EYE, THIS POST MAY irritates severely non-smokers. NOT A CASE 'WAS WRITTEN BY MY GOAL' DARK, smoking convinced. of Laura & Lory I was born in the 60s, when the cigarette was a status symbol, a clear sign of emancipation for women and macho for men. He was smoking everywhere in public, in meeting places, cinemas, buses and even in hospitals. There was no respect for non-smokers, studies of active and passive smoking were to come and, even worse, there was even compared to the health of children. The blondes were celebrated in the newspapers, advertisements, movies .... who among us can forget the great Bogart?
The 70's brought to the fore another type of smoke, the hippies at Woodstock immortalized it passed with guns as easily as children, had turned the bottle of Coca Cola. In the 80
something began to move, they began to talk about the damage that smoking causes, its close link with the onset of lung cancer and vascular diseases. Timidly went to the house to the fore the first contest, the proposed restrictions, no more smoking on public transport (but you could smoke on planes and trains), hospitals (except in the waiting rooms) and in some public office.
With 90 years came the realization that he went behind the first and prohibitions, as a sort of side effect, the two crusaders in the fight against smoking, and Veronesi Sirchia. Illuminated by two ministers to the smoke-free laws in the new millennium the pace was quick
... But this is history that belongs to the past, most recently last limitation we imposed on smokers in quell'isoletta fishing that is dear old England: the ban on smoking in your car. Of course the ban is part of a broader campaign for road safety but, as usual, is part of the discussion on land is much broader than that of personal freedom. That's right, my dear health-conscious, why is not it a coincidence that one of the worst enemies of a cigarette that was Adolf Hitler (his anti-smoking campaign was intended to preserve the health of the Aryan race) from all of us known as the greatest defender of human rights ... is not it?!?
am a smoker and I said yes to the anti-smoking law, it was unthinkable to entrust such a delicate matter of common sense people, Italians, you know, the threats they need to behave like good children. But now we're really exaggerating! Although it is true that it is dangerous to drive with a cigarette between your fingers is just as dangerous to remove his hand from the steering wheel to place it on the thigh of your girl, it's dangerous to take off that annoying snots that will obstruct the nostril as a truck sideways in the Frejus tunnel, it is dangerous to blow your nose, scratch my ass, check the hairstyle mirror, listen to the stereo, talking on the phone with the headset though, it is dangerous even to think about your caxxi! Yes, because any distractions in the car can cost you your life, not just the fumarti a cigarette.
We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel ... to reach this step to ban smoking in our house (in the U.S. there are apartment buildings banned smoking)! Not just put them in front of the specter of cancer, not just ghettoized off the premises, the subject of the gaze of those accusers have maintained the purity of their lungs (poor deluded ...), not enough smaronarci with television specials and public service announcements, the biggest joke is sell our beloved 20 enemies / friends in a package that is a hymn to the entreaties, strictly designer State Monopoly! Yes, because in spite of all legislation passed and to be launched, is the state to ensure that we may never our daily dose of poison, is the state to make money on our health. And then, let's face it, that brought her is a smart package that is neither in heaven nor on earth, good only for the jokes on us ... (the one you know of someone who enters a tobacco, cigarettes and takes on the package reads: smoking causes impotence. Then back on his feet and asks shyly at the tobacconist: I could have those with cancer, please?)
Smoking is a vice condemned (I agree!), you should stop smoking (condivido!), you must protect others from our smoke (well said!), but I would add, not even the case to let each of us decides to death that he wants to die?
No, I'm responding, because the smoker who is ill with lung cancer is a cost to public health. No more alcoholic who becomes ill with cirrhosis of the liver, I answer, no more obese you do an overdose of cannoli, but nobody came up with a law prohibiting the selling of alcohol or prohibit people with diabetes, to enter the colesteroglicemici pastry. Perhaps of stroke or diabetic coma and is allowed to die of emphysema is not it?
What we're really pulping bales, non-smoking loved ones, not so much the laws which, I repeat, when for the Protection of non-smokers are valid, what we are drilling the brown is the invasion of our free will, is constantly being singled out, being constantly called into question. In essence, the smoke is a choice, not shared, but voluntary. It possible that a poor man can not smoke a cigarette in peace without someone feels the need to give him the moral?!
I once read on a lighter: smoking takes away the pain in the ass ... now, alas, even this is no longer true!
Disclaimer: This story is the intellectual property of the author. Although not covered by copyright, is the fruit of his genius.
