From: ??????????????
Subject: Scientific American

Dear Steve,

I am a faithful reader [and occasional poster] to this list, and in fact my
last post concerned the production of Burley tobacco in my home state,
Kentucky.  I have commented in past posts how much I appreciate your efforts
in maintaining this list, and how much I have enjoyed [and continue to enjoy]
it.

I live in a state that derives considerable income from the production of
cigarettes, and am also a partner in a law firm that regularly represents
tobacco companies.  However, even I cannot ignore the vast evidence showing
the devastating effects of cigarette smoking on the world population.  Many
of these facts and statistics were reported in the Scientific American
article that precipitated your cancellation of your subscription to that
publication.

I am a moderate to light pipe and cigar [primarily cigar] smoker, and believe
that there is little or no adverse health effects from the moderate use of
tobacco in these forms.  However, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and
make believe that all forms of the use of tobacco are equally inocuous.  In
reading the last digest, at least two posters that I recall stated that their
use of pipes and/or cigars had reduced or eliminated their consumption of
cigarettes.  I think this is laudable.

And, despite its searing attack on the cigarette industry, the Scientific
American article does not condemn the moderate smoking of pipes and cigars.
 In fact, one of the opening paragraphs of the article states:

     "Although tobacco use was relatively common in [the nineteenth] century,
it did not produce the widespread illnesses it does today. Individuals of the
time consumed only small amounts, mostly in the form of pipe tobacco, cigars,
chewing tobacco or snuff. Cigarette smoking was rare." 

I find no fault with this statement, nor with the conclusions of the
remainder of the article.  

Yes, I enjoy my pipes and cigars. And, yes, I would like to smoke
occasionally in a public place, an act that has largely been denied me
because of our society's desire to curtail cigarette smoking.  But do I want
to pay [either through taxes or the increased cost of MY health insurance]
for the diseases caused by the overuse of cigarettes??? No.  

And, more importantly, do I want to encourage a practice [particularly in
third world countries] that will both become an expensive addiction to people
who can ill afford it, and ultimately cause the premature illnesses and
deaths of many of these people??? Again, no. 

I once heard a minister give a sermon on the difference between things that
are to be "used," as in used for a particular purpose, and things that are to
be "enjoyed."  He gave wine as an example of something to be enjoyed.
 Obviously, if wine is "used" as a drug, as a crutch to get someone through
the day, severe problems will occur.  I think tobacco is in the same
category.  If enjoyed, in moderation, it can be wonderful.  If "used," as
many people use cigarettes as a drug to get them through their days, the
result will be equally disastrous.

Steve, keep up the good work.  This is not a "flame," or a personal attack; I
just wanted to share my views.  And I hope you won't cancel your subscription
to Scientific American. Though, with it on America Online . . . . I find no
need to buy paper issues of it anymore!!!

Peace,

Bob

[ Bob, I agree with your points. But what, exactly, did the
Sci. Am. article say should be done? Was there in it a hint of
tolerance? -S. ]


~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U ~\U