You for Smoking
they're going to ban smoking in Toronto restaurants are
they? Well, knowing that Toronto has an ample supply of
it's very own buttheads should certainly provide some
consolation to the residents of Hamilton-East.
what Toronto should really do is make smoking in Toronto
restaurants mandatory. It's time for smokers to organize
their own lobby and DEMAND that their rights be
rights activists should perhaps devise a long term
strategy. They shouldn't expect all of their agenda to be
about restaurants for the time being. Start small, with a
few laws designed mainly to aggravate non-smokers.
example, passengers on public buses and patrons at movie
theaters should be forced to smoke. If they don't have
their own cigarettes then the establishment they are
patronizing should be required to take reasonable
measures to ensure that tobacco products are easily
should dictate that all buses and movie houses provide
ash trays in convenient locations. Bus drivers and ushers
should always have a carton of smokes available for
efficient distribution to those who don't ordinarily
smoke and to those who happen to be out of smokes at the
smoking laws can be expanded to require smoking
everywhere. Smoke alarms with the circuitry reversed
should be required in all dwellings.
particularly important to have mandatory smoking in bus
smokers rights advocates gain the upper hand we can
really rub it in for all of those obnoxious anti-smoking
about this law: when serving food in restaurants the wait
staff should be required to ensure that every patron has
a lit cigarette on the table.
Inhalation is a fundamental right. To accommodate patrons
who are smokingly challenged extra measures must be
mandated. Those who are unable to smoke due to paralysis
or amputation should be aided by staff who have undergone
special sensitivity training in addition to any relevant
citizens, who would otherwise prefer not to smoke, could
be granted some form of preferential treatment as is the
case in other areas. For example, seniors could be
required to smoke ten percent less than other citizens.
need to exert social pressure as well. When non- smoking
relatives and in-laws come to visit they should be
offered a cigarette as soon as they come in the door.
choose not to smoke they should be asked to go outside.
After all, smoking should be seen as an indoor activity.
makes more sense; stepping outdoors for a cigarette or
stepping outdoors for some fresh air? The people who want
fresh air should be the one's huddled around doorways in
the middle of winter.
and nursing homes should require that anyone standing
within twenty-seven feet of the building have a lit
cigarette in their possession at all times.
movies and buses have implemented smoke freedom activists
must keep pressuring legislatures for more laws.
of pushing for a smoke free society we should be pushing
for a free smoke society by the year 2000. Some people
cannot afford to smoke. No one should be deprived of
tobacco just because they cannot afford it.
is a basic right, therefore the government should pay for
everyone's cigarettes. Non-smokers might balk at the idea
of having to pay for someone else's pleasure but they
need to be reminded that, according to the anti-smoking
side, second hand smoke is almost as good as lighting one
up for oneself.
third millenium will open with the century of the smoker.
New scientific evidence will reveal that smoking is
actually a very healthy activity.
chronic exposure to the contents of tobacco, smokers
build up a resistance to all of the other chemicals,
natural and synthetic, to which modern man is exposed.
There are hints already that this is the case. Consider,
for example, alleged MCS (multiple chemical sensitivity)
sufferers. How many are smokers? Not many....
Sullum's new book For Your Own Good : The
Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health Jacob Sullum /
Hardcover / Published 1998