Anti-smoking brigade

The anti-smoking brigade is likely the worst of the "don't do that" groups. An activity that [for now] is still legal in America, is an activity that they not only oppose but actively attack as though it was on par with murder (and to some of them second-hand smoke is murder). They are [mostly] vehemently opposed to smoking and to any/all that partake. They are not happy simply letting everyone know that smoking is bad. Smokers must be turned into social pariah. These people are not really looking to help smokers quit quite as much as they are looking to make themselves feel superior to those that do smoke.

How do I know this? I know this because if the anti-smoking crowd was really trying to reduce the rates of smoking AND help smokers, they would endorse a tool that is widely available, inexpensive, and far, far safer than smoking cigarettes. They do not do this though. Instead the lump this "aid" into the same bucket as cigarettes.

What is this vilified solution you ask, it is e-cigarettes.

Electronic cigarettes are by far a more healthy option than actually smoking tobacco cigarettes but instead of handing out free "quit smoking" kits that include e-cigarettes, the anti-smoking groups are actually lobbying to have e-cigarettes classified in the same category as tobacco cigarettes, to include bans on indoor vaping, etc.

If they fully endorsed e-cigarettes instead of trying to treat them just like tobacco cigarettes and allowed their use indoors, this in and of its self would be a big motivator for a lot of smokers to at least partially switch over to e-cigarettes as having to go outside [regardless of the weather] is a big inconvenience for tobacco smokers. Being able to "vape up" in-side would motivate quite a number of smokers to give vaping a try.

One of their arguments for treating them the same is that e-cigarettes can serve as a "gateway" to tobacco cigarettes. If any of them had actually tried an e-cigarette and then tried to smoke a "real" tobacco cigarette, they would immediately understand how foolish that argument is. I find it extremely hard to believe that most people that currently do not smoke tobacco cigarettes but do vape, would move from vaping to tobacco. There is a night and day difference. The smell is the thing. It gets everywhere and affects everything. A cigarette smoker can move to vaping (and I know a number of people that have) and after a week or so, they all comment on how much nicer their cloths smell, how much more and better they can actually smell, and how much easier they sleep, etc. The succession of inhaling burning leaves and changing to inhaling a most vapor is astounding to see. Once a smoker has moved from tobacco to an e-cigarette they are then free to modify the amount of nicotine that they ingest. I know of smokers that after switching to e-cigarettes have migrated to zero nicotine fluid. For them it is the process, the habit, the social aspects of smoking. The fact that they were able to exchange a stinking stick of burning leaves for the clean, odor free e-cig experience of vaping is (for them) a god sent miracle.

What does the anti-smoking crowd do with this "solution" to the tobacco problem? Why they move to get it treated JUST LIKE TOBACCO! Why? Because it LOOKS too much like smoking tobacco!

Dear Lord, please do all in your power to save us all from those that want to help us "for our own good" as they will be the death of us, in your name we pray!

Awareness campaigns

Which of these things is more useful? Getting a group together and going around an area picking up litter or getting a group together and holding a litter awareness campaign? The first actually helps clean up a neighborhood and the second tries to put the word out that littering is bad. Who doesn't already know that littering is bad? Either you already care or you don't. If you care, nothing changes. If you don't, nothing changes. So why bother if nothing changes? Sorry that is not quite true. Those holding the awareness event get to raise their smug level by some degree. They get to "feel" like they did something without actually having to do something. Instead of getting up early, going out and picking up a bunch of trash, they get to hold an Event! Who would not rather have an Event!? Events! are fun. Picking up trash sucks. But one of these activities actually produces results and does some good.

This same holds true for all of these other "hot topic" awareness events: cancer awareness, rape awareness, racism & hate awareness, etc. Who does not already know that these things are bad? That these things should be worked against, to be stopped/ended? What actual results are these folks trying to accomplish by raising awareness of the obvious? And the answer is... To make themselves feel better that they "did something". What does it matter that the "something" has the same affect as farting in a hurricane? At least they feel better. They get to walk around like they actually accomplished something important! Awareness campaigns allow the participants to "feel" like they are being productive without having to actually do the harder work needed to actually produce results.

Awareness campaigns are the adult equivalent of participation ribbons for kids. They allow "credit" for showing up, results are irrelevant.

There is actually one awareness campaign that would be usefully. An awareness campaign spreading the word on the uselessness of awareness campaigns! If it saves even one group of collage students or coastal liberals from waiting their time raising awareness of issues that everyone already agrees on, it will have been worth it AND it will have had more results than all of these other awareness campaigns combined!

The 18-month-old racist

“I told Jud McMillin I love his son, but he’s scare of me because of my color,” Democratic Rep. Vanessa Summers said to Mr. McMmillin, who is white, during last week’s debate, the Indy Star reported March 24.

“He looked at me like I was a monster and turned around and cried,” Ms. Summer said, the newspaper reported. “And I told him you need to introduce your child to some people that are dark-skinned so he will not be scared.”

There you have it! There is absolutely no other possible reason for an 18 month old to cry other than racism! I wonder what the cut-off is for racist induced crying? 12 months? 6 months? 2 weeks? Only preemies may apply?

As noted in the source article: It’s becoming near impossible to discern parody from seriousness with this crowd.