For a group that professes to be "reality" based, many of the reactions are anything but....Let's round up a few of the reactions I've seen:
-The powerful polluting companies do more damage in a day than my fellow citizens who smoke will do in a lifetime.-Tobacco is a legal product in this country.
-Banning smoking in bars is like banning bibles in church.
-The Surgeon General is a Republican and trying to distract us.
and, my favorite (and Limbaughesque)-
"Anti-smoking NAZIs"
Now, you'll notice that nowhere do these comments begin to address a crucial issue - the fact that scientific evidence is overwhelming that secondhand smoke is a health danger to those who breathe it in.
Is it worth asking for some consistency? My questions for you who react defensively and derisively:
- How in the world can people who rail against conservative fundamentalists who want creationism taught in school and who believe the world is 6,000 years old get defensive about smoking and the scientific evidence about the health impact of secondhand smoke?
- How can progressives who watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and think that the science behind global warming is incontrovertible believe that all the science on tobacco and secondhand smoke is wrong?
- How can progressives, interested in the health and welfare of their fellow citizens, believe that government does not have a role in removing carcinogenic materials from indoor air - whether it be bars, workplaces, restaurants or other public spaces?
- How are many of these arguments any different than Bush and his ever-popular strawmen?
I offer up several possibilities for you to choose from -
Many of us are really not all that different from those who argue against global warming or those who argue against evolution;
Many people have knee-jerk reactions when their own lifestyles are impacted - and lash out by attacking because that is easier than change;
Some of the comments are a reflection that we live in a selfish "me first" world.
There is a final possibility, but you won't like it...
For years, the tobacco companies spent millions and millions of dollars to undermine scientific evidence about the hazards of tobacco smoking. They set up front organizations like the Tobacco Institute and asto-turf organizations like the National Smoker's Alliance. They developed and mastered many of the talking points against regulation of tobacco.
Is it possible that their PR campaigns are still paying off - and that the commentators are still toeing the Burson-Marsteller company line?