The Conservative Edge

Last Friday (June 12), the federal government enacted legislation that, according to Yahoo! news, granted itself unprecedented authority to regulate and restrict cigarettes and tobacco products. President Obama remarked that this makes history “by giving scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps.”

Apparently, we are living under a 21st century version of Prohibition. Look at what the government has done for itself. It now has “unprecedented authority” and “absolute power” not just to regulate the tobacco industry, but our personal lives as well. None of the Democratic candidates for president campaigned on promises to eradicate tobacco use. Yet, the Democratic agenda is clear: destroying the tobacco industry, and our right to use tobacco, takes precedence over creating jobs.

I felt so strongly about our rights to use tobacco that I wrote an essay for one of my college classes. Some of the statistics that I cited were from a report by Joe Jackson about the lies perpetrated by the anti-smoking zealots. Here is most of the essay that I wrote:

“In November of 2006, voters in the state of Ohio approved an indoor smoking ban for all workplaces. The ban, known as Issue 5, passed by a 59-41 percent margin. Some voters believed that private clubs and family-owned businesses would be exempt. However, the fine print in the law allowed few, if any, exemptions.
“Despite the ban, tobacco continues to be a legal product sold in Ohio. Tobacco products are also heavily taxed. In January 2009, Congress again raised the federal excise tax on cigarettes, now amounting to $1 per pack. If tobacco is a legal substance and subject to taxation, then Ohio residents who pay taxes on tobacco products should have input in determining Ohio’s smoking laws.
“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.
“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. As a result, individuals could be fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store.
“There are sensible measures that can be taken to appease the anti-smoking fanatics and avoid treating smokers like second-class citizens. Taxes on tobacco products should be used to install better ventilation systems in public workplaces and private organizations, much like using gasoline taxes to repair roads and bridges. This is a practical idea, since good ventilation systems can remove particles as small as .30 micron; tobacco smoke particles measure 1 micron. Tests have shown that, with a good ventilation system, the air in a smoking environment can be cleaner than the air in a non-smoking environment without ventilation.
“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

Do we really want government officials and scientists to wield so much control of our lives? I hope Americans come to their senses and understand how the liberals are taking away our freedoms one by one.

I’ve been working on an argument essay for my English class at college. Everyone in the class was free to choose a topic. I decided to write my essay about the Ohio smoking ban. This ban, known as state Issue 5, was approved by a majority of Ohio voters and prohibits smoking in all public buildings and all workplaces. Someone asked me why I chose this subject, since I don’t smoke. My reason is that there are too many American citizens who don’t realize they are being targeted for a great social re-engineering.

People don’t realize that, before they actually lose a particular freedom, they are first stigmatized by the movements who want to take the freedom away. Tobacco users, for example, are (and have been since the 1970s) labeled pathetic and helpless “addicts” who really want to quit smoking but can’t. Smokers are also accused of making non-smokers suffer from secondhand smoke. Once this negative association with tobacco use is made, it becomes easier to eliminate tobacco from society. The same is true with gun ownership. Honest, law-abiding American citizens are stigmatized as ignorant, uneducated, irresponsible threats to American society. As a result, they pay heavy taxes on ammunition, and must meet endless purchasing and licensing requirements just to be able to own a gun. Once the idea is accepted that a vast number of armed citizens is actually a threat to society, it becomes easier to outlaw gun ownership.

And so I am writing about the smoking ban because I feel that everyday Americans should stand up for their freedoms, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. Here is some of my essay:

“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.

“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. Imagine being fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store!

“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, ‘No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.’ If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

So, what do you think? Just replace tobacco use with gun ownership, freedom of religion, conservative news media, or other American interests. You’ll likely find that some liberal organization is targeting you, and preparing to take away whatever freedom you enjoy. Write your Representatives and Senators; write letters to the editors of your newspaper; join conservative organizations; give yourself a voice. If we don’t stick together, we will surely lose this America we love.