighborhood to buy my booze"

Writers like this denormalize once normal behaviors to fit into society.

Found this at Smokers Club.

Please watch:

http://isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

quote:

Originally posted by ladyteal:
Please watch:

Oh Good, It's on the Smokers Club too, Poster 'Karen' posted it this morning on Siegel's blog - Simplistically Powerful.

That needs to get on YouTube with alot of tag lines to generate hits

Well once again, I am probably a little naive--- it did not occur to me that Ms. Floyd may have written this piece to deliberately shame smokers--- I just thought she's got a serious case of clinical low self-esteem.

I remember the days when I use to feel guilty about smoking. I tried quiting numerous times and failed miserably, and it made me feel even worse about myself (I also wasted a ton of money on cessation products). I have found that the guilty smoker always has the hardest time at quiting, and will generally fail. People who feel guilty have their will power hi-jacked from them by someone else. It wasn't until after I educated myself and found out that smoking was not in any significant way harmful to me that I was successful at quiting. Why did I quit? I had smoked for 12yrs and wanted to know what life was like on the other side (it should be noted that I quite cold-turkey and it wasn't hard at all). After six months I wasn't impressed. All those people who said not smoking would be so great for me had never smoked. I concluded that I preferred my life of smoking.

I have absolutely, positively, never felt ashamed of being a smoker. In the 'eighties, I didn't have much attitude about it one way or the other. In the 'nineties, as the anti-smoking hysteria wound up into a shrill, keening screech, I actually became rather flamboyant and militant about it, and I still am.

Now I break the law anywhere and everywhere I can. So far, I've never been fined. In reality, regardless of the propaganda to the contrary, most people don't mind and the laws don't work.

Talk about the law of unintended consequences, LOL! The antis can put that in their pipe and smoke it.