smoking milch cows

There are so many lawyers, anti-smoking organizations and government health departments stacked up against the tobacco companies that Eileen, a social worker, is convinced that the whole smoking issue is one big Milch Cow.

"It's not just the tobacco companies getting milked for all they are worth but us, the stupid smokers, too," says Eileen, "and I'm not apologizing for using the 'stupid' word for smokers because that's what both sides of the issue think of us, and frankly I sometimes think of myself like that, too."

"The smoking issue is the most convoluted thing I've ever come across and because lawyers are involved I believe it is going to get a lot worse before it gets better."

"What's a cosy legal battle in plush offices for them is a dirty war of abuse on the streets for us," says Eileen, "and I am angry with the tobacco companies as well as the others for turning the lives of smokers upside down, robbing us of our hard earned money and causing others to abuse us."

"On a social level, the 'suits' from the tobacco companies and their so-called enemy 'suits' in the other camps probably do lunch together every day, entertain in each other's homes and send their kids to the same posh schools," says Eileen. "And, if they ever DO think about the fallout abuse that their cosy little war costs us, the stupid smokers, it would be followed invariably with peals of sneering laughter because -- wait for it -- I have yet to find evidence that any of the tobacco company guys actually smoke."

"The tobacco companies make such an absolute fortune from us -- the stupid smokers -- that the other stuff, the legal war, is merely a game they enjoy playing," explains Eileen. "And because money is no problem for either side, they are going to keep their legal wars going forever -- and don't the lawyers love that!"

"Do you realize that we -- the stupid smoking Milch Cows -- get slugged with income tax and tobacco tax to pay the other side as well?" asks Eileen. "We are paying for the whole thing! How does that grab you? Doesn't it make you feel uber stupid?"

"In my social work I get to see the real victims of the smoking war," explains Eileen. "Low income and disadvantaged people -- including single moms, disabled people and the elderly -- who are already victimized by society because of their circumstances. On top of this, they then get abused for smoking."

"Most of these people smoke to make their miserable lives a bit better," says Eileen, "and every day I think how much better off they would be if they could stop smoking (impossible, I've tried) or if this stupid smoking war would end and give them back a bit of dignity -- and a lot more dollars in their pockets."

"In my social work I also get to see some of the BIG people involved in the tobacco war from the government's angle," says Eileen, "but of course I don't work with them like I do the victims of tobacco. I just 'see' them swanning around in their power suits, puffed up with importance, believing they're on a crusade to save us from tobacco when everyone knows what they're really doing."

"Oh sure, there are some genuine souls who naively believe that giving up smoking to spare yourself a horrible death is a good thing," sighs Eileen, "but they just don't understand that most of the people I'm working with would die a horrible death in any case, one that is totally unrelated to smoking."

"When they think of a smoker -- if they ever do -- they are probably thinking of someone like me," says Eileen. "Someone with a bit of education who should know better and, with a bit more pressure, might give up the deadly habit."

"Well, if I ever do succeed in quitting it will be to avoid kicking myself over and over again for being milked by these guys," laughs Eileen. "It will have nothing to do with the health benefits I might gain because I know I will suffer far worse health problems by quitting. My life may be better than those of the poor people whose troubles I try to resolve, but it is still miserable in its own way and smoking helps get me through it all."

"I get dizzy trying to count the number of do-goody organizations on the tobacco gravy train -- oops, sorry to mix my metaphors," laughs Eileen. "Every day a new one seems to pop up and our tax payer dollars just keep on flowing for them."

"Can you believe that all this has been going on since 1964 when Congress protected the tobacco companies from the effects of litigation by means of the Surgeon General's warning label?" sighs Eileen. "I was born a year later, so all of my life this rubbish has been going on and it is never going to stop."

"When the first of these do-goody organizations came into being its purpose was to educate the public and hold the tobacco companies to the same degree of accountability as other industries," explains Eileen, "and, as far as I am concerned, that purpose was achieved long ago. But, seeing the dollars rolling in and a life-time career ahead of them, these guys dug in and encouraged a multitude of other parasitic types to join in for whatever other purposes they had in mind."

"I make no apologies for using the parasitic word either," says Eileen, "because that's what most of them are. They feed off our addiction, our desire to smoke and the miseries of our lives that caused most of us to start smoking in the first place."

"Even if their purpose were genuinely to help us stop smoking so that we could save money and live a healthier life," says Eileen, "they can offer us nothing to fill the gap that smoking filled, a gap that we might fill with something far more dangerous."

"These people know nothing about 'gaps' or their myriad causes," confides Eileen, "and that's why they have no right to dictate what is good or bad for us. Like most think tank types, they think of other human beings as cohorts or metrics on a chart, stripped of all humanity. They make pronouncements from ivory towers that even they, in their saner moments, must find appalling."

"It has been said over and over again -- by smokers as well as non-smokers -- that if tobacco is the killer they make it out to be then it should be banned," says Eileen, "but these guys have no desire whatsoever to put the tobacco industry out of business or to make cigarettes illegal. They don't see the inconsistency of what they're telling us and even if they did, they don't care. Why should they? Parasites by nature only feed off hosts certain to keep the milk and honey flowing forever."

"The tobacco industry, as I see it, has fulfilled all of the requirements asked of it and the burden of responsibility has now shifted fairly and squarely to the cigarette smoker," says Eileen. "It's time for these do-goody organizations to go away and find some other milch cow."

"We are, of course, still stuck with the government -- the biggest parasite of them all because without tobacco tax it wouldn't be able to fund invasions and do other goods things," sighs Eileen. "So, even if the others disappeared off the scene we are still going to get milked."

"Moo!"

nanny states and smokers

Durragh is one smoker who is not concerned about anti-smoking propaganda lasting for much longer because the Nanny State, like Humpty Dumpty, is due for a big fall because the private doctors it's imposing upon to enforce its draconian measures don't have time to lecture patients and most see a clear distinction between public health and personal health.

"Public health used to be concerned with protecting the public against easily transmissible diseases that we couldn't protect ourselves from without the help of the government," says Durragh. "You know, clean water, sanitation, and vaccines against commonly communicable and often fatal diseases."

"Having achieved that aim, public health officials found themselves with little to do between outbreaks of new epidemics and began to justify their existence by getting involved in matters that are none of their business," laughs Durragh. "They stuck their sticky beaks into our bedrooms, kitchens and lounge rooms and started dictating to us how to live our lives."

"The Nanny State took away our personal responsibility and took upon itself the job of protecting us against our lifestyle choices and any disease that might result from them," says Durragh. "Okay, nobody should mind a nanny telling you not to do this or that because this or that could happen to you, but that's where it should stop."

"When a Nanny State gets into prohibition, punitive behavior, taxing 'naughties' and using health professionals as a police force it has clearly blown itself up out of all proportion," says Durragh. "And the people we are going to thank for ending this madness -- soon, I hope -- is the white coats."

"We've been grumbling for years about increasing Nanny State interference in our health choices -- don't smoke, don't eat junk food, use a condom, buckle up, use a sunscreen, get vaccinated against rare viruses, etc -- and now the medical professionals are starting to grumble because the Nanny State is trying to make them legally responsible for our lifestyle choices."

"It's no longer a matter of how much government interference in personal health decisions we're going to tolerate," says Durragh, "it's a matter of how much legal interference the white coats are going to tolerate in relation to how they treat their patients."

"Anti-tobacco lawyer John Banzhaf -- the founder of ASH -- has had so much success suing cigarette makers and companies that expose workers to tobacco smoke that he's been pushing for litigation against doctors who fail to follow Public Health guidelines," explains Durragh. "And, because he's also an anti-fat lawyer, you know what's coming next."

"Doctors would not now be open to litigation if those guidelines in relation to advising smokers of the health risks of smoking had not been published by the Nanny State," says Durragh. "It makes you shudder at the thought of what other guidelines the Nanny State has published in relation to our personal and private lifestyle choices that are next going to be jumped on and legally enforced."

"My doctor and I have a good relationship," says Durragh. "I don't tell him I smoke and he doesn't ask (even though he's seen me smoking outside)."

"I am having regular blood pressure checks so I suppose he should be asking about my smoking habits," says Durragh, "but I guess he no more wants to become a white coated Nanny State Nazi enforcer than I want to be lectured on the potential evils of my drug of choice."

"Should I succumb to a smoking-related illness I consider that to be my business, my responsibility, my risk -- I am a big girl now and I can read the warnings on the pack -- and I'm certainly not going to hire a gun to sue my doctor," says Durragh. "However, there are probably plenty of smokers out there who would try to sue and this scares some doctors."

"The anti-smoking lawyers are not really doing this to make money," explains Durragh. "They are already handsomely paid by the lobbyists."

"Their main goal -- like that of the Nanny State health officials -- is to stop people smoking and to this end they presume that by scaring doctors with the prospect of laws suits that they will act as willing anti-smoking enforcers."

"The threat to doctors is this: if you're not part of the anti-smoking solution we are going to treat you as one of the causes and hold you legally liable," says Durragh. "And this sort of threat is not going down well with doctors as you can well imagine."

"Not content with cigarette pack warnings, anti-smoking ordinances banning smoking in nearly all public places and tough enforcement policies that are going to tie up police departments arresting smokers rather than chasing criminals," sighs Durragh, "they are now dragooning doctors into their cause."

"Doctors are smart people, much smarter than politicians and lawyers," laughs Durragh, "and if some of them toed the official anti-smoking line in the past for personal reasons or otherwise they won't be doing it for much longer."

"Oh sure, there are going to be those who have no alternative but to toe the party line or lose their jobs -- and those who can be seduced into becoming anti-smoking enforcers with big enough sweeteners," adds Durragh, "but any doctor worth his or her salt in private practice is not going to be dictated to and threatened by the Nanny State zealots."

"Despite what their personal beliefs about smoking are, they know that once they are legally required to lecture patients about smoking they are also going to be legally required to lecture them about all the other lifestyle factors that cause preventable diseases -- overeating, lack of exercise, promiscuity, binge drinking, illegal drugs and so many other things. Things, I may add, that many doctors themselves are guilty of indulging in once in a while if not more often."

"Doctors are busy people and they just don't have the time to devote to this sort of lecturing even if they were inclined to give it," says Durragh. "They see a clear distinction between public health and personal health, and although they may not like seeing patients with preventable diseases they are likely to defend their patients' rights and bad choices when it comes to the crunch."

"And the crunch is coming soon."