Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Light the Cigarette of Freedom
"When many of these veterans went to war, the government threw cigarettes at them, and now they are 80 years old, and the government is telling them that they can't smoke in their private club," said Seagraves, who is also a member of the advisory committee. "The government made smokers out of them. ... Those guys fought for that freedom."
The sense of outrage comes through loud and clear but I really don't understand what that last sentence means.
The speaker is William Seagraves, Ohio state commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, dissing the Buckeye State's smoking ban, which may or may not cover private clubs such as VFW halls. Ohio voters handily passed the butt ban, which technically went into effect on December 7 but cannot be enforced until the state health department comes up with actual rules to govern the policy.
Full account of the brewing brouhaha here.
|1.17.07 @ 8:51AM|#
For the VFW, there's an easy solution:
Fire the employees and cook your own damn food and mop your own
damn floors, and they can smoke to their hearts content.
What's really great is that the veterans supported the smoking ban,
thinking they were exempt. OOPS!
Warren|1.17.07 @ 9:05AM|#
The sense of outrage comes through loud and clear but I
really don't understand what that last sentence means.
What do you mean you don't understand. It's self explanatory. They
went to war on behalf of their government to fight for freedom, and
now that government is treading on their freedom.
|1.17.07 @ 9:18AM|#
The last sentence is very easy to translate:
"The government made smokers out of them" - this means that the
government put free cigarettes into C & K rations for the
troops during WW2 and free cigarettes were otherwise very, very
plentiful.
"Those guys fought for that freedom" - this statement is pretty
obvious.
|1.17.07 @ 9:32AM|#
In context of the whole quoted statement, I think Andy has the
correct interpretation. Cigarettes were part of the standard
rations to WW2 servicemen, smokers or not.
Strictly speaking, however, they were not fighting for their
freedom to smoke. To the best of my knowledge, neither Hitler nor
Tojo had, as their cause for war, an intention to impose an indoor
smoking ban in the United States.
Hitler actually favored sort of a mandatory indoor smoking program
for some.
Warren|1.17.07 @ 9:35AM|#
Nick,
It isn't particularly relevant or compelling. But the meaning is
clear.
Your confusion seems to stem from your combining the last two
sentences into a single thought, paying no heed to the
ellipsis.
|1.17.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Ohio voters handily passed the butt ban, which technically
went into effect on December 7 but cannot be enforced until the
state health department comes up with actual rules to govern the
policy.
I don't mean to nitpick the Ohio legislature, but given that the
rules will be the law, shouldn't they have come with those before
passing it?
Bagel B|1.17.07 @ 9:37AM|#
I'm personally tired of hearing about anyone fighting for freedom. I'm tired of hearing "freedom isn't free" and "protecting our freedom". The sad truth is that if any person really decided to fight for their freedom, in the United States at least, they would be branded an outlaw and possibly shot by our fine government defenders of freedom. When was the last time anyone joined or was conscripted by the military and fought for the freedom of American citizens?
|1.17.07 @ 9:48AM|#
There is an interesting book titled Cigarettes Are Sublime that has a chapter on what cigarettes meant to the men in uniform fighting in WWII. The book might have a bit of a slant, but it basically says that without cigs, morale would have been in the dumps and the war could have lasted years longer.
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Yes, Hitler did promote smoking for some, but I have read (but
not verified) that he got bans on smoking tobacco indoors and
around playgrounds, just like the National Socialists of today want
to do.
Now, as far as what happened with soldiers being given smokes back
in the day, don't focus on WWII, it began in WWI.
Prior to WWI no "decent" men or women smoked cigarettes. It was
sometimes described as only being done by "pimps and prostitutes".
Gentlemen, and other men, smoked cigars. After WWI, the cigarette
became common among men and women of all classes directly from a
government program of passing them out to the soldiers. An
unintended consequence or "inadvertant social engineering" as it
were.
Short hair on men can be traced back to the military requiring
short hair to reduce disease in the troop population too. Many a
social change can be traced back to government policy with the
military.
Now, when the flaiming Leftists try to tell me that the government
should decide where I can smoke, I mention that it is the fault of
the federal government that cigarettes are common at all and I tell
them why. Of course, they try to tell me that some corporation
'forced' the feds to do this, as if Noam Chomsky were whispering
the answer in their ear.
|1.17.07 @ 9:52AM|#
""The government made smokers out of them. ... Those guys fought
for that freedom.""
We fought for the freedom to be enslaved by Big Tobacco.
"Private club" in a quaint, archaic, sort of notion, isn't it?
|1.17.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Peter, you are mistaken:
The Nazis did identify to correlation between cigarette smoking and
lung cancer and and launched a massive public health campaign
against it.
sarcasmo|1.17.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Check out http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm -- where an
'80s jazz-singer, in his spare time, does a better job of
tobacco-journalism than any actual 'journalist' I've yet
seen...
JMR
|1.17.07 @ 10:05AM|#
One thing about cigarette bans--they have made it much easier to quit than it used to be. I remember trying to quit many years ago, when smokers could light up anywhere, and it was hell. Now that there are few places anybody can smoke, it's much easier to quit. I consider smoking bans a useful soft paternalism. Nothing does freedom in like lung cancer.
|1.17.07 @ 10:09AM|#
"Private club" in a quaint, archaic, sort of notion, isn't
it?
Dammit, my house is a "Private Club". You can't come in unless
invited. Your continued prescence is also dependant on my wishes.
How friggin' quaint, archaic even.
|1.17.07 @ 10:15AM|#
One thing about cigarette bans--they have made it much
easier to quit than it used to be. I remember trying to quit many
years ago, when smokers could light up anywhere, and it was hell.
Now that there are few places anybody can smoke, it's much easier
to quit. I consider smoking bans a useful soft
paternalism.
And if women all wore burkas, think of the socially desirable
result of the probable reduction in STDs. Freedom does have it's
drawbacks, but those drawbaks are miniscule compared to the "Nanny
Knows Best" state.
|1.17.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Ohio is known for having a lot of governmental things that make
no sense and some they admit are unconsitutional, so I would not
expect them to have things sorted out on ANYTHING.
At least that is my impression being a newer pseudo-resident still
confused by the 8 different tax returns and all this crap.
|1.17.07 @ 10:20AM|#
"Dammit, my house is a "Private Club". You can't come in unless
invited. Your continued prescence is also dependant on my
wishes."
Tell that to Cory Maye, or Kathryn Johnston.
|1.17.07 @ 10:23AM|#
"And if women all wore burkas, think of the socially desirable
result of the probable reduction in STDs. Freedom does have it's
drawbacks, but those drawbaks are miniscule compared to the "Nanny
Knows Best" state."
But if we ban burkas, it will make it easier for Muslim women who
want to break with their culture and throw the burka off, thus
increasing their freedom.
|1.17.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Let's see, if I want to smoke, and smoking is banned, my freedom is diminished. But suppose as a result of the ban, I stop smoking and avoid getting lung cancer. No chemo, no radiation, no early painful death. Voila, my freedom is increased!
I. Self. Divine.|1.17.07 @ 10:32AM|#
No. Your life span is increased. Your freedom is still shat upon.
|1.17.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I hope I never see Edward use the facist label to describe the right. Smoking bans are the definition of fascism. We are allowed to own private businesses, but we are told what we can and can't do with it by government nannys.
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Silly me, I forgot to ask the mandatory question: if Ohio is not really a State can they make a State law?
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Smoking bans are the definition of fascism. We are allowed
to own private businesses, but we are told what we can and can't do
with it by government nannys.
Don't forget the sister National Socialistic items that go with
smoking bans: minimum wages and the call for mandatory healthcare
plans.
|1.17.07 @ 10:49AM|#
What we have here is a difference over the definition of "freedom." I would argue that if I increase my lifespan by not smoking, I increase my freedom to do all those things I can't do if I'm dead.
|1.17.07 @ 10:52AM|#
The problem with smoking is that the fact that people do it at
all is an illustration of how a freedom can be harmful to a
society.
Our culture is gradually coming around to the idea that the freedom
to smoke is simply not worth the cost. Sorry.
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 10:59AM|#
je,
The problem with smoking is that the fact that people do it at
all is an illustration of how a freedom can be harmful to a
society.
Don't make the mistake that this is a ban on smoking. It is ONLY a
ban on smoking tobacco and it is nothing but an attack on "big
tobacco".
As soon as pot becomes legal it will be illegal to ban smoking it
in a business.
Crilltog|1.17.07 @ 11:01AM|#
To p iss off the environmentalists, notice the K Rations state on the box to "...hide the empty can and wrappers so they cannot be seen." My guess is that the metal, plastic, and paper weren't sorted and placed in their proper recycling receptacles.
|1.17.07 @ 11:04AM|#
tarran --
No, I am not mistaken. I did not say anything about whether the
Nazis launched a public health campaign against cigarettes.
I said neither Hitler nor Tojo went to war to subject Americans to
indoor-smoking bans.
|1.17.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Smoking bans are a definition of fascism only for those whose minds are too weak to entertain more than one thought at a time. It's like saying that animal rights are a definition of Nazism because the Nazis promoted animal rights or that idiocy is a definition of libertarianism because so many self-proclaimed libertarians are idiots.
|1.17.07 @ 11:13AM|#
Peter,
I apologize. It appears I didn't read your post carefully (which is
ironic considering comments I made a short while ago on another
thread ). I agree, though, that neither Germany nor Japan wanted to
conquer the United States (although the Japanese did want to grab
the U.S. colonies in the Pacific).
|1.17.07 @ 11:19AM|#
tarran --
Again, you have misread me.
I did not say that neither the Germans nor the Japanese wanted to
conquer the United States.
|1.17.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Historical note: My father-in-law, as a young B-17 crewman in
Europe in 1945, found himself to be the wealthiest man in the Army
because as a non-smoker, he was able to trade his cigarettes for
all sorts of things (and no, prostitute services weren't
included).
In WWII, countries that had recently been liberated didn't have a
functioning banking system or stable currencies, so cigarettes
(along with US dollars) were often the de facto
currency.
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Edward,
Wow, you are great at tossing that ignorance term around while
ignoring the actual argument being made.
|1.17.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Sigh, edward sweetie, you need to brush up on what fascism
is:
"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent
social and economic control, a strong, centralized government
usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent
nationalism."
In a fascist society, the duty of the individual is to further the
will of "the people". Of course, the organization that publishes
the will of the people and expresses it is the state, and thus the
duty of the individual is to do whatever it takes to further the
aims of the state.
Thus, in all fascist societies, there are exhortations for people
to improve their health, since a sick person is less able to do
what the state needs him to do, consumes valuable resources,
produces little, etc.
In order to ensure that the people do the work of "the people" and
only the work of "the people", the fascist state must fight
people's tendency to frivolity or waste. high on their targets will
be things like unhealthy habits.
Smoking bans, such as outlawing smoking on private property are
inherently fascistic, in that they suppress individual choice in
favor of behavior desired by the state.
You yourself admit the suppression of individual choice: you claim
that it was easier to quit when the state limited your and other
people's freedom to smoke.
You think that never encountering tobacco smoke represents the
"will of the people" and thus support the suppression of people's
freedom to engage in that disgusting habit.
Just because we don't have concentration camps or goosestepping
armies does not mean that we are immune from enacting fascist
policies. The U.S. can do fascist things even when it does not have
a single powerful ... dictator... er even when the U.S. lacks a
belligerent foreign... policy... Oh never mind.
|1.17.07 @ 11:43AM|#
Peter,
Sorry, I assumed that the conquest of America was a prerequisite to
enforcing a smoking ban on Americans. I am going to quit while I am
behind.
Anyway, I am not in the "if the Nazis did it it must be bad" crowd.
After all, the Nazis did have laws against murder (of loyal Aryans
anyway), presumably they on occasion enforced such laws. Yet I will
not run around saying that because the Nazi's condemned murder or
loyal Aryans, we must never prosecute the murder of a loyal
Aryan.
I merely found the Nazi health campaign to be quite interesting.
Certainly the doctors who identified the link between smoking and
cancer where doing groundbreaking statistical analysis (no they
weren't forcing concentration camp victims to smoke the stuff in
some Mengelean experiment).
|1.17.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Reason is published by the Reason Foundation, which
receives financial support from Philip Morris.
Sorry, I'm sure you would have mentioned that at some point
anyway.
|1.17.07 @ 11:54AM|#
"Dammit, my house is a "Private Club". You can't come in
unless invited. Your continued prescence is also dependant on my
wishes."
Tell that to Cory Maye, or Kathryn Johnston.
Thanks for reminding me why I am a Libertarian. On my proprty,
including a business, I should make the rules (assuming no harm is
caused to unwitting people).
Is there anybody smarter than a turnip that doesn't know if a
restaurant does, or does not, allow smoking? The law should not be
designed to protect the stupidest people or those those who refuse
to take responsibility for their own actions.
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Just because we don't have concentration camps or
goosestepping armies does not mean that we are immune from enacting
fascist policies.
You missed the first rule of Leftisim: fashion.
To the 'brightest' folk, ee are a fascist nation because
some cops have helmets and uniforms or even tall shiney
boots.
Robert|1.17.07 @ 12:28PM|#
What Guy Montag wrote is at least partly true. NY state's &
city's recent anti-smoking laws refer only to tobacco products, and
smoking other substances is acknowledged as outside the scope of
those laws (as opposed to earlier fire codes which don't specify
the material being smoked). So, for instance, actors on stage can
legally smoke cigarets made to look like standard ones but
containing no tobacco. The actors complain, however, that the smoke
from the non-tobacco cigarets is more irritating, which can affect
the actors' voices.
If the adverse health consequences to employees were the real
target of the laws, why would they specify tobacco-containing
cigarets, cigars, and pipes? Has anyone adduced that second-hand
tobacco smoke is worse for health than other smokes?
Whether there will eventually be laws against
prohibitions on smoking cannabis on private property, I
can't predict. I don't think medical marijuana will be around long
enough to make that an issue, so it will have to be recreational
pot that would be the subject of such a law.
dhex|1.17.07 @ 12:29PM|#
"As soon as pot becomes legal it will be illegal to ban smoking
it in a business."
now this intrigues me. explain.
dhex|1.17.07 @ 12:31PM|#
"If the adverse health consequences to employees were the real
target of the laws, why would they specify tobacco-containing
cigarets, cigars, and pipes?"
because that is the bulk of what people smoke?
RSDavis|1.17.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"Private club" i[s] a quaint, archaic, sort of
notion, isn't it?
_______________________________________________
Yes. To fascists.
- R
|1.17.07 @ 12:33PM|#
tarran
Okay, I guess I'm a fascist. I do like the tune to Giovenezza. When
you use terms this way, they lose all meaning, but meaning is
obviously not your long suit. Using language as a propaganda
tool--now that's fascistic.
|1.17.07 @ 12:51PM|#
"What we have here is a difference over the definition of
"freedom." I would argue that if I increase my lifespan by not
smoking, I increase my freedom to do all those things I can't do if
I'm dead."
I find it ironic and amusing that busybodies like Edward seem so
intent on extending the length of my life. They somehow conflate
being bullied at every turn with freedom.
Hell, being sent to an early grave by smokes is a feature, not a
bug, if it means getting beyond the clutches of the Gladys Kravitz
Goose Step Brigade.
|1.17.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Edward, I am confused, what exactly did I say that removes the
meaning of terms?
If you think my conclusions are wrong, why not identify the hole in
my logic or assumptions? I mean hell man, if you are going to
attack libertarianism on a libertarian website, surely you have
some substantive arguments to advance? So far most of what you
bring is name calling and puerile put-downs.
I mean, if you derive pleaseure from posting such comments, fine.
It's a free country, and so long as Reason allows you to use their
computers to do so, have at it. But I must admit, I too am baffled
as to what you hope to accomplish.
|1.17.07 @ 1:10PM|#
When Edward is the only one that is willing to argue this here, although obviously half-heartedly, you'd think property rights could win a few elections. Its too bad we can't get a real tobacco prohibitionist over here to lecture us, that'd be a hoot.
|1.17.07 @ 1:23PM|#
James, they're too busy out hustling legislators to bother with
little ol' us.
Incidentally, I recall hearing an NPR story last year about some NY
bigwig in the anti-smoking movement who suffered from all sorts of
mental problems- depression, bipolar, etc. Anyone else remember
that story or who it was about?
|1.17.07 @ 1:53PM|#
"...some NY bigwig in the anti-smoking movement who suffered
from all sorts of mental problems- depression, bipolar, etc."
Rudy Giuliani?
|1.17.07 @ 3:55PM|#
No, it wasn't a name I immediately recognized, and I'm quite
certain he wasn't an elected official. He was a independently
wealthy rabble-rouser.
The NPR story dealt mostly with his mental problems, including
being placed under psychiatric care in a mental hospital.
|1.17.07 @ 4:31PM|#
Tarran
All communist countries have traffic lights. People who support
traffic lights are communists, aggree?
|1.17.07 @ 5:28PM|#
mediageek
Who said anything about your lifespan? Smoke to your heart's
content. Just don't do it anywhere where I can inhale the smoke.
You can jerk off, too, but not in public places. Seems fair,
doesn't it?
|1.17.07 @ 6:42PM|#
"Who said anything about your lifespan? "
You did, upthread, genius.
"Just don't do it anywhere where I can inhale the smoke. You
can jerk off, too, but not in public places. Seems fair, doesn't
it?"
Yeah, except for the fact that people like you always define
private property as "public places."
Funny, that.
Guy Montag|1.17.07 @ 7:18PM|#
Who said anything about your lifespan? Smoke to your heart's
content. Just don't do it anywhere where I can inhale the
smoke.
Then stay the hell away from my lit cigarette or cigar and if you
pester me I will beat you with your severed leg until you shut up,
k? Hint: if you enter a place that has ashtrays it is for us, not
you.
Some jerk like you was commenting in Bailey's (a smoking bar)
tonight that he goes there for happy hour on occasion and goes home
smelling of smoke.
Hey! Fucktard! Go to GD Ted's Montana Grill, a non smoking
establishment (complete with barbed-wire above the entry door) that
is non-smoking and about a block away.
Jennifer|1.17.07 @ 8:02PM|#
A friend of mine--a smoker--owns a small store in Massachusetts,
one of the "no smoking inside a business" states. He does, however,
smoke inside his own store, and allows others to do so as well.
We're just waiting for some idiot to try to ticket him, at which
point another guy in our social circle--a lawyer licensed to
practice in Massachusetts--will take the case pro bono.
That should get interesting.
|1.18.07 @ 8:05AM|#
I have to echo Captain Holly's datum. My late Dad was sent to
Australia and New Guinea with the Army Engineers in WWII. His unit
built airstrips in Northern Oz and the Papuan jungles. A star
athlete in college, he never smoked. Still, every ration or Red
Cross package came with cigs. He sold his smokes to the other guys
in his platoon at the PX price, used that cash for pocket money,
and bought War Bonds with the munificent $22 per month a PFC
earned. His fellow soldiers appreciated that he didn't gouge them
on the coffin nails. Dad made quite a dent in the downpayment for
our family's first home with what he saved up.
Demanding that a VFW run on volunteer help only is probably not
practical, given the age of many of the vets, and the fall-off in
membership among younger veterans. Let them smoke `em if they've
got `em, damnit.
Kevin
(grateful non-smoker)
Robert|1.18.07 @ 2:36PM|#
"If the adverse health consequences to employees were the
real target of the laws, why would they specify tobacco-containing
cigarets, cigars, and pipes?"
because that is the bulk of what people smoke?
By that logic, the law could specify cigarets (as opposed to other
smokables), or filtered cigarets, or domestic (non-imported)
cigarets. The drafters of the law went out of their way to specify
that it would affect only tobacco smokes, when they could easily
have left the details of composition out.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245