Skip to main content

I've been trying to talk myself into quitting smoking. That addiction has gripped me for 53 years. I quit shooting speed one day because, after 16 years, I realized it could kill me. I just quit and never did it again. After 28 years of drinking excessively, I went to an AA meeting and learned I could get sober and stay that way. But there's nothing to be done about smoking. After years of deleterious behavior, I was afraid there might be something wrong. I had a physical, and I turned out to be healthy and functioning correctly. All those years of dissolute living and nothing to show for it. But I can't talk myself into breaking the nicotine addiction since it isn't threatening my health...yet. I've heard heroin addicts say that it's easier to kick heroin than quit smoking. I've tried quitting smoking a few times. I make it to 4 days, then I get crazy irritable. I can't stand being that way, and people around me are at risk, so I start again. The real reason I want to quit is the expense. I'm burning up $6 a day. It's a crime. I could donate that money to DK, the ACLU, PFAW, the Sierra Club, the Humane Society, or any of the many other progressive or humanitarian causes I support. Anyway, thinking about my smoking habit led me to contemplating the anti-smoking campaign of a few years ago. I still marvel at what they accomplished and how successful the movement was. And I wondered why the gun regulation campaign can't be just as successful.

Smoking used to be as much a part of peoples' lives as guns, and I'd bet that when the anti-smoking effort started, there were more smokers than gun owners. When the anti-smoking movement started, I didn't expect it to get very far. I'm not sure but I think it really got rolling when some class-action lawyers down South sued either one cigarette maker or a bunch of them. Whatever. They won the suit and got billions of dollars out of the suit. (There was some controversy later. The lawyers sued on behalf of a state to recoup health care expenses, then failed to live up to their deal. Or something like that.) The point is, the cigarette maker, (I think it was Phillip-Morris), with zillions of dollars on hand to hire lawyers, pay lobbyists and buy elected officials, lost in court. It was totally unexpected, and it stunned the tobacco companies. Not only did it cost them billions of dollars, but they were stopped from advertising and sponsoring events and competitors. They can't claim their product is in any way healthy. Now, they can't label packs as light cigarettes, since they aren't any less of a hazard. I think they had to pay for a massive anti-smoking campaign directed at minors, and laws were enacted making it really illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. Cigarette machines were abolished. And the second-hand smoke issue was introduced. This led to abolishing smoking in almost any public place.
I've always smoked at home, and in someone else's home; I've smoked in restaurants and bars; in the hospital; on planes; working at the Harris Co. sheriff's office, dispatching; in my car; and in jail. When smoking started being abolished, I was certain there would be a limit to their success. I didn't believe they could stop people from smoking in bars. If I was drinking in a bar, I had to smoke. Not any more. (I don't go to bars or drink.) They actually managed to prevent smoking in bars. That left one sure exception. There was no way in hell that smoking could be eliminated from jails and prisons. No f_ing way. Couldn't be done. All those prisoners with all that time on their hands couldn't be cut off. Besides, cigarettes are commerce in prison. They buy drugs and other contraband. They're used to obtain information. They make friends. They can buy a hit, inside or out. There would be riots if the cons were denied cigarettes. And yet...  So I say this: If smoking was curtailed everywhere, especially in prison, then regulating and restricting private ownership of military combat weapons and high capacity clips is not impossible. And forget the 2nd amendment. We've had so many Constitutionally protected rights taken away, this one isn't close to being important.
I know the NRA has managed to impose legislation on us that forbids anyone from suing gun makers when one of their weapons is used to commit mass murder. We need to replace several Senators and Representatives whom the NRA owns, and we need to get a whole bunch of laws passed that make firearm regulations strong and tight. I wish a young, idealistic lawyer would find a way to sue just one of the evil, greedy, heartless gun manufacturers. One successful lawsuit against that industry would be an epic victory.
So what about it? Does anyone else see that there's a good chance of prevailing over the industry whose products are way more deadly and dangerous than cigarettes? It's a public safety issue. It's a health issue. It's a moral issue. The gun makers and the NRA are the villains here. I'm tired of them defiling the Constitution by using it to justify and perpetuate their evil predilections.
I'd quit smoking if it would, in any way, move this effort along. Seriously.  

Originally posted to The AngelicAnarchist on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 03:39 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This industry learned from big tobacco & is (8+ / 0-)

    expanding gun use. That's what happened during the evil RW takeover in the 70s, much like the Powell doctrine. We're a market for gun manufacturers & we are to be exploited. It also helps that there is serious white supremacy at the heart of the precious 2nd amendment. Militias were to be available to put down slave insurrections.  

    Why would would slaves wanna be free?

    America was created for slavery & extermination & "arms" we're very important for each.

    The NRA is evil, need to be stopped.

    Evil in America is winning.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 04:02:11 AM PDT

    •  Comment.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      "It also helps that there is serious white supremacy at the heart of the precious 2nd amendment."

      Very true.

      “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

      by weezilgirl on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:08:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  & they have a message of guns everywhere (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      They have suppressed research. They have co-opted "responsible" gun owners to give then cover.
      Am. Culture was created by violence & guns & is celebrating a birthday not just because of ideals but because guns.

      America is hooked on guns, indeed you're correct many of us have had enough but the media bows to evil big biz & readily loud open/conceal carry aholes. The evil SCOTUS is NOT on our side.

      I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

      by a2nite on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 07:45:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow, you really seem to hate America. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not sure if you live here or not but if you do, you might want to consider going somewhere else for your own sake (no, I'm not telling you to get out.) Maybe try the UK.

        And no, SCOTUS is NOT on your side because your side wants to "repeal or amend the Second Amendment." SCOTUS is supposed to protect ALL of our rights, even the ones that you think are bad (because racism.) And once in a blue moon SCOTUS actually does strengthen our rights as evidenced by the Heller decision.

        Now, before you call me the love child of Hitler and Jefferson Davis for disagreeing with you, please allow me to mention that even as one of those "evil" white male gun owners, few things piss me off more than racist cops oppressing minorities for exercising their Second Amendment rights. I think that the Second Amendment should apply equally to every sane, law abiding individual. Yes, background checks are a great way do determine who is sane and law abiding.

        Racism is not the heart of our RKBA. There are plenty of non bigoted individuals who are staunch defenders of gun rights. And look at the anti gun side too. Michael Bloomberg is a radical gun control proponent who has largely nullified the privacy rights of minorities with his "stop and frisk" policies. I triple dog dare you to tell me that he is NOT a racist authoritarian. And don't try to tell me that Bloomberg is just one bad apple. Other gun control activists listen to this guy, he's influential and he has $27 BILLION. I'm not saying that all or even most gun control supporters are racist, but a lot of "progressive" anti gun groups seem to look the other way on Bloomberg's racist policies when he starts handing out metric tons of money to support their cause.

        •  I want America to be better; guns everywhere is (0+ / 0-)

          not better. It's worse. It's a menace.

          There are a lot of Americans I hate because they can't be fixed, but America can be better.

          I'm not going anywhere because I'm poor like everyone else. So my goal is to make America better.

          I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

          by a2nite on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the number of gun owners is shrinking (0+ / 0-)

      but those who remain are buying more and more guns each.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:55:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  480,000 smoking deaths per year - 32,000 for guns (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot, Angryallen, VClib

    So.. there goes your argument of guns being "way more deadly than cigarettes".  Not even close...

    There is no redeeming value to cigarettes.  However, there can be argued there is some utilitarian aspects of having a gun.

    A person smoking in a restaurant offends potentially the entire restaurant full of people.  A person with concealed carry affects no one.

    You have a good idea, but I think there is much less public outrage against gun ownership than there was regarding public smoking.

    My opinion:  guns are here to stay.. there's way too many of them.  So, start a campaign of gun safety.. smart storage.. proper handling..   etc..

    •  "The surgeon general has determined..." (8+ / 0-)

      The NRA has been far more successful at politicking, to date, than the tobacco companies ever were.

      In particular, the first step in the war on cigarettes was the long series of scientific studies on the effects of smoking on health. The industry sponsored tons of bad science (real bad studies, not just propaganda) and kept the scientific conclusions up in the air for decades - but eventually the scientific method prevailed. And then the Surgeon General was able to make his findings, and we got the warnings on the packs. Sanity advanced inch by inch from there.

      The NRA has succeeded in making it illegal for the government to finance any studies on the health effects of guns. They learned from tobacco, how to prevent the first step down the slippery slope to sanity.

      We're also up against the cultural fact that no one ever actually thought of cigarette smoking as virtuous. The conservative religious tradition, bound up with the same parts of the culture that now embrace guns, had always decried smoking as something sinful. Except among very small pacifist religions, there is no such populist image of shooting as a sinful thing - and even Quakers and Mennonites have kept guns around as useful tools to deal with varmints.  (Whence the old saw about the Quaker householder and the burglar: "Friend, I would not harm thee for the world, but thee standest where I am about to shoot.")

      We need to get to that first step, I think. We need to get the public aware of, and incensed over, the blockade the NRA has imposed on research. Expose it for what it is: censorship and cowardice.

      The real USA Patriot Act was written in 1789. It's called the Bill of Rights.

      by nicteis on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:28:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Research? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        research what?  You point a gun at someone and pull a trigger - intentional or not- it puts a hole in that person.

        It took decades to link cause and effect with cigarette smoking.  I don't believe anyone contests the facts of bullets and injury/death.

        •  There's plenty to do (5+ / 0-)

          And much of it has been done, but the results are (of course) contested. As with cigarettes, it's largely a statistical game.

          For cigarettes, the goal is ultimately to eliminate smoking. For guns, the goal is and has to be more subtle, since none of us wants to ban guns altogether.  

          You research the statistics of how owning a gun affects your chances of stopping a crime, as opposed to causing a death or injury. You research the statistics on the effects of various regulations, different types of guns. Are former felons more likely to be involved in a gun death? Does that still hold for non-violent felonies? Are there mental illnesses that are just plain irrelevant to the risks?

          And since I've noticed that you always like to have the last word, I believe I'll just leave it there.

          The real USA Patriot Act was written in 1789. It's called the Bill of Rights.

          by nicteis on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:56:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See my reply below.. (0+ / 0-)

            yes.. I think a subtle, non-negative approach to gun safety ads that pushes the fact that gun ownership is inherently dangerous is the best way to go at this point in time.

            I think targeting women and households is also the direction to go.

      •  Yes, cigarette smoking was virtuous. You have to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        i saw an old tree today

        be very careful watching film noir while trying to quit smoking. It makes cigarettes cool as John Wayne makes guns cool.

        There is a special relationship between gun owners and guns. They are increasingly being seen as a lawless bunch. They used to be the faceless responsible gun owner.  Now they are marching around in groups taking public land for cows, making us like and appreciate them in stores and restaurants, going to DC to stop the government, and keeping the peace with a bullet when someone annoys them.

        Child forgotten in car? -- Use open source E-Z Baby Saver -- Andrew Pelham, 11yo inventor E-Z Baby Saver

        by 88kathy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 07:48:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You have a choice with smoking. (6+ / 0-)

      What choice does a 3 year old have when his 6 year old brother decides to play with the gun dad left out and loaded?

      Or dad "cleans the unloaded" gun. Or a man says "it usually don't work" when he picks up a gun by the trigger and accidentally shoots someone.

      A death from smoking is awful  but a death of someone by gun is worse. The only time it is truly intended is with suicide. Otherwise a gun is a chosen weapon of death of another person, or persons. Period.

      Don't try blowing smoke up my skirt with target shooting and hunting. That has nothing to do with my statements.

      “Listen--are you breathing just a little, and calling it a life?” ― Mary Oliver

      by weezilgirl on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:13:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Indeed - PSAs to make the truth known (3+ / 0-)

      The gun industry advertises that having a gun protects you and your home.  This is the great sales pitch for guns.

      But it is not true.  Having a gun in the home increases the risk for a gunshot injury two-fold for everyone in the home, compared to people who live in a home where there is no gun.  For women who live in a home where there is a gun, there is a three-fold increase in the risk of getting shot compared to women who live in a home where there is no gun (because men common use their guns to beat up and threaten their girlfriends and spouses).  These are the facts about guns, and the facts directly contradict the claptrap about guns making one safer.

      We need a public service campaign to tell the public the truth about the risks and dangers of gun use - to counter the advertising slogans of the gun industry.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:30:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes.. I know the facts.. (0+ / 0-)

        more guns = more deaths injuries by guns.

        That, however, is not a strong enough reason for people to go along with banning guns - which is the only guarantee of zero gun violence.

        Personally, I think these statistics can really only be useful in educating the public.  Public service pieces emphasizing how unsafe gun ownership is along with best practices for gun handling and storage would go a long way to wake up people.  Some households will willingly give up their guns in the face of these facts.  Some won't - buy may institute safer practices.

        Mean-spirited anti-gun campaigns depicting gun owners as neanderthals (many are!) does nothing to move the public sentiment along.

        •  Notice that cigarettes have not been banned (3+ / 0-)

          I am not interested in banning guns.  

          I point out that cigarettes have never been banned, tho' cigarettes are clearly harmful to health.  Instead, a massive public service campaign was made to let the public know about the dangers of cigarette use.  And the government made some sensible restrictions on where one could smoke, as well as increased the tax on cigarette sales.  The result was that the public decided for themselves that the risks and costs are not worth the "enjoyment" of cigarettes.

          I suggest a similar course of action where guns are concern: a public service campaign to let consumers know abut the very real risks of owning and using a gun, sensible restrictions on gun sales and use, and increased taxes on guns and ammo to help defray the public expense of healthcare for shooting injuries.

          I hope in this way that the public will come to see guns as the hazardous, expensive consumer goods they are, instead of pretending guns are some sort of talisman of manliness, freedom, or protection.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 12:15:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Too late (0+ / 0-)

      The NRA was founded in large part as a gun safety organization, and has extensive training programs.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 01:57:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes - You Can Quit!!! (6+ / 0-)

    Absolutely you can quit.  I know you can quit because I was able to quit.  And my smoking habit was worse than yours.

    I applied the tools of AA to my smoking habit.  I told myself that I was not quitting forever (that was too difficult, and I knew I would fail), I was only going to not smoke for this one day.  (Actually, a 24 hour day was too long for me, so I told myself that I was not smoking for the next hour).  Every time I wanted a cigarette (which was always), I told myself that I could have that cigarette, but I was going to wait one hour before I smoked it.

    Not smoking one hour at a time, I have been cigarette free for 13 years, and I have no urges to smoke today - none whatsoever.

    I got irritable, I got depressed, and I satisfied my oral urges by eating a lot of candy, so I gained weight.  But most importantly, I got free of cigarettes, and my mood improved, and I lost (some of) the weight.

    You Can Quit.  That thought that tells you you can't quit is your addiction speaking, and it is powerful - but it is not truthful.  You Can Quit.  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 05:39:33 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, yeah. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hugh Jim Bissell, Angryallen

      You can quit cigarettes just like diarist quit speed: become convinced that it will kill you.  No, not "someday," soon.

      That's why they are so hard to quit: you have to be really sick to believe that the likely cause of death will be tobacco use.

      "...we live in the best most expensive third world country." "If only the NEA could figure out all they have to do is define the ignorance of the next generation as a WMD..." ---Stolen from posts on Daily Kos

      by jestbill on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:01:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I quit when they raised the tax (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angryallen, codairem, JamieG from Md

        I was motivated to quit when the state again raised the taxes on cigarettes.  I looked at my pack of cigarettes, and I thought "this stuff is hurting me, and now I have to pay more for it - time to quit"

        But I was healthy at the time.  I just didn't want to pay more to the uncaring corporation that was profiting from making me sick.

        I wish our law-makers would add increased taxes for guns and ammo.  After all, we tax-payers have to pay for the health care costs of people getting shot (an estimated $2.5 billion/year back in 1996), so it makes sense to tax guns and ammo to help the tax-payer recoup that financial loss.  And if the higher prices encourage some gun consumers to take up other hobbies, that's a good thing.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:21:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I quit (0+ / 0-)

      I don't want to out myself here, because of past statements about my profession, so I won't say at what early age I had a heart attack. In fact, when I wound up in the operating for my 5 stents, they told me I had had a previous heart attack, too. I stayed in cardiac intensive care for 2 weeks and walked out of there as a non smoker. I spent my daughters 3rd birthday in that hospital just begging God to let me live long enough to see my daughter have her Bat Mitzvah. Now that that took place recently, I've been trying to renegotiate those terms so I can stick around long enough to walk her down the aisle :-)

      You can do it!!!  By the time your health is affected, it'll probably be too late.  You don't want to be that guy/gal who said "I shoulda, coulda, woulda"!!!!!!  

  •  Really want to quit? (4+ / 0-)

    Tell yourself you deserve to be an ex-smoker. Tell yourself every day. Keep doing it. Let it sink in. If you have worked the program you should be able to tell when you are kidding yourself. Keep telling yourself you deserve to be an ex-smoker until you are no longer kidding yourself. Then quit.

  •  Cigarettes vs. Guns (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, VClib

    You have raised an interesting idea: we fought the battle against big nicotine, so why not the battle against the big un industry?

    The tobacco industry and the gun industry share many traits and are also very different in important ways.  Both industries make money by selling a product that is dangerous to the public and causes injury and death.  And both the tobacco industry and the gun industry receive substantial subsidies from the US government.

    An important difference is that the deadly power of a gun is one of the selling points: the gun industry openly advertises their products as deadly, and gun consumers like and want a gun that is more deadly.  The cigarette industry however, wanted to hide the deadly nature of their product from the public: they knew the public would not want cigarettes to make them ill.

    But the secrets of the tobacco industry came to light in a lawsuit: documents showed that the tobacco industry knew their product caused illness and hid that fact from the public (while telling the public the product was safe).  Additionally, disclosed documents revealed the tobacco industry knew their product was addictive and manipulated the contents of the product to make it more addictive.

    These two revelations really sunk the tobacco industry: the tobacco industry lost many lawsuits, were forced to make huge pay-outs to states for re-imbursement of the health care costs associated with addictive smoking.  Worse still, the government passed a number of laws regulating cigarette sales and advertising, and increased taxes on tobacco products.  The government also ramped up public service notices on the health consequences of tobacco use.  the public went from thinking cigarettes were cool to thinking cigarettes were stupid, and sales fell of sharply.

    Could something similar happen with guns? That's unlikely.  First off, everyone knows guns are deadly - that is openly advertised as a major selling point of guns.  So there will be no revealing documents about the gun industry deceiving the public about the health risks of guns.  Secondly, the gun industry (probably after watching what happened to the tobacco industry) asked congress and received a law greatly limiting lawsuits that could be brought against the gun industry for making a deadly consumer product (the 2005 PLCAA, signed by GW Bush).  Thirdly, we could ask the government to make a lot of public service notices about the health risks of guns to warn the public and suggest that people avoid using guns.  But sadly, the gun industry is vastly more influential in Washington than we the people, and the gun industry doesn't want any such public campaign about the dangers of guns.  What we get instead is lots of new laws making it easer and quicker to buy or sell guns, and lots of new laws reducing limits on where you can bring your guns and reducing the penalties for using a gun.

    One of the interesting similarities between guns and cigarettes is that both have a "second-hand effect".  It urns out smoking cigarettes is not only bad for you, but also bad for everyone around you not smoking.  In the same way, guns are injurious to the person that owns and uses a gun, and is also injurious to everyone nearby.

    In my opinion, a public service campaign to warn people about the dangers and risks of guns and gun use is a good idea.  We should be countering the advertising slogans of the gun industry (having a gun protects you) with the reality - having a gun puts you and everyone around you at greater risk for injury.  

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:14:08 AM PDT

  •  ALLCAPSALYPSE! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nicteis, i saw an old tree today

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 06:33:01 AM PDT

  •  People that smoke, hell people that love cigare... (0+ / 0-)

    People that smoke, hell people that love cigarettes know the damm things are bad for you. Long before the industry admitted it everyone knew theymade you less healthy. Most smokers would like to quit. So everyone is open to new ideas and programs makeing smoking less popular. No smoker wants their kids to smoke.

    Guns are completely different. Gun owners do not want to be former gun owners. They take their kids to the range at a young age and teach them to shoot. A public campaign like and anti smoking campaign on guns would just cost whatever politician that started it their job as well as the job of anyone that the gun owners could find a picture of him or her shaking hands with.

    •  The Myth vs. The Reality (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i saw an old tree today

      The myth is that guns are fun.

      The reality is that guns in the home increase the risk of a shooting injury for everyone who lives and visits that home.

      I have no interest in taking your guns away. You should decide for yourself what risky behaviors you want to do.

      But I do want that you and all gun consumers be fully aware of what those risks are.  Yes, it may be fun to take your kids to the range, and it will not be fun at all to see your kid get injured.  The honest reality is that your owning a gun puts you and your family at risk of getting shot.  This risk is lowered by safe storage of your gun, but the risk is not eliminated entirely.

      Now that you know the risks, the choice is yours.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 11:34:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rampant Gun Violence Is More Like Drunk Driving (3+ / 0-)

    deaths and I think the better analogy is the Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaign.

    MADD didn't demand the prohibition of alcohol or cars but they created a social awareness of the dangers of driving drunk and its consequences that embarrassed and deterred many. They also worked the state and local capitols for laws strengthening penalties for DUIs. With insurers and other corporations finally aware of the toll drunk driving was taking and costing them, their campaign went "viral."

    MADD was the inspiration for Shannon Watts' Moms Demand Action group that's already worked over Chipotle and Target while drawing a campaign of threats and harassment from the ammosexuals.

    Ever since the Sandy Hook massacre, a small but vocal faction of the gun rights movement has been targeting women who speak up on the issue - whether to propose tighter regulations, educate about the dangers to children, or simply to sell guns with innovative security features. The vicious and often sexually degrading attacks have evolved far beyond online trolling, culminating in severe bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, and physical aggression. Though vitriol flows from both sides in the gun debate, these menacing tactics have begun to alarm even some entrenched pro-gun conservatives.
  •  A cigarette is a drug you use for a myriad of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    i saw an old tree today

    situations by carefully controlling the dosage. You learned how to smoke so well you don't even know you are controlling your dosage. To wake up, to calm down, to fight pain, to celebrate, to reward, to get time to think, to take a break, to break boredom, -- it is the perfect working drug.

    Guns are being shown to have those off label uses for some of the more visible gun owners so your analogy is pretty good. Smoking used to be everywhere. People didn't even smell it. Now it stinks and everyone complains loudly.

    I do expect guns to go through the same death spiral as cigaretts. Except guns are not addictive and it will be faster for guns.

    Child forgotten in car? -- Use open source E-Z Baby Saver -- Andrew Pelham, 11yo inventor E-Z Baby Saver

    by 88kathy on Fri Jul 04, 2014 at 08:06:44 AM PDT

  •  I'd quit smoking if it would, in any way move this (0+ / 0-)

    effort along... the diarist said.

    Um, just quit.
    It has nothing to do with world peace, the war in Iraq or the next blockbuster movie this summer.

    Your statement is absurdly reductionist and logically false to be taken seriously, and while you're heart may be in the right place, the many diaries here on the matter of guns (and another set on smoking), conflating them is silly. I mean like embarrassingly silly.

    Thanks, I do mean that, I think your heart's in the right place. And I do mean it, quit for your sake. Good luck.

  •  I don't have any specific advice for you (0+ / 0-)

    on giving up smoking. I never smoked, and have no experience with that particular craving. But I have some general advice. Talk to people who have done it, and check out the wide variety of methods they have used. Also look into the GUS Diaries here on dKos, which are of course about Giving Up Smoking.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Sat Jul 05, 2014 at 02:05:46 AM PDT

  •  Yes, the government has violated our other (0+ / 0-)

    constitutional rights, so that makes it okay to violate even more constitutional rights! Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. You don't get to decide which of our constitutional rights are important or not. I wish you well in your struggle to quit smoking, but I disagree with your claims that smoking and guns are similar. As I'm sure you know, smoking is a crippling, carcinogenic addiction that kills hundreds of thousands of people per year. Guns on the other hand do not sap your health just by being near them, and most gun owners are smart enough to keep their weapons secure. Your claim that guns are more dangerous than smoking is dubious to put it lightly. 443,000 Americans die each year from smoking tobacco while the number of American gun death per year is in the 20-30K range So please, ditch your cigs and pick up a Sig Sauer instead! Statistically speaking, you are much more likely to live a long healthy life if you do so. Guns don't give you cancer, ammo can be expensive but it's probably a hell of a cheaper than a pack per day- to say nothing of chemotherapy costs, and you can't defend yourself or your family against a raving madman if you're armed only with a cigarette (unless said raving madman is soaked in gasoline.)

    A smoking gun in your hand is safer than a smoking cigarette in your mouth.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site