Advertising

Columnist Ellen Goodman has argued the case that, if all tobacco advertisingcannot be banned, at least Joe Camel should be. This case is made largelyon the grounds that (a) 6-year-olds find the character as "recognizable" asMickey Mouse, and (b) that Camel now has nearly a third of the "illegalchildren's cigaret market."

Statistics are a valuable tool. Like any other tool, they can be dangerousin the hands of the untrained. Uncritical readers - most of them,unfortunately - were left with the impression that a third of 6-year-oldsare smoking Camels. This cavalier misuse of statistics and inuendo compriseso blatant, so pernicious a pitch to hook the unwary that I am compelled torespond.

First, "recognizable" doesn't mean that the kids are being persuaded tosmoke. Lots of things - snakes, for example - are "recognized" by childrenwho also recognize that they are something to avoid. In addition toquestionable advertising, violent television programs, dumb and sometimesself-destructive peer groups, drug pushers and a host of other negativeinfluences, children are also surrounded by parents, older relatives,teachers and religious leaders whose responsibility and duty it is to placethese things in their proper context.

Second, while Camel's share of the "illegal children's cigaret market" isgrowing, the market itself is not. Furthermore, that market isn't composedof 6-year-olds. It consists, by definition, of consumers under 18 in thosestates where such sales are illegal. Most of those young smokers are in the15- to 18-year-old bracket, a time when they are developing into individualsand making, for better or for worse, their own choices. However regretablesome of those choices may be, no amount of rule-passing will alter the factthat they will be made. Despite all obstacles, many in that age group arealso choosing to have sex and to have abortions - a choice, incidentally,Goodman defends.

Freedom is the most basic precept of our society. If advertising werecoercive - if those exposed to it were forced to follow its dicta - wewould be justified in crying "foul" and legislating our way to freedom,Advertising is not coercive, however. It forces no one. But Goodman wouldhave the force of law muzzle the opposition. She proposes, in other words,the coercive behavior she claims to despise.

It is surprising that, as a journalist, Goodman stands only threesquarebehind the concept of free speech. It seems that speech should be freeunless she disagrees with the message. Or is it unless a majority disagreeswith it? Fine. The party that wins the next election can ban the other one.Or is it free unless a vast majority disagrees with it? But if so few peopleare buying the argument, then what's the problem? After all, the Communistparty and the Flat Earth society still exist. What if everybody disagreeswith a single iconoclast? Ask Galileo about that.

I can hear you think, if you have read this far, that freedom of speech andchoice is fine among adults, but that the message in question is "targeted"at a group too young to make responsible choices and that adults must dothat for them; that since parents and teachers have failed to eradicatesmoking among minors altogether, the only way to stop it is to attack thesource.

I have several problems with that line of thought. Foremost, show me amessage that can't affect the young. Where do we stop? If we were toeliminate everything that might adversly influence children, we would all bewatching Saturday morning cartoons seven nights a week. Then, too, the fact that not all children turn out like Mormons does not mean that their mentorshave failed. Individuality is irrepressible: not even all Mormons turn outlike Mormons. If it were possible to regiment society so that none but the"pure" remained - no drugs, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, illicit sex ordecadent music - are you sure you would want to?

Discharging mentorial responsibility does not justify gutting the Bill ofRights.

Tell me, what's "differently abled" about a motherfucker poking akeyboardwith a stick attached to the top of his head, who has to have his ass wipedby someone else? He's disabled.

The animal kingdom is apparently more civilized, as they weed out the weakmembers of the species and fuckin' kill 'em, as opposed to humans, whonurture the weak of the species and give them some status they don't deserve.Differently abled, my puckered sphincter! They're crippled. End ofstory.

Your not really being fair here. There's a lot of things that thedifferentlyenabled can do that we ordinary humans can't. Like drooling for hours,sticking the tongue out for extended periods of time and much much more.Certainly the differently enabled have much to offer our society. Who canmatch their comedy value or make as nice targets for all sorts of harmless(for us) fun?

Die. Do it now. You are completely worthless. You have nothing tocontribute to society. You are nothing but a drain on our resources.If I was as fucked up as you are I would buy a gun and blow my brains out. And I'd do it *right now*.

Why? What's the difference?

The difference is that the last post was not found inalt.support.disabled.sexuality, but in alt.smokers. The sentiments weredirected at smokers. And it's far from an abberation, as the next samplesshow:

I am a environmetal [sic] activist, and would shove your fags up your assinan heartbeat to save the ozone, I mean if it takes the ablitiration [sic]of and [sic] needless addictive drug to do so, then by myself(god) doit.

I'd say that taking a dump in public would be more justified and lessoffensivethan sucking on a cancer stick in public. Shitting cannot be avoided, butdrug abuse can be. The smell of shit, (with the exception of mine) althoughoffensive, does not kill people. Take your drugs in private, it is the onlylogical option - besides quitting. Cigarettes are a very vile and repulsivedrug delivery device.

Non-smokers *are* complaining, and being heard... hence the anti-smokinglegislation of the past few years. And we're not done yet. Not until smokersare forced to congregate under disused railway bridges on the edge of townto indulge their horrid habit.

Smokers should be shot and killed on sight!

But it's not really a nasty habit. It's a feelthy, self-destructive,childish, inconsiderate, carcinogenic, stupid, polluting, idiotic,breathtaking, oxygen-depriving, Kervorkianistic, self-indulgent, polluting,breath-fouling, addictive, brain-cell-killing, emphysema-inducing,peer-group-impressing, ozone-depleting, politically incorrect habit,laden with Freudian phallic symbolism.

And let's not omit dcitron's .sig:

||---------------------------------------------------------||
|| ** SMOKERS! Don't kill yourself by inches! * * * * * * *||
|| ** Get FAST-FAST-FAST relief! Call Dr. Kervorkian today!||
|| ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *||
|| ** * * * * * * * (advertisement) * * * * * * * * * * * *||
||---------------------------------------------------------||

The why of it is a longer story. Read on.

REAL MOTIVES

Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows, and anti-smokers come ina strange mix indeed: politicians, paternalists, profiteers, puritans,collectivists, conformists, fascists, bigots, former smokers and even somesmokers. If you are in bed with the anti-smokers, you might want to have acloser look at those whose agendas you are furthering. A little introspectionwouldn't hurt, either.

Politicians
A statesman is a person with sincerity, conviction, the ability to determineintelligent solutions to political problems and a talent for selling thosesolutions to the public. True statesmen are extremely rare. Not so rare arewould-be statesmen. These are people with intelligence, conviction andsincerity aplenty, but who lack the critical talent for selling toughsolutions. They don't last long. A politician, on the other hand, rides thehorse, so to speak, it the direction it happens to be going. Right or wrong,smart or stupid and regardless of their personal beliefs, they deliver whatthe voters want.

Some people call this ideological prostitution, but that may be an unfairparallel. Politicians are morally neutral. If a sincere elected officialisn't doing what the voters want, they will simply elect a replacement.The replacement may be another sincere person whose convictions more closelyapproximate the latest of the voters' ever-changing desires, or it may be apolitician. The voters get what they want either way, but as politicians areflexible, they tend to stay in office longer. Because of this, the democraticsystem selects for politicians. Most of the time, this leaves us muddling along more or less halfway between excellence and calamity. Occasionally,and unfortunately, it also allows a particularly vicious circle known as thewitch hunt.

Whether it involves witches, minority groups, drinkers, communists, oilcompanies, drug users or smokers, the pattern is the same. A few hystericsperceive a problem and demand action from their representatives, who are, byand large, politicians. The latter respond by holding one-sided hearings. Thepublicity from these hearings attracts new adherents to the original cause,who demand more action. More one-sided hearings are held. Studies are funded.A few laws are passed. Groups grow, issuing ever louder calls for action.More hearings. More studies. More laws. Bigger groups. And so on until thereexists a hysteria of national proportions and the legal landscape, individualrights and the constitution itself are irrevocably scarred by lunaticlaws.

Paternalists
Paternalism has been around for a long time, so it is not surprising to findthem among the anti-smokers. But since it is a gender-neutral, equalopportunity form of tyranny, it is surprising that many, if not most, ofthem today are women. Feminists have long, and with just cause, railed at apaternalistic system that decided what was best for them whether they likedit or not. It seems now that their problem was not paternalism per se; theyjust want to be the ones playing daddy. Or God. In their book "Stupid Ways,Smart Ways, to Think about God", Rabbi Jack Bemporad and Michael Shevackargue that God gave humanity ''truly godlike'' qualities, notably free will.God ''can't just swoop down and make our lives perfect. That would be aninsult against our humanity, our nature. It would violate the very freespirit he gave us. . . . He must allow man rope, even if he hangshimself.'' Paternalists are those that redefine God as a meddlesomepatriarch and then, unhappy with His performance, assume the rolethemselves.

Profiteers
There's money to be made in anti-smoking - lots of it. Federal grants foranti-smoking studies, no matter how redundant or structurally flawed, arealmost automatic. And California's Proposition 99, passed in 1988, is amother lode. Under its provisions, there is so much to dole out thatpractically anyone with any harebrained scheme can profit, so long as theirideas can be viewed in some way as furthering the anti-smoking cause. Thus,camping trips are funded and the hikers are even clothed - with tee-shirtsbearing anti-smoking messages. One group built a race car with anti-smokingslogans on it and now tour the racing circuit at smokers' expense. Swimming pools are built for schools on the condition that smoking be bannedthroughout the property, including teachers in their own cars while on theparking lot. Stanton Glantz, one of the high priests of the movement, sumsit up: "This", he says, "pays my mortgage."

Puritans
The original Puritans fled what they regarded as a corrupt and sinfulEngland to await in safety the inevitable retribution they expected to bevisited upon it by an angry God. They planned to maintain a morally puresociety with which to reseed the old world following its destruction. Anymoral deviation was swiftly punished with stocks, scarlet letters, publicwhippings and hangings. Old habits die hard, and values are passed fromgeneration to generation. Thus Puritanism is one of the more important rootsof modern American values, for while the literal aim of the Puritans hasfaded with time, its fundamental attitudes persist. Many Americans feel thatour culture and values are superior to all others, and that it is just aquestion of time before everyone else in the world adopts them, whether bychoice or by force. More importantly, they believe in a uniform behavioralcode for all Americans, and that moral deviation should not be tolerated.We have puritanism to thank for laws regulating sex, alcohol, drugs, songlyrics, dancing and now smoking.

Collectivists
Collectivists believe that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.In particular, they believe that "society" is an entity in and of itself,quite apart from the individuals who comprise it, and that the rights ofthis "society" invariably outweigh any the individual might claim. Governmentis the legal and political manifestation of society. To collectivists, yourbody is government property, and you must be forbidden from doing anythingwhich may damage it. Your time, likewise, is government property, and timenot spent in the furtherance of "societal" good is frowned upon. Your incomeand any savings you may have accrued are regarded by collectivists as therightful property of "society". The infamous "social costs of smoking"studies are pure collectivist tracts. They include the money smokers spendon cigarettes, their medical bills, their insurance premiums and income lostdue to illness, whether attributable to smoking or not. Thought that was yourown money? Nope.

Conformists
Conformists are those whose credo is "My country, right or wrong", theirfaith in the beneficence of government absolute. They are the flag wavers.Theirs are the bumperstickers exhorting "America: Love it or Leave it!" Theirony of waving a symbol of freedom in support of laws that would abridgefreedom does not occur to them, since, by their nature, they do not question.If the government says a thing, it must be so. These are not evil people.Their blind faith, however, is hazardous to everyone's freedom. A societythat achieves total conformity is by definition a society that isoppressed.

Fascists
Fascists are bullies with a vision. Though frequently associated withnationalists and communists, fascists differ in that they require neithermoral consistency nor philosophical justification. Historically, and under most systems of government, even socialism and communism, certain rightsderive from the ownership of property. Whereas under socialism the governmentowns the means of production (and the rights thereto), and under communismthe means of production is understood to include people, fascism isunconcerned with rights or constitutional niceties. Fascists simply forcewhomever they need to do whatever they want. Laws are to fascists whatbullets are to guns.

Bigots
Some people simply aren't happy without someone to hate. Bigots come in twoflavors. One consists of puritans who regard those not like themselves asmoral deviants. The other type is made up of people of low self-esteem whoneed someone to look down on in order to feel superior by comparison. Sinceit is now illegal to act out prejudice against blacks, Jews, gays, Hispanics,the handicapped, foreign nationals and other historical victims, smokersare now the target of choice.

Former smokers
Former smokers may become anti-smokers for one or both of two reasons. Oneis that, in order to quit, some smokers use a form of self-hypnosis. Theyprogram themselves to hate everything associated with smoking, particularlyits smell. They quit by learning to loathe smoke and, by extension, smokers.They have traded a habit for a phobia. The other reason commands lesssympathy. There are those whose beliefs are subject to whim, and whateverthey do, don't do or subscribe to is deemed appropriate and mandatory foreveryone else. They are fascists without integrity. A lot of Baby Boomersfall into this category. The generation that once preached free love anddemanded "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll" is about to turn 50. Their hormoneshave subsided, their hearing is impaired and their livers are on the fritz.Not surprisingly, they now espouse monogamy, temperance and moderation in allthings except the acquisition of real estate. What is contemptible, however,is that they want to impose their values on everyone else - by law. When theyquit, everybody quits. They don't want to smell smoke; ergo, it should beillegal for you to smoke. Separate restaurants?Separate airplanes? Forget it. They want 'em all. Their parents were rightall along: Baby Boomers are nothing but a bunch of self-indulgent brats.

Smokers
There are, believe it or not, smokers who are anti-smokers. They use phraseslike "my filthy habit" and "I really ought to quit." Whether at heart theyare puritan, collectivist or conformist, they are other-directed anddependent upon the judgement of others. The puritans and collectivistsmerely feel guilt for sinning or being poor citizens. But the mostheart-wrenching are the conformists: those who fight our wars, those whosupport the troops, those who wave the flag; those who turn out for everyelection and never seek to be excused from jury duty. Those, who, havingbeen told by the government that smokers are evil people to be hated, areloyal to the end and dutifully despise themselves.

The dramatis personnae described above, while they share little else, havefound common ground on the issue of smoking. That they should use corruptscience, ad hominem arguments, lies, smear campaigns and characterassassination is not surprising once you know who they are. But what istruly sickening is that they have bullied, intimidated, regulated, insulted, degraded and turned 50 million innocent people into social lepers, allwhile claiming the moral high ground.

Pardon me while I vomit.

PARALLELS

Anti-smokers have failed to grasp the broader message of the Third Reich.Instead of racial eugenics, they are now practising the moral variety.

Those who scoff are likely to point out that no one has been killed (yet);that Jews, unlike smokers, could not change what they were, and that such acomparison trivializes the Holocaust. But the parallel is not in the natureof the victims or in the style of their oppression. The parallel is in thenature of the oppressors, in their motives and in their methods.

The Nazis didn't start with the book burnings and executions. It took a longprocess of preparation and propaganda to reach that point - a gradual erosionof dignity, credibility and rights.

First come the government claims that the target group is injurious tosociety. The Jews were accused of owning all the wealth. Smokers are accusedof killing people. In both cases, the claims are bolstered by unscrupulousmen of learning employed by an unscrupulous government - economists on theone hand, scientists on the other.

Then come the hate campaigns. These are expensive, but are made practicalby recovering the cost from the victims. If you think this is not takingplace in America, think again. In 1988, California passed a 25 cents per pack tax on cigarettes, 50% of which was specifically to be used foranti-smoking "education". This amounts to some $300 million per year, andtakes the form of an unbelievably vicious series of smears, called "ads",on television. In some, smokers are given the appearance of ogres. Inanother, stark script reads "The California Department of Health Servicesbrings you this moment of silence in memory of the 14 Californians who diedtoday because of exposure to secondhand smoke."

Next comes dehumanization. If you wish to rape the rights of a group ofpeople, it's easier if you don't think of them as normal human beings. In Nazi Germany, people of standing reinforced the popular belief that Jewswere inferior. Here doctors refer to smokers as "addicts" who use "nicotinedelivery systems", and patronizingly explain that "the behavior of the smoker revolves exclusively around obtaining the next cigarette." They are said by psychologists not to value their lives, and to live "in a state of denial".An article in the San Jose Mercury News (February 16, 1994) proclaimed thatin addition to being addicts, smokers are "insecure, nervous, anxious, needyfor love and attention", and "possessed of a high NQ (Neurosis Quotient)."

Dehumanization is followed by ostracization. A growing number of employersrefuse to hire smokers. Singles ads in the personals favor non-smokers bytwo to one, and some rental property ads are blunter still: "No Smokers". In Germany, signs were posted on buildings: "Dogs and Jews Forbidden." Inthis country, more dogs enjoy full time protection from the weather thansmokers.

At this point the beatings start. The opening paragraph of this articleis not strictly true. Though smokers have not yet been killed by thegovernment, they have nevertheless been killed by righteous anti-smokers.And while gays and foreign nationals enjoy extra protection in certainstates under "hate crime" laws, smokers are still fair game.

There is even a parallel for Hitler's Youth. They don't wear brown shirts,but a few fashion changes are to be expected over the course of 50 years.Scrubbed and groomed, they appear at City Council hearings across the nationwearing identical tee-shirts with chirpy anti-smoking slogans, where theyearn brownie points for their high school Civics projects by regurgitatingthe anti-smoking propaganda drilled into them at school.

All of this, of course, is made possible by the millions of citizens wholook the other way in the belief that Big Brother knows best; people who,in this case, seem to think that the year is still 1974 and that all thisfuss is about smoking in elevators.

There is one difference. Smokers aren't made to wear yellow triangles tomake them stand out. Their cigarettes make that unnecessary.

But the ride is not over. In fact, the engine of persecution is only nowgathering a full head of steam. What lies ahead? The stated, and frequentlyrepeated, goal of the anti-smokers is "a smoke-free society by the year2000." Virtually every public building and a growing number of outdoorlocations are already smoke-free, yet the clamor for tougher anti-smokerlaws loudens daily. Clearly, the anti-smokers will not rest until tobaccois illegal. Their aim is to turn 50 million hated smokers into criminals.The only question is, how illegal will it be? They have told us that, also.Tobacco, they announce in no uncertain terms, is a deadly drug, and smokersare addicts. To predict how smokers will be treated a few years hence we haveonly to look at existing drug laws.

The penalty for casual drug use is 10 years in prison. Actually, you don'teven need to use or possess it. An Oakland, California man was sentenced to10 years for giving a ride to a friend who turned out to be a drug dealer.23-year-old Christian Martensen got five years in prison for introducing afederal narcotics agent to a drug dealer. For two years, the agent had beenfollowing him to rock concerts and hounding him for the introduction.

In addition, under the asset forfeiture laws, people arrested on suspicionof drug use can and do have all of their money and property confiscated.No conviction, nor even a trial, is necessary. To recover seized property,the now penniless accusees must sue and prove their innocence. Californiaasset forfeiture laws were recently changed to require a conviction; federallaws, however, remain on the books.

Then there are the "Three Strikes" laws. Only recently enacted in California,similar laws have existed in other states for years. Under their provisions,a person convicted of a felony for the third time is automatically sentencedto life in prison without parole. It might be, in the not too distant future,that all you have to do to spend the rest of your life in jail is to smokethree Virginia Slims. We will, indeed, have come a long way. And we couldgo even further: former Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates was quoted assaying "Casual drug users [as opposed to dealers] should be lined up againsta wall and shot." It may turn out that he was only slightly ahead of histime.

Is there, you ask, a parallel between the Nazi persecution of the Jews andthe American persecution of smokers?

Oh yes. Oh my, yes.