THE DOCTOR IS IN
_________________
LAS VEGAS- Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
The state of MA just said that they will allow smoking inside their casinos. The nanny, special interest groups are in an uproar saying that the move does not conform with their state law which prohibits smoking in restaurants. These groups will try anything to promote their agenda.
I say Hooray for the state of Mass.---If the state does not let people make their own decisions as to where they want to eat, drink and gamble the state will lose millions of dollars to the the casinos that allow smoking for their customers.
There should be smoking and nonsmoking sections in all food and drinking establishments throughout the nation. In fact, there should be a smoking and nonsmoking restaurant choice for everyone nationwide.
The only reason for the all inclusive smoking bans throughout the country is because the lawmakers and the nanny muckrakers know that if there were a choice to where a person could chose smoking or nonsmoking the business establishments who offer a smoking facility would generate more business. So, instead of letting the market forces take over and let the person decide where to eat and drink, the political correct thing to do is to mandate a law prohibiting choice for everyone.
The local, state and federal government should keep it's nose out of the business of a persons personal and social choice as to what business, restaurant, bar and tavern one chooses to socialize in. Let the business owner decide whether they want to cater to the smoker or nonsmoker. As long as there are signs properly displayed indicating the choice of smoking or nonsmoking each and every individual can then make their own decision as to whether they want to patronize the business.
That old argument of secondhand smoke is just a way of blowing smoke. There are large, gaping holes in the Surgeon Generals report that was published years ago. Secondhand smoke is still a very controversial issue.
If there were both smoking and nonsmoking areas so as to accommodate all of society instead of just penalizing the smoking public the nonsmokers could avail themselves of all food and bar services that advertise as a nonsmoking establishment and the smoker can use the establishments that advertise a smoker friendly establishment. What is fair for one group is fair for another.
I submit that if a restaurant and/or bar or tavern on one corner of a city offered a totally nonsmoking place and on the corner across the street another business offered the same food and drink menu and the same prices but also offered smoking I would predict that the restaurant that offered smoking would draw more patrons. That's what really frightens these do-goodie nanny groups. They know that I am correct. They do not want the public to actually know that freedom of choice would trash their views.
If this administration was on the right track and really wanted to look out for all of the citizens in the country instead of just one group, the nonsmoker, it would repeal all smoking bans, in every state and allow the business owner to make an either or decision as to what they want to offer each and every customer.
These special interest groups and lawmakers scream smoking bans are a health issue and say that they are looking out for our best interests. Really? Drinking alcohol is a health issue, eating a piece of pie or hamburger or fried food is a health issue,taking many prescribed medications that are proven to cause cancers, physical ailments and even death is a health issue, breathing polluted air and environmental pesticides and chemicals are a health issue yet these officials single out the smoking public.
People, bans and prohibition doesn't work. They tried it with alcohol in the 1920's and found they had to repeal the prohibition law.
We, the people do not need the government to tell us what foods and drinks to put into our bodies. All they need to do is tell us what's in the foods and drinks and tobacco and let us decide whether we want to use the product. Warning labels should be sufficient for any person to make up their own mind. The country has been doing just fine for centuries allowing its citizens to make personal and social decisions for themselves.
People are living longer than at anytime in history but eventually we die. The government cannot stop death from happening. But it appears the government wants to regulate a person behavior with the idea that it's for our own good. Do you really think the government can keep any one person healthy so that they can live forever? Get real.
Who's to say with "medical certainty" if a persons death was actually caused solely by smoking, drinking alcohol, eating all of those rich, fat foods, ingesting all of that bad environmental and chemical pollution, ingesting those medication that have severe side-effects and can be fatal, etc.---They CAN'T. Anyone of those things may have "contributed" to a persons death, but the actual cause cannot be specific to smoking or alcohol or the persons diet or environmental pollution factors. It could be a combination of all or none.
I could go on and on about what causes a person to fall ill or acquire a disease and die but it's certainly foolish to say that a persons smoking is the sole culprit.
In the past the government has already declared coffee bad for you,they said butter is bad for you,and they said eggs were bad for you and then a few years later they said OOPS, we were wrong. They then said coffee actually helps prevent heart attacks. The government also said that butter was better than the manufactured margarine for a persons body, etc.
There will always be heart attacks, heart failure, cancers, diabetes, obesity and a myriad of other life threatening disease. That is just the process of life. We live, we die. One of my statements in one of my books said: My view is that we begin to die from the day we are born.
It's ironic that all of these elderly politicians and leaders from all around the world who grew up when smoking was prevalent in restaurants, bars, taverns, offices, government building and most every home now lets special interest groups tell them that their mental and cognitive faculties are insufficient and they may have retardation or that they may have a birth defect and/or physical problems and that just because they were exposed to first or "secondhand smoke" while growing up and maturing they cannot perform their vocational or occupational choice. That's garbage.
Keep in mind these elderly leaders are still here and living a happy, comfortable life, the same leaders who were exposed to first and secondhand smoke throughout their entire life.
When these same intelligent, competent lawmakers, attorneys, doctors, accountants and blue collar workers were growing up they were exposed to smoking in hospitals and doctors offices and most all public places and they turned out well and their mental and/or physical faculties were not diminished. In fact, these same people went on to become our leaders in fields of science and art and they and their spouses raised their children in that same smoking atmosphere and their children went on to college and universities without any detriment that could be attributed to causing mental or physical problems solely based on people smoking around them.
Keep in mind that our great-great grand parents smoked and raised their families and built this country in an open smoking atmosphere,our grand parents smoked and raised smart intelligent families in a world of the smoking public and our parents smoked and raised competent, intelligent healthy children while contributing their skills and talents building this country. Yet, all of a sudden, according to the government, special interests and nanny states all of those people that built this country are all a bunch of sick puppies only because of the devils plaything "smoking."
These special interest groups and reformed smokers attempt to blame every ailment out there on a person smoking or because they ingested secondhand smoke.There is nothing worse than a reformed drunk, religious zealot or a nonsmoker.
I suggest that nonsmokers do not have to congregate with smokers and the same goes for the smoker. Each can have their own places to socialize in and each should have. What's the problem with a "totally nonsmoking restaurant," or a "totally smoker friendly" restaurant. The same should apply to bars, taverns, casinos, etc., and each group would have their places to patronize.
The problem in the past has been that when there were smoking and nonsmoking areas in restaurants, bars and taverns the nonsmoker would always go into the smoking section and then they would complain about the smoke. In the past when there were smoking and nonsmoking sections at a restaurant I have heard the hostess ask the customer "smoking or nonsmoking" and the customer would reply: "either." What a joke! If the customer was really that adverse to smoking they should have said "nonsmoking" but instead they chose to sit with the smoking public. Why the nonsmoker did that was beyond me. Smokers always requested the smoking section.
It always seemed to me that the nonsmokers felt like they were missing out on something in the smoking section and that is why they insisted on sitting in the smoking section and then began to complain about people smoking.
The Cancer Society, the Lung Association and some doctors are most always going to take a political correct stand on the smoking issue so that they can continue to receive those research grants and the millions of dollars from groups, clinics, and organizations from around the world so they can keep their jobs. These organizations have a clear agenda cut out for themselves. As long as there is no cure for any disease these special interest groups bring in millions of dollars a year.
We all know that smoking is not good for you. The public is not dumb. We also know that overeating is not good for you and that fried chicken or a hamburger is not good for you, "if you eat a dozen hamburgers at one sitting, or eat an entire pie at one sitting or eat a dozen candy bars, or eat an entire chicken at one sitting."
My though- "Everything in moderation" I have always promoted that concept to my friends, my family, my relatives and patients.
There certainly should be warning labels on all products available to the public. The person can then read the warning label and they can read what is in the food or drink and then decide if they want to partake and the same should apply for smoking and drinking alcohol. If the warning labels are there the person can make an informed decision and the person cannot say that they did not know the dangers of the product.
Example: What gave Mr. Jones that heart attack? Was it the fried chicken he ate, was it the bottles of whiskey he had been drinking? Was it those soft drinks, potato chips or those sweets he has been chomping down on? Or, was it that pack of cigarettes he had been smoking? I submit that any one of those things could have "CONTRIBUTED" to Mr. Jone's heart attack but to say it was solely because Mr. Jones smoked is ridiculous.
My point: I have never seen a death certificate that read: Cause of death, cigarette smoke.
Folks, there are those people that will experience cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc., who have never smoked a day in their life. And then there are those that have and will live to ripe old ages into their 80's 90's and yes, some over 100 years old without contracting any of those diseases even though they have smoked two packs or more of cigarettes a day since they were 12 years and in addition to their smoking they ate all of those pork chops, bacon, mashed potatoes and gravy and ate that cake or pie as a regular part of their diet and also drank alcohol like a fish. Anyone with common sense can see examples like this happening every day.
A person has to understand that every persons lifestyle is different and there is no "one size" fits all. What is good for one person may not be good or work the same way for another person. A persons longevity may depend on many factors and genetic make up is a large part of a persons being.
So, for the government and big brother to say they are going to prohibit kids from drinking sodas, eating chips or eating a candy bar or telling adults that they cannot cook with a certain vegetable oil or a person will have to pay extra for a piece of pie or for that hamburger because "THE GOVERNMENT" thinks it is too fattening is totally out of bounds. Everyday freedom of choice is being usurped by Uncle Sam. People, an occasional candy bar or soda or hamburger or pizza is alright for anyone, believe me. Just don't take it to the excess.
This is where the parents come into play. They know best what is good for their children and can regulate how much of a thing their child eats. The governments job should be to offer more physical education in schools for the kids.The government should make physical education a mandatory class. Having the kids exercise and participate in sports and outside activities would be more efficient for the governments attention rather than saying: "I'm going to tell you what you can or cannot eat.
As to adult choice, the government should require clear and concise labels on all products (they are on cigarettes) so that they can be read by the consumer. The adult then can make the decision whether they want to eat something that was cooked in peanut oil, or vegetable oil or some other chemical oil or smoke something that warns them against disease. The adult does not need to have the government telling them that they cannot eat something just because it was not prepared according Big Brothers recipe.
However, if the government chooses to ban tobacco smoking then the government should also ban alcohol, ban fast food, ban all sweet desserts, etc.--Why? Because all of those items are a definite health issue too. If big government is going to look out for all of us and keep us healthy then they should not be selective. They should extend the bans to include all items that certainly will contribute to be detrimental to ones health.
However, you can bet the lawmakers will never even consider banning alcohol since they themselves love the stuff and there would be riots around the country. Even though alcohol kills tens of thousands of people a year and the lawmakers know that minors begin drinking alcohol between the ages of 8 and 12 years old and continue through high school and go into college with the attitude of enjoying drunken parties as a regular social right to passage these lawmakers close their eyes to the dangers of alcohol consumption. They actually condone it and these same people want to regulate the behavior of people that want to enjoy a cigarette or cigar.
The government should allow us to have and enjoy freedom of choice. These continued bans and assaults on our foods and social choices are unwarranted. If we, the people, continue to allow the government to mandate food and social changes under the guise of (we know what's best for you)it won't be long until our democracy and free republic will be trampled into the dust. And,- that's my opinion. Make your own decisions, you decide.
Bradley W. Kuhns, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_______________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by e-mail at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment