Pubdate: Thu, 18 Oct 2001
Source: Charleston Daily Mail (WV)
Copyright: 2001 Charleston Daily Mail
Contact:  http://www.dailymail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/76
Author: Dave Peyton

PROHIBITION HAS NOT WORKED

Despite Rule After Rule, People Continue To Smoke

The Cabell-Huntington Health Department board is at it again. Having 
achieved success a few years ago in creating non-smoking areas in Cabell 
County restaurants, the board is about to enact rules that would ban 
smoking entirely in most county restaurants, other businesses and public 
buildings. It's part of a movement toward national tobacco prohibition, a 
bizarre attempt to ban a legal substance with backdoor rules and regulations.

The movement is nothing new. It's merely a renewal of an old idea. In the 
100- plus years of the movement, it has never worked and it won't now.

The United States was in the midst of a profound anti-tobacco, 
anti-cigarette movement in 1900. For example, Washington, Iowa, Tennessee 
and North Dakota outlawed the sale of cigarettes in that year. The U.S. 
Supreme Court even upheld Tennessee's ban on cigarette sales.

One justice, repeating a popular notion of the day, claimed "there are many 
(cigarettes) whose tobacco has been mixed with opium or some other drug, 
and whose wrapper has been saturated in a solution of arsenic."

Tobacco prohibition got even more outrageous in the years that followed. In 
1904, a woman was arrested in New York City for smoking a cigarette in an 
automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer said.

In 1905, the Indiana Legislature passed a total cigarette ban for the 
state. In 1907, some business owners were refusing to hire smokers. On 
August 8 of that year, the New York Times wrote: "Business. . .is doing 
what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

The idea of prohibition spread to other countries. In 1908, the Canadian 
Parliament enacted legislation to ban cigarette sales to those under 16. It 
was never enforced.

Things got even crazier. In 1914, Thomas Edison wrote to Henry Ford that 
the health danger actually lies in "the burning paper wrapper," which emits 
acrolein, which Edison said "creates violent action on the nerve centers, 
producing degeneration of the cells of the brain, which is quite rapid 
among boys. . .I employ no person who smokes."

When America went to war, both in World War I and World War II, tobacco 
prohibitionists tried to keep the U.S. government from putting cigarettes 
in soldiers' rations.

Soldiers turned thumbs down on that idea and pointed out they were being 
sent into battle where the chances of death were extremely high. Protecting 
them from the dangers of cigarettes while the enemy aimed bullets at them 
seemed a little asinine.

Even in Germany during World War II, the Nazi Party made feeble attempts to 
outlaw smoking. Think about it. While the Nazis were killing Jews by the 
millions, they were trying to outlaw cigarettes to protect the health of 
the citizens.

Now comes the report from the federal government that, with all the 
anti-tobacco rules and regulations promulgated in the 1990s and all the 
scary news about what smoking can do to you, the percentage of Americans 
who smoke -- about 25 percent -- hasn't changed in the past 10 years.

Those of us who smoke will doubtlessly accede to the politically correct 
regulations about smoking in restaurants that the Cabell-Huntington Health 
Department wants to enact. After all, smokers are generally a laid-back 
bunch. If we get on edge, we just smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette.

If the new rules make non-smokers feel both safer and superior, and health 
officials feel as if they are doing something to save lives, perhaps it's 
worth the effort.

Meanwhile, my wife is extremely allergic to certain brands of perfume and 
cologne. Sometimes when she's in a restaurant and sitting near someone who 
reeks of perfume, she can't eat for coughing.

She wonders when the health department is going to stop insensitive people 
from wearing gallons of cologne and perfume in public places.

I tell her not to hold her breath. Cologne doesn't seem to be politically 
offensive, merely offensive and terribly debilitating to those who are 
allergic to it.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom