On the Smoky Side of the Street : Smoking: Laws won’t cure the craving. How about government-funded quit clinics?
As a smoker-quitter-smoker-again, I’d say it’s time to throw some cold facts on the smoldering issue and try to keep emotion out of it for a change.
Fact One: Smoking releases endorphins--those mind-boggling kinetic chemicals that most of us seek in our daily lives to get through this absurd world. That’s even in the quit-smoke literature. It’s what makes cigarettes pleasurable and addictive--excuse me, “habit-forming,” as the industry moguls prefer to say. Those fortunate enough can get their small doses of daily doldrum-relief through healthful substitutes such as hard exercise. But what about the rest of us?
Fact Two: Those least likely to succeed in quitting smoking are women over 50 who live alone. Women smokers outnumber men smokers. Women over 50 are particularly prone to such physically limiting diseases as arthritis--10 times more, in fact, than men over 50. Few women over 50 who live alone and aren’t well are content enough to quit. Ask the “quit pros.” It could justly be said, therefore, that a national anti-smoking law would place inordinate stress on that group.
Fact Three: No law can make a smoker just stop. There has to be desire and it has to come from a deep-down subconscious place. Not even the surgeon general’s warning, not even a doctor’s personal advice, is enough without that decisive subliminal will. I know. I’ve quit twice for extended periods. So all a law will do is pronounce me and most of the 46 million people like me outlaws.
Fact Four: Yes, there is overwhelming evidence that smoking is a health hazard, and it’s probable that second-hand smoke is too. Do the anti-smoking forces think we smokers don’t care?
I’d urge government to gather some statistics before issuing commands that can’t always be obeyed and punishments that may be unjust. How much second-hand smoke in how small an enclosed space over how long a time is likely to be how much of a health hazard? Picasso lived into his 90s on three packs a day. George Burns is rarely photographed without a cigar in his mouth. What about the people who lived with them--all people who live with smokers? Are there studies? What do they show? To rant and rave without such knowledge is what makes the stop-smoking campaign seem like a witch hunt.
The government should fund ongoing stop-smoking clinics--all across the country--with all taxpayers’ dollars, not just smokers’ dollars. Without such clinics, the proposal to finance sweeping health-care reform with smokers’ taxes is unjust. Aren’t smokers entitled to health care, too?
And there’s Fact Five: More than half the smokers who quit in any clinic will revert to smoking in a short time. There needs to be ongoing help for a couple of years at least before passing sweeping legislation that may even be unconstitutional. That should be a last resort.
To prefer a smoke-free environment is understandable. But if the majority demands it, they should be willing to contribute to its cost. Smokers are already victims.
