Anti-smoking hypocrisy

You see it on television, and hear it on the radio frequently. You read it in print or online just about everywhere.

Don’t smoke. Smoking kills.

The anti-smoking crusade, which started back in the seventies and picked up steam in the eighties, has succeeded in getting Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man removed completely from the media. Tobacco is the first thing to get taxed whenever government needs more revenue. And states have passed laws banning tobacco use in public and private spaces.

In some states, there aren’t even smoking sections of restaurants anymore. These places have now become smoke free.

Don’t get me wrong: I am happy not to breathe in the tar and smoke from tobacco products. Quite frankly, it makes me nauseous, and I physically am unable to tolerate exposure to much of it.

However, where I take exception to the attack on tobacco products and those who use them is in the hypocrisy of those doing the attacking.

Popular culture has proudly taken up the anti-smoking banner. Its most outspoken voices verbosely proclaim the evils of smoking before puffing on their expensive imported cigars in private. They get high on marijuana and other illicit drugs after decrying the health risks posed by tobacco. And they drink till they drop at every fundraiser or party serving spirits; all the while bad-mouthing big tobacco.

Popular culturists say it isn’t right to let Joe Camel promote his product to children with the innocence of a cartoon character. But they say nothing about the cutesy Clydesdale foals and Dalmatian puppies that a certain beer company uses to create a softer, gentler and more innocent image of alcohol products.

No one said a thing when this same company employed the adorable antics of a Bull Terrier named Spuds to sell its product to people who liked cute, fuzzy and cuddly. Funny thing, that sort of image tends to appeal to children as much as cartoon characters do.

Furthermore, nobody says anything about the way beer and liquor commercials try to sell their products as “fun” and “exciting” to those demographics favoring the party life: namely college-age individuals, many of whom haven’t quite reached the age of 21 yet.

Don’t we think that beer and liquor commercials, which convey a message that a party isn’t fun unless there is alcohol involved, may appeal to under-aged consumers, too?

Where is the outrage over the messages that alcohol producers send in their advertisements?

Alcohol is just as deadly as tobacco, and its negative effects are even more widespread.

The anti-smoking crusaders like to point to second-hand smoke as a reason for totally banning tobacco products. But what about alcohol? How many people in a family become physically, mentally and emotionally harmed by a person who has bought—hook, line and sinker—the messages that alcohol products are fun, relaxing and a “vacation in a bottle,” then take out their frustrations on their loved ones? How widespread can the effects of alcohol use become if a person chooses to drink, get behind the wheel of a car, and drive? How far-reaching do you suppose alcohol use becomes for children born to women who consumed alcohol during pregnancy?

How many people can get hurt, and how many lives damaged, from alcohol versus tobacco use?

But, for some strange reason, alcohol is not treated with the same disdain that tobacco is.

Anti-smoking crusaders will condemn even one puff from a cigarette as heresy, but then retire after work to the neighborhood pub to enjoy a nip or two.

Our culture seems to have no qualms about condemning smokers and the products they use; but it is somehow reticent and reluctant to be the same way about alcohol and its users.

Even the push to legalize marijuana across the country has garnered not even a hush or whisper of protest from the anti-smoking crusaders. Here we have an entire culture ready to flush smoking down the toilet, but welcome pot use into the folds of popular recreational use right alongside alcohol.

My question is, why?

What’s with the hypocrisy? If someone out there could give me a cogent, rational reason why, then perhaps I can have more respect for the anti-smoking movement. As it is, though, the anti-smoking culture appears to cherry-pick the vices it finds offensive, while leaving others alone to flourish and thrive.

Until the hypocrisy is explained and addressed, I cannot support the anti-smoking crusade. It requires more than just science to back it up. It needs integrity, too.