Paren. . .

After reviewing my last posts, I think someone ought to ban my use of parentheses.

Just a little pinch. . .

Okay, a couple of folks (one of whom lives in NC in the midst of tobacco fields) were kind enough to point out that chewin' tobaccy has it's own risks (to the user--although frankly, from a purely moral perspective, if you know the risks and choose to assume them. . . .) and places a burden on the healthcare and insurance systems (the secondary, non-physical effect). Agreed. It'd be nice if they'd ban the substance (for recreational use) entirely. But I was thinking about more immediate PHYSICAL effects on non-users. The non-users did not choose to assume the risk. ("Hmm, do I breathe today or not???") Besides, I figure you've got to start small(ish). After all, it's not easy to break a habit that's had centuries to develop.

Virgin Territory

This is my first attempt at blogging. Be patient, please. Rather than a new post, this post is an edited copy of a ranting e-mail I sent out today.

There's front-page article in the LA Times today in which the U.S. Surgeon General is reported to have said second hand smoke is, under all circumstances, BAD. Duh. So why isn't it being regulated??? Most illegal drugs don't have immediate negative physical effects on those people around the consumer of the drug. It seems a no-brainer that if some drug negatively affects non-consumers, shouldn't the drug be, um, off the market? If tobacco smoking were "invented" now, the FDA would be all over it.

@#$*!!! tobacco lobby.

I say ban tobacco smoking! (I can dream, can't I?) And if anyone wants his or her tobacco fix, then let 'em have a chew--a big ole pinch between the cheek and gum, nothin' better. At least then, the only person being harmed is the consumer. And just think what it would do for the spitoon market.