TIME TO END SOCIETY'S SMOKOPHOBIA

It occurred to me last week, as I watched the guilt-ridden huddle of
persecuted untouchables puffing away outside our office, that there's an
urgent need for somebody to discover a smoker's gene.

I mean an inherited quality in the compound of the individual that decrees
from youth onward he or she will be hopelessly addicted to tobacco smoke.

They can't help smoking; it's part of their make-up; they were born that
way. To blame them for smoking would be like blaming them for the color of
their eyes or size of their feet.

The vicious discrimination against them could then be denounced as
intolerance and attributed to the bias and bigotry of health-crazed
generation, clinging to the scientifically-repudiated notion that
second-hand smoke is injurious. It isn't. Then, with a proper education
campaign in the public schools and the firm resolve of the human rights
commissions, this unreasoning prejudice against the helpless smoker could
be eradicated.

Smokers could be invited into the schools to solicit sympathy and support
for their condition, to urge acceptance for students who demonstrate this
inclination, and to explain the beauty and virtue of the smoker's way of
life. Health courses would urge "inclusiveness" for smokers and explain
various smoking techniques -- pipes, cigarettes, cigars -- the economics of
smoking and the need to shun those who demonstrate any sign of smokophobia.

Social studies courses would also be brought into line -- smoking in
Europe, smoking in India, the African smoker and intolerance of the
Christian missions. In the history books, there would be photos of the
little huddles outside offices under headlines that read: "Nicotine Ghettos
in the '90s -- These People Were Made Outcasts Because of a Genetic
Condition."

True, smokers would continue to die of lung cancer, but not in the
disreputable way they die now, when some British doctors have refused to
treat heart patients who smoke because they brought it on themselves.

Instead there would be special hospices for lung cancer victims, mournful
articles on its "ravages," and loud demands from the Nicotine Lobby for
more funding.

Huge concerts would be held where big-name artists lend their names to the
cause and tens of thousands would bow their heads in silent tribute to all
the wonderful people who have died from lung cancer. In the meantime,
other smoking myths would have been laid to rest.

The smoker, for instance, would by then have become the hero of the health
system and the salvation of the federal treasury. It would have been
realized that by dying early he saves the country billions of dollars in
Canada Pension costs.

Neither does he linger about year after year into his late 90s in old
folks' homes and hospitals, draining infinite sums out of the system. He
dies young and fast like a responsible citizen.

Not as responsible a citizen, true enough, as the homosexual who also saves
vast sums for the CPP. His life expectancy is something around 40 and the
chance of his getting HIV is over one in two, where the smoker's chance of
getting lung cancer is only one in 10.

Which raises a question in the mind of writer Mark Steyn. In the April 18
edition of the British magazine, The Spectator, he notes: "What no
government official is prepared to suggest is that gays, like smokers,
ought to try cutting down."

"The risk of cancer from 'passive smoking' is statistically insignificant
by all standard scientific epidemiological methods, but nonetheless
legislatures across America have felt it necessary to exile smokers from
the typing pool and make them enjoy their cigarettes in a pariahs' huddle
on the street outside.

"By contrast, if you're the wife of a bisexual man, the risk of AIDS from
'passive promiscuity' is highly significant, yet no one is suggesting gays
should be made to go and stand outside."

But then of course, nobody has to. Many of them are outside already,
judging by the evidence left in certain parks.

Anyway, let's find that gene and end forever this smokophobia.