A Comparison of John Locke’s and Edmund Burke’s influence in the creation of America

  It is a common misunderstanding that everybody in colonial America was a die hard revolutionary.  Our current ideals and our notion of the enlightenment have gotten in the way of a true assessment of what the real mindset was during the late 18^th century.  Just like today it was a full of division and everybody had their own perspective on the issue.  Since the Enlightenment there were always equally strong powers of thought at odds with each other.  By the time of the American Revolution not everybody on American soil was against the crown and not everybody in Britain was a royalist.  Two thinkers (though they were not in the same periods) during this time, who were not necessarily polar opposites, but certain contenders were John Locke and Edmund Burke.  They would not have hated each other, but they did differ greatly in ideas and solutions.  What made them different?  Who was more influential?  What long terms affects did they have?  John Locke was a rights of man advocate, a devoted enlightenment thinker and a huge influence on modern liberalism and libertarians.  Edmund Burke was a conservative whig and an enemy of the French Revolution.  They both shared various thoughts but arrived at severely different conclusions.  The question: What were these men in relation to their times, the American Revolution and how are we affected by them today?

            John Locke was born August 29, 1632 and began attending Christ Church College in Oxford in 1652.  During this time Cromwell was Chancellor; this was a time of great tension and political thoughts piercing every young man’s mind.  While at Oxford Locke became more intrigued with political questions.  He attacked the subjects like the social constitution, separation of church and state and religious toleration; this of course was a huge topic post reformation.  Locke would later be accidentally pulled into the political world by accident through a friendship with Lord Ashley.  By 1672 he obtained the title of “secretary of presentations” all of this coming down to a perfect storm of powers, ideology and ambitions.  Edmund Burke came much later in history and may be described as more intellectually reserved.  Burke was born January 12, 1729 which would make him just in time to be an adult for the revolutionary war.  He received his education at Trinity College, Dublin and then to Middle Temple, London to study for the Bar.  But he didn’t see a career in law as all that attractive so he found himself in Parliament.  By this time he already wrote some of his popular pieces such as A Vindication of Natural Society and An Abridgement of English History.  He became well known for his many speeches in Parliament which he would later publish.  And so these two men would prove themselves and backgrounds to their contemporaries, governments, Kings, and future readers to decide who it was that argued or pandered better to our personal interests.  John Locke as the enlightened scientist of human nature or Edmund Burke as the level headed historian and political theorist.  The comparison will only tell.

            John Locke lived for the bulk of the 17^th century where in he lived to see many failed attempts at colonization in the Americas.  So he was given a lot material to argue against and to form his own ideas.  He also came into a world where the enlightenment was winning the hearts and minds of common folk everywhere.  Usually, when we think of enlightenment thinkers we go straight to Rousseau or Voltaire, but what often goes unnoticed is that these men venerated Locke.  They went as far to say that Locke was the “greatest of all philosophers since Plato”.  Though we cannot be sure of his influence, because correlation does not imply causality, it is reasonable to believe that Locke paved the way for his foreign successors.  Then again it is said by Howard R. Penniman in his introduction to some of Locke’s writings that “His name would have been relegated to the footnotes of English history books if his fame had depended merely upon his varied activities in politics and science” (Penniman 5).  Who were his opponents?  It is easily imagined those who were in positions of power, found Locke detestable.  Cardinal Newman in his presentation On the Idea of a University attacked Locke.  Newman proposed a more classical design for the education system while Locke was a believer in modern schools.  But what was His relation towards America?  Interestingly, he was not hugely involved with American affairs.  There are only two businesses that may be pointed out.  First, he was an investor in the slave trade with the Royal African Company; this is a fact that has made his present day followers uneasy.  Second, he was a contributor in drafting up Carolina’s Constitution which puts another black mark on his resume, because he gave absolute power to slave owners over their slaves.  Locke has been accused of hypocrisy, but one must consider the conditions.  Slavery was the game of the day and his theories on toleration were not developed for everyone, but for natural citizens being white males.  He would not have been embarrassed by this contradiction, because he was not arguing the same conditions that modern day thinkers do.  Locke minded the enslavement of English citizens, but he had no problem with enslaving anybody else.

            Burke, of course, was just in time for the American Revolution.  The world that he grew up in was a magnificent one.  England had been dominating the surrounding inhabitants whether it was the Indians or the French.  The prosperity was great and the influence was lasting, but this later became a criticism that the royalists would have against the revolutionaries.  Burke during this time refined his ideas in England and as mentioned before, got a reputation as a clear and rational thinker.  The prosperous age he lived in could be credited as what got him thinking in different terms from Locke.  Burke did not posture that he knew the metaphysics of man, nor did he claim that they had any rights.  Rather he would say the opposite that man is not born with any inherent rights.  He was not met with much opposition other than difficulties with King George III.  It would be him and William Pitt that would support the repeal of the Stamp Act that greatly ruffled the feathers of the American colonists.

            Mere definition can help tell of the differences between Locke’s and Burke’s life experiences.  Locke was an ideologue, hence we get the term “Lockian”.  Burke was a simple statesman philosopher.  The difference in influence is clear: Locke had a much easier time.  All that Locke had to do was feed a problem through the enlightenment equation and that would provide him a solution.  He gained popularity because he agreed with the tide of the times.  He says in A Letter Concerning Toleration, “The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.  Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body . . .” (Locke 25).  These things became very important to the proletariat, very likely on the inspiration of Locke.  Burke had a tougher audience.  Just before the American Revolution there was plenty of pride to be English and a member of the British Empire.  Some of this hung on during the war creating a divide of royalists, rebels and neutrals.  Burke being well bred and quite wealthy wouldn’t want to wage too harshly against the governing officials.  In his speech titled Conciliation with the Colonies he is constantly referring to how we ought to govern the colonies.  He says, “In this state of things, I make no difficulty in affirming that the proposal ought to originate from us” (Burke 10).  Soon after he gives two leading questions saying, “First, whether you ought to concede; secondly, what your concession ought to be” (Burke 10). All this is being said to Parliament, and not to American rebels.  But the biggest proof for Burke’s non-ideologue nature is in this quote: “We must govern America according to that nature and to those circumstances, and not according to our own imaginations, nor according to abstract ideas of right – by no means according to mere general theories of government” (Burke 11).  Burke is very Pauline in thought and in tone here imploring the decision makers to be rational in the specific circumstance.  Sadly, his influence was not significant enough when the British government went against his warnings that “the use of force alone is but temporary” and “a nation is not governed which is perpetually to be conquered” (Burke 23).  Burke’s overall desire was to make Britain a “true friend” of America.  F. P. Lock points this out in his biography of Edmund Burke saying “This is what Burke meant by being a ‘true friend’ of America.  ‘Misunderstandings and heats’ had arisen, in his view, because on neither side of the Atlantic had sufficient heed been paid to the opinions of ‘temperate men’” (Lock 350).  Burke knew the difficulty of his position which is why he did not want to be identified as part of the Rockingham Party; they were the temperate men.  F. P. Lock points out that “Burkes querulousness was aggravated by anxiety about his own position . . . . for he wanted, if possible, to maintain his independence” (Lock 369)

            Locke’s mindset was much more adopted by the rebels than any other.  The inherent rights of man were bouncing around the minds of all fighters who felt suppressed as.  In The Second Treatise on Civil Government he explicitly suggests at the start that rulers do have a right to their citizens.  He says, “Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended” (Locke 75).  This suggestion gives a metaphysical argument for rebellion and revolution; Locke attempts to put to rest the concept of Divine right of Kings.  Even though the idea of a monarchy was wholly repugnant to the Americans, but their decision to have a presidency was definitely based on the difficulty to have checks and balances on kings.  John Locke only heightened the concern by pointing out how easily it would be for a king to think he had a God given position.  Locke was clearly more referenced in the continental congresses.  Some parts of Locke were directly copied into the Declaration of Independence, using the exact phraseology of the Second Treatise (Penniman 9).  Thomas Jefferson was an avid reader of Locke.  Jefferson used what was originally termed as certain unalienable rights invented by Locke; these were Life, Liberty and Property which Jefferson changed to the pursuit of happiness.  In all reality, America was built on Locke’s principles.  Burke, for all of his supplications to the Parliament, could not break through to the American mind set and he was there in the thick of it.  He suggested all kinds of ways for the British to get along with the colonists, but it went against the Scots-Irish mentality to fight to get your way.

            Over the years America has been shaped into perhaps a mixture of both men and their approach.  In popular media we see an attempt to introduce Burke’s method of governing.  It is supposed to be calm, cool and collected.  Force is only to be considered as a last ditch effort and should not be considered permanent.  We are always promoting civility and it was a serious problem for us when Joe Wilson shouted “you lie” at President Obama.  He had to apologize, but in comparison to other government’ congresses they would see this as business as usual.  Observe a session of Parliament and you can see not only the wit but the ruthless accusations towards a person’s intellect.  Burke wanted also wanted to do away with theories of government especially for the crucial questions.  Today we might call it “working together” or “bi-partisanship”.  Burke may have inspired the public face of America, but to what avail?  The populus at every turn will provide a life or death argument on how to govern a nation.  Sects develop in the citizenry.  Some preach violence and others violently preach non-violence.  Why are these sects today?  Everyone has interpreted Lockian philosophy differently.  What one man who grew up in California considers to be “inalienable rights” will be a farce to whatever a South Carolinian thinks “inalienable rights” are.  It has become so confused and muddled from debate over the past centuries that former enemies have eventually found common ground.  As mentioned before, Locke is the father of Liberalism and Libertarianism; this manifests itself when they both agree that Marijuana should be legalized.  Suddenly, Ron Paul does not seem like such a bad candidate for Liberals.  But the big questions are left unanswered.  Is health care a right?  Is education a right?  Are jobs a right?  What would John Locke say to this?  Edmund Burke would not be the person to ask since he pleads ignorance when he says, “The rights of men are in a sort of middle, incapable of definition . . .” (gmu.edu).  Also, he does make suppositions in other works as to whether or not these rights are inherent and makes a resounding “no”.  Burke is very unappealing for any modern American.  Locke might have pandered to these desires, though we cannot know what he would have said.

            Overall, John Locke with all of his enlightened sensibilities shall be crowned most influential.  Even for Burke’s valuable mind and ideas was too uninspiring to lead a nation’s spirit.  Burke was concerned with the status quo.  Locke had posthumously gathered the minds of white land owning men all over the colonies and sparked an empire’s government and its history.  America was born out of rebellion and Locke gave a distant nod of approval.

 Bibliography

1. Locke, John.  The Second Treatise on Civil Government. Roslyn, New York: Walter J. Black Inc. 1947

2. Penniman, Howard. “On Politics and Education”: Introduction. 1-20. Roslyn, New York: Walter J. Black Inc. 1947

3. Burke, Edmund. Conciliation with America. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1914

4. Newsom, Sidney. “Conciliation with America”: Introduction and Notes. ix- xxxviii. New York: The Macmillan Company. 1914

5. Harris, Ian. Edmund Burke. Stanford: Stanford University of Philosophy, 2010. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/burke/. Also available in print form.

6. Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University, 2013. http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/.

7. Lock, Francis. Edmund Burke. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998

8. Uzgalis, William.  John Locke. Stanford: Stanford University of Philosophy, 2012. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/. Also available in print form.

Boring Post on Max Weber's Spirit of Capitalism

The author of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber, pushes forward his ideas on capitalisms origins and conditions.  In his book he spares no fact of its relevance and consequently, by the end he teaches the reader more about the general history of Christendom than the advent of Capitalism.  For any lover of history this is a good read, for the matter of fact statements, but Weber left some points un-addressed.
Weber divides the book into two parts and his first part lays the ground work for his theory.  He titles it “The Problem” and writes of religion’s affiliates and a stratified society in the sixteenth century, and then on to the spirit of capitalism.  He tells us what it is that Protestants are doing as opposed to Catholics and gives us the evidence for it, which ends up being almost an argument in itself for Weber.  His facts and observations coincide the stereotypical notions of the protestant.  Weber asserts that Protestants are more energized than Catholics and it seems to be an apparent in North and South Germany.  Weber’s thesis asserts Protestant sects, as opposed to Catholicism, are the driving fuel for capitalism to function properly and without their presence it may never have seen the light of day.  Weber quotes Offenbacher when he brings up the Catholics saying, “He prefers a life of the greatest possible security, even with a smaller income, to a life of risk and excitement” (40).  In short, Capitalism is not a vice fueled economy (greed), but an ethic.  He speaks of Protestants delaying their leisure to later gratify; they conclude it is better to make money while they still can so that the future has an abundance of security.  But does Weber leave out the evidence and expect us to just naturally agree?  No, he does elaborate in his second part where he gives his logical train of thought and his own observances to how society has created capitalism as we know it.  He covers Calvinism, Pietism, Methodism and even the Baptists.  He compares with great insight saying that even these Protestants (so full of grace) have their own “worldly” asceticism.  But, of course no literature written by man is free of defect.  Weber fails to define capitalism at all.  Even if he does describe the system categorized as capitalism, he leaves out a simplified definition which might help understand if his thesis was correct.  Not only this, but he does not approach and falsify other theories that might have explained the rise of capitalism.  He does say things like “on the other hand . . . .”, but this does little to give us a broader picture of the debate.
So what was Weber’s idea of capitalism?  His idea of capitalism is either born out of, or the same idea as the protestant ethic.  This ethic is a nominalization “delayed gratification” as mentioned earlier; in “human” terms the ethic is the individuals decision to put of pleasure now and enjoy the fruits of your labor, later.  Basically, Protestants had the notion that it is better to stay working and always profiting than to take any sort of leisure or contentment with their position.  Weber says, “In fact, the summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any eudaemonistic, not to say hedonistic, admixture (53).”  He directly contradicts the “greed” theory.  Weber does not consider the basic economic philosophy of capitalism.  He denies capitalism is greed, which is a valid claim. What then is it?  Is it just Protestants as a culture?  Is capitalism dependant on a cultural notion?  Weber presumes an economic relationship of the peoples to be no account.  The reader is left with too many questions.  Weber in his book would like you to just assent to the idea, but other theorist argue more.  Weber ought to have asked why capitalism is appealing.  What separates it from other economic philosophies?  Other economies have been subject to greed, which Weber agrees with is in all economies, but perhaps capitalism is set apart from other economies because all participants, in theory, win.  The fabled win/win situation is present in capitalism.  As a business sets its price for its product, only the people who are willing to part with the cash value will purchase it.  At the end of the transaction the business is happy with the money they made, and the customer is happy with the product they purchased; neither of them abandoned, suffering from buyer’s remorse.  He wants to suppose that capitalism (the economic superstructure) was created by the culture of Protestantism (The Base).  This is irresponsible to ignore the economic philosophy of capitalism.  Instead his education made Weber into a man learned of dialectic history.  He concerned himself only with two cultures butting heads and the victor.  It is a fine theory to hold, but it ought not be presumed when your readership may not understand or follow the claims.  For all of Weber’s argument he lacks a complete presentation.

As far as the composition of the book it could have used more falsification.  Weber asserts that capitalism is not greed.  Why not?  He only says capitalism is not greed, because all other economies have greed in them as well.  He refutes nothing here, and if Weber meant it to be an argument it was just an informal fallacy.  An argument is not valid if it says, “Since all elements of group A have characteristic B, then A is not B.”  I had mentioned before his attempt at a non-bias approach by adding sentences with the phrase “on the other hand”, but he did nothing with the suggestion.  He did not actually give us the opposing argument or strive to refute them.  The points he disguised as refutations, were only working in his favor as leading statements.  That said, Weber is clearly a well thought and educated man.  We should take him seriously, but when a scholar publishes a book and it arrives at any sort of prominence they must take the necessary steps to have a completely fair appraisal.  When anybody proposes a thesis it is incumbent on them to not only bring up the best of the opposite arguments but to refute them as well.

It was an enjoyable read and I ended up agreeing with him part of the way.  His points were valid and logical and I appreciated his story line.  Of course there are flaws, which were his ignoring of the economic philosophy and his failure to falsify both his and the enemies position.  Overall, one should not be bent out of shape about these mistakes, but it is good to be aware of them.

- On the defenestration of Good Music

In this current generation’s culture there is nothing that we love more than our music.  It is the part of the American exceptionalism that we, our individual selves and nobody else, be able to listen to what ever we deem pleasing.  And we are glutted with genre upon genre with their thin lines that make them distinct; all of them cater to a specific man and his demographic.  Sometimes it is marketed to the populus at large and sometimes to a group of maybe three guys who remain die hard fans of a band that nobody has heard of or cares to hear of.  Along with this and the advent of relativity there has grown out of the confusion a greenhouse for everybody and their opinion on music.  Not everybody cares what their friends think of a movie or tv show, but many people will get furious when their favorite band is accused of being an offense to the ears.  This is hardly seen when people talk of movies, because deep down they really know that film, as a medium of art, does not merit the discussion that a book might; too many pictures.  That is the reason why we attended movies in the first place; the same reason why we go to a magic show.  To be wowed visually.  It does not make demands of our intellect or our learning.  Dim people can keep up with movies, but the tome which demands translation takes more effort than they are willing to give.  Music, on the other hand, is venerated as the single most beautiful enterprise and man can devote himself to.

And I am not to be considered as removed from this product of the times.  I grew up in a musical family where choices were many and dials always turned up to eleven.  My elder siblings were true 90’s kids and I was a mere child who only reacted to a catchy tune.  Since then I have learned a few musical instruments and have developed a philosophy of music and what should be heard by all.  I have my bands lined up in a row and am ready to talk to anybody who inquires of them.  I am the very thing I despise.

This essay is not about the popular music and how it is going to tear apart the moral fabric of society and laugh in the face of Mozart.  That should have been easy to see coming.  Rather, I am writing of those people who complain that this is what our music has come to.  They have other criterion: 1) Popular hipster extensive knowledge of all obscure bands, 2) Sharp arguments for why one genre shall not be confused with another, 3) Flippancy towards your ideas on music, 4) a glorified sense of their own credibility and authority on music, because they listen to a lot of bands.  Suddenly, we have a surplus of “experts” on music parading around their knowledge as often as they can.  Never have they considered to leave this to actual experts.

Of course, it had not always been this way.  There used to be clear class distinction in musical genre.  Classical music was agreed by all as best and all other genres had to compete to sit at classical’s right hand and judge the rest.  But in our prosperity and enhanced distribution everyone feeds their passions telling themselves that their taste is correct.  If you get into an argument with any of these people they will quickly start suggesting that musical taste is relative.  As though Rachmaninov’s concertos had no more claim to beauty than Charles Manson’s secret recordings.  Recently I had recently a friend tell me that some of Manson’s songs were pretty good.  This saddened me deeply.  How is it that we have come to this?  Everybody wants to think in their own mind that their musical taste is good and should be respected.  Nobody should mock them, for if they did a grim realization might descend on their heads declaring them a fool, for ever having pursued punk music.  Everybody wants to be “intelligent” and have equal say in the conversation.  They preach relativity and then assault another’s musical taste for not being their own.  But I am not here to bash on people’s taste.  I want to shine light on our inner workings when we claim a band is good.  Are we really being honest with ourselves?

What makes music loved and defended is not about it’s quality anymore.  It is all about how good the advertising is (pop music, with which I have no beef), or how charismatic the leader is.  People didn’t listen to punk music for any edification of sensual pleasure, but for an anthem of their ideals and loves such as disestablishment and anarchy.  Suddenly, I have people attempting dignified conversation about punk music before my very eyes.  Metalheads have begun to spawn actual college grads who claim absurdly that Metal is the logical extension of classical music.  They say this with sweet savor because the bands suggest that their songs are movements and should listened to as a whole.  Mistaken, they believe that if you have a series of crap then it is turned into gold.  The squeedly and meedly guitar remain a cancer in the ear and even for all it’s talent should never be taken seriously.

Mere contradiction satisfies these people.  They can present themselves as authorities by despising the popularly loved.  Recently I had a man laugh in my face for believing Led Zeppelin to be a good rock band.  Immediately, he had the entire room in agreement with him that I was living in a fanciful naïve world.  Professional movie critics will do the same when they give a box office hit two thumbs down; not to argue that their opinion is inherently wrong for this, but they do it for reasons other than truth.  Respect and credibility motivate these men and they will sell out any philosophical dignity just to taste sweet agreement with them.  The flippancy is hardest to deal with since again it is what convinces people that they are wrong.

The extensive knowledge which can be found on any wiki article is also revered by all and is a tool to gain the following.  The bands which must be searched for by a professional detective are gold mines for these power hungry peasants.  They are peasants wishing you would think them kings.  They want to have that ultimate wisdom and counsel and for you to know they have it.  As they peruse the obscure they miss the actual great music.  When someone presents to them an actual quality piece they become indignant of your suggestion and wish you would stop telling them how ugly they are.  Reality will occasionally catch up with these people and it damages them and their ego so acutely that they must return to home base and listen to their whole library to remember why they love themselves so much.

What ends up happening is a very uninspired and undignified conversation.  And the generational articles of the dunce have not helped any sort truth to break through.  “Uh, well like that is only your opinion.  Leonard Cohen is great!”  They have no sense of themselves and especially no concrete definitions to accompany their argument.  They rely on popular vote.  As I mentioned before I usually end up “loosing” the debate since there is power in numbers and in chronological snobbery.  I am labeled the fool who is too young to even begin to understand his world and himself.  Well, certainly I have not arrived at their position in life, which is such a bloated and glutted ego ready to burst in a fury of pride and self approval.  There is no hope in convincing them they have not a single clue in the things of art.  As long as they love themselves they will never admit that they were too hasty.

Perhaps, you and I both should hold ourselves to a higher standard . . . .

Devil's Weed or Innocent Pleasure?

If ever there was a great health scare, it would be the one on tobacco.  We see that in our current culture, big metropolitan areas, like New York City and Melbourne, Australia, are taking action to remove smoking from it’s public areas.  So what is there to know?  Is not the question settled?  Does not tobacco cause lung cancer?  Believe it or not there is a group of people who believe otherwise.  And they aren’t all big tobacco companies and some of them aren’t smokers at all.  So what do they claim?  Smoking is not any more dangerous than anything else you do in life and smoking bans are an infringement on our rights.  From where does this come?  It comes from everywhere and anywhere in the world.
Lauren A Colby, a practicing lawyer and author of In Defense of Smokers, says that the representation of tobacco in today’s culture is undue, rash and malicious.  Colby believes that “smokers everywhere are hounded and persecuted” as a result of the faulty and fabricated health studies against tobacco.  Having participated in more than 250 civil lawsuits, and more than 50 appeals to federal courts, Colby sees a trend in society that is directed against civil liberties.  He believes that if the war on tobacco continues to influence our legislation then all of our rights will be contested and nothing will be held sacred.
But Colby has a quieter voice than the Surgeon General, claiming that without a doubt tobacco smoke, first, second and even third hand has a huge health risk and should be stopped by way of legislation.  The EPA reports that “3,000 non-smoking adults die of diseases caused by exposure to second hand smoke every year (Lung.org 2012).”  With this as their assertion, those who have been campaigning against tobacco have brought up a proposed need that in the last 30 years has been satisfied by court cases, appeals, hearings and proposition elections.  This is the Smoking Ban, and many are in favor of its proposed goal despite that nearly one fifth of the American people are smokers (howmanyarethere.org 2012). 

Who is doing what? 

Anti-Tobacconists have been running campaigns for decades to eliminate the amount of smoking in all public places, based on popular health studies they themselves have conducted.  The Pro-tobacconists, the minority, have been on the receiving end of diminished freedom and the partiality of the government.  The result has been victory for the Anti-Tobacconists; less smoking in bars.  But what are the real facts about smoking?  Is it as bad as these people say it is?  They treat it like it is genuine rat poison, but anybody’s experience with the socially suggestive plant might preach otherwise.  Luckily, in Jacob Sullums book, For Your Own Good, he writes of someone in the anti-tobacco camp that was honest saying, “The reality is that the risk of getting lung cancer from living with someone who smokes is really small; It seems to be there, but it’s an extremely weak effect (Sullum 172).”  Elizabeth Whelan said this and what might make you more than confused is that Whelan was the President of the American Council on Science and Health.  She, if anyone, should be credible.  If you re-examine the data and where it all came from, Whelan’s statement is more right than you know. 

The words.  What do they mean? 

The term that is fought over between the two camps is “risk”.  How much is too much risk?  Risk is something inherent in all things and should be expected; there is inherent risk from activity to activity, because at any moment the most un-assuming thing might have the potential to kill you.  Second hand smoke is a risk but when you cannot prove the causality through correlation then you cannot treat smoking as too risky.  When it comes down to logic, this is all that the anti-tobacconists have to go on: risk factor.  Say if anybody who ever smoked a single cigarette died soon afterward, then they would have very good reason to ban the use of it at all.  It would then be proven to be no-question-about-it poison.  But we all know smokers are still among the living and some of them are pictures of health.  They are all the proof needed to say that smoking does not necessarily kill.  Anti-tobacconists find themselves wishing and wishing that tobacco were a poison, so as a result they create studies perhaps with an ulterior motive to demonize tobacco and its users.  The reality of their distaste lies in the likelihood that they just don’t like the smell.  But of course they are able to take it to the courts and argue with the utmost skill.  Lauren Colby gives an example of this in his book, In Defense of Smokers, writing, “I am a lawyer, in particular, a trial lawyer.  In the law there is something called the burden of proof.  The anti-smoking crowd insists that smokers prove to them smoking is not harmful.  That’s a trap.  Nobody can prove a negative, i.e. that something is not so (lcolby.com 2006).”  It is imperative that when we examine a practice to conclude whether or not it should be eliminated as an activity, we cannot, as humble seekers after truth, say that the burden of proof lies with someone else to disprove it.  Much like a child that first discovers his ability to manipulate by claiming he accomplished a grand feat and requesting proof that he didn’t do as he claimed, this behavior has been observed in the courts.
Anytime you come across a statistic that uses the phrase “smoking related disease/illness”, turn away and ignore it.  The word related is a little Freudian slip they use to convince you that smoking is more dangerous than it really is.  For example, the American Lung Association has on their website this statistic from the EPA: “About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking.  That means that for every person who dies of a smoking related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking (lung.org 2012).”  When they use the word related the statistic ends up telling us absolutely nothing about smoking and it’s risks.  All that it tells us is how many people have been dying of a category of sicknesses.  This is the anti-tobacco camp’s desire to have their cake and eat it too.  Not only do they want to find some risk in smoking, but they want to make sure it is directly responsible for the deaths of millions.  This is demonization and it has largely gone unnoticed. 

What is the correct course of action? 

Smoking bans are poor for governing the populous, because of the partial legislation and the lessened freedom of American citizens.  For the owner of the business when they are told they cannot allow smoking in their business this takes away freedom from one person and gives tyrannic control to the government.  Much like in Nazi Germany, Lauren Colby says, “The notion that doing away with smoking leads to an elimination of disease and a longer healthier life is scarcely born out of the German experience (lcolby.com 2006).”  In other words, the actions of forbidding smoking originated from Nazi Germany and continues to control our lives today; even in a free America, this seems to go unnoticed.  What are the values that we are trying to protect by banning smoking?  Is it not all just a power grab?  There is strong evidence of this that cannot be ignored and must be investigated.  I do not necessarily fear that in our present day we should fear another Nazi regime, but these are things that if they go unchecked we will suffer loss.  And what can we lose, but our rights?  The Nazis have a lot of similarities with that of today’s anti-tobacconists.  When Hans Muller, who was a Nazi Scientist, sent out to prove that smoking causes lung cancer he distributed a questionnaire to the families to find out how much (if at all) the deceased smoked (lcolby.com 2006).  Lauren Colby had this to say about the test, which has received so much praise for it’s scholarliness and brilliance.  “Muller compared apples with oranges.  He compared the recollections of relatives concerning the smoking habits of the deceased lung cancer victims, with the recollections of living people concerning their own smoking habits.  That is a no-no (lcolby.com 2006).”  We are continuing this today with our smoke “related” diseases.  A health study cannot be done via survey of people who have various feelings about a controversial topic.  This is not a reliable method; since it does not gather information from the smoker, but from people who really have no clue of how much their deceased partners smoked in a day. 

Who ought to be in charge here? 

Who has the power?  Who deserves the power?  These two questions have different answers which is a significant problem.  The citizenry has got it in to the minds that if you want something changed you go to the government to get it fixed.  Jacob Sullum related in his book, For Your Own Good, that Congressman Richard J. Durbin finding himself on flight that allowed smoking asked the flight attendant, “Can’t you do anything about it?”  They replied back saying, “No, I can’t, but you can, congressman. (Sullum 138)”  The truth is that he does have the power to get rid of smoking on airliners.  But if we want an honest society Durbin should have no more power than the next American citizen.  But I do not speak of voting to get results.  If the problem is that some one is in an area that has smoking in it, the natural answer would be for them to leave that area.  Nobody is keeping them there.  If a person doesn’t like smoke, they don’t go to a private area and complain about the smoke.  Neither should they go to their senators and representatives and petition them to ban smoking in all public private businesses just so that merely they can be there.  Of course in most areas they are having court hearings or elections to decide the fates of businesses, in which case it is up to the majority to vote against the smoking ban if they want to maintain their freedom.  Back in April of this year, New York’s Mayor, Michael Bloomberg proposed a bill that would disallow all residential buildings with three or more units to have smoking in, on or around the premises (Hartocollis 1).  There was no talk of any opposition to this bill and was assumed to be accepted.  Again, we forget a whole 20% of the population what their feelings may be on the issue.  The people are in charge in a democracy.  Why are we not consulting them in this issue?  We consult the masses for a president, representatives, governors and many other social issues, and yet somehow this topic is ignored.  And the topic is ignored because a decision has already been made.
But what is the ordeal?  Many people are unaware that there is a controversy because for them they have only had access to one perspective on the issue; there was no mentioning of another view.  Basically, the discussion is whether or not smoking is as deadly the reports say and whether or not the use of tobacco should be limited to only private residences.  Are the health risks certain enough to consider the substance a poison in which case to legislate it out of public places?  Is smoking in public equivalent to that of gassing your fellow citizen for no apparent reason?  These are the base questions that both the anti-tobacco camp and the pro-tobacco camp have considered; but of course this is not without a pretext.  Many people were certain of these answers before and studies were done.  But as society continued the anti-tobacconists are to be considered the current victor.  Their studies are the ones being published; not the pro-tobacco folk.  Even though it discourages tobacco use, this does not keep people from opposing smoking bans.  There is always a group ready and willing to make their case for why smoking bans are bad.  But if we are going to understand what it is that both sides are saying then we will need to gather some history.  And much of this history is in favor of the pro tobacco camp.
What a lot well educated people are mistaken about it is how long ago this debate started.  The standard assumption is that back in the 1950’s the first studies were done to discern what health risks were there in smoking tobacco.  And the story goes that after the publication of this data, tobacco companies were indignant of it and campaigned much harder to get people to continue smoking and recruit new ones; putting out ads that talk about which brand of cigarettes that the majority of doctors prefer.  And the commentary is mockery at the expense of the big tobacco companies.  By all reports, they were caught dishonestly manipulating the readers of magazines with no prayer of covering up with data.  But if one dives into history they discover that this is a propaganda ploy.  The truth is that ever since Europeans in the early 1600’s began smoking pipes and cigars the “cranks” (as the anti-tobacconists have been referred to) have always been writing full books of the “devil’s weed” that is tobacco.  John Bain Jr. writes in his book, Tobacco in Song and Story, a quick piece of fiction, “She (Crank): Is there anything worse than a man smoking a nasty cigarette?  He: Yes; a women minding someone else’s business (Bain 97).”  This was written in the early 1900’s which means this has been an issue long before we realize.  The most prominent early anti-tobacconist book is King James the First of England’s Counterblast to Tobacco.  In this book he expresses his personal utter distaste for tobacco second hand smoke.  But not only does he give his feelings, he gives his medical advice.  Claiming that tobacco is “a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless (Sullum 18).”  This comment examined in hindsight is very troubling.  What we find is that there is no way for him to have credible authority on this subject.  For James the First to say that it is bad for the brain and for the lungs is unfounded and especially for a time period where they had no means of testing it is foreshadowing of what was to come.  He has no quotations of any study in the entire thing.  No studies were conducted, since no studies were done until the Nazi regime’s war on smoking, and yet he continued to knock the practice as though it were devil worshiping (lcolby.com 2006).  James hated tobacco so much that he felt it was legitimate to accuse it slanderously based on nothing.  This hate carried on through the centuries and all the way to modern America where it is difficult to light up a cigar or cigarette without getting scowls or the blatant exaggerated coughing of a particularly “entitled” citizen.  And so, why would we not consider that the same attempt has been made today with our health studies?  One must not assume that the 21^st century has bred nothing but noble, honorable truth telling authorities.  A man in a white lab coat holding a clip board is not infallible.
Though there was much more literature that opposed tobacco in the 1600’s there was a certain diplomat who felt it necessary to argue in fairness with tobacco.  Thomas Mann, himself was not a smoker, but since he did not mind other people doing it, as well as taking in second hand smoke, he was more than happy to give tobacco a fair trial.  Published in 1602, Mann’s book, A Defense of Tobacco, goes point by point through another book published at the time that was anti tobacco.  A lot of what we find in this book are arguments against the arguments that people are still using today.  He notes that one of their reasons is that a singular group of people are abusing and disordering the substance.  Mann replies with, “The lack of discretion of the party that useth it is no dispraise to the thing that is abused (Mann 10)!”  If a man abuses food and becomes fat are we then to remove all culpability and say that it was the food’s fault?  This is applicable anywhere in life and it sounds absurd in all circumstances; except of course when we speak of tobacco.
Of course it is an addictive substance that cannot be resisted, so therefore we must eradicate it.  This is the reasoning and it does not hold up, even to this day.  And on the contrary as well, tobacco if it is used skillfully then it “deserveth great commendation (Mann 11).”  These things are never taken into account.  What does tobacco do that is not a negative accusation?  These “dangers” have always been made up about tobacco; the authors are people who have no good reason to suppress it.  They merely do not like the smell.  If we look at the history of man, we will see that since tobacco became widely used we have not seen any evidence that more people are getting lung cancer because of it.  Rather, lung cancer has only come on at the rise of the industrial revolution.  What we should be looking at are the car’s exhaust that we breathe in everyday.  Doctors, as much as they hate to admit it, have to agree with this claim.  Wray Kephart, a present engineer and former autopsy performer, having done more than 1500 autopsies, notes that while he does autopsies there is absolutely no way to tell if the deceased was a smoker (lcolby.com 2006).  The lungs are actually not what the pictures say they are; filled with black tar that is slowly deteriorating the lining and giving the first, second and third hand smoker cancer.  If this were true we should be seeing millions of people developing cancer very quickly.  It would be obvious to reject smoking.  Kephart goes on to say that sometimes there are traces of carbon monoxide in the lungs, but this due to people living in high traffic areas like Los Angeles breathing in the exhaust from all of the cars (lcolby.com). These are noticeable scare tactics; these are used because the anti-tobacconists do not have a single good reason to get people to stop smoking and out of the bars.
In a Heartlander article by Dr. Jerome Arnett, there is revealed a huge flaw in scientific study of tobacco, which lacks integrity.  Basically, in 1992 the Surgeon General was conducting studies of tobacco with the scientific standard confidence interval (CI) of 95%.  But the results were not satisfactory for the anti-tobacconists which gave them a small non-report worthy risk factor of 1.19%.  So what did they do?  They changed the CI to 90% which gave them a risk factor of a hefty 19%.  Arnett pointed out that this was the first time ever that the EPA changed the confidence interval (Arnett 2008).  It is clear that our scientists and doctors have bias are willing to bend the rules to get their desired answer.
Another myth that is perpetuated by anti-tobacconists is that all tobacco is the same; there is no less risk in a cigar, a pipe or a cigarette.  Jacob Sullum would argue differently saying that the dangers vary in form to form and that if anything were true about the studies it is that cigarettes are more dangerous than pipes or cigars (Sullum 278).  Why is this?  You actually don’t inhale the smoke of a cigar or pipe; you just bring it into you mouth and push it out.  These forms of tobacco are not about the nicotine fix and never have been.  It is all about enjoying the taste of a good smoke.  They may as well be second hand smokers since they don’t really inhale any of the smoke until afterward.
But where does this lead us all?  We find ourselves in a battle of the wits and the field is politics.  If anything good came of all this it would be the social/political intrigue of the debate.  There is a constant down pour of campaigning commercials to get people to boycott smoking and advocate the investigation of the big tobacco companies.  The popular “Truth” organization has been putting these ads out for at least the last decade.  They cast themselves as the righteous humble seekers after truth, when they are actually being what Mr. John Bain Jr. would have described as a crank; some one who fails to mind their own business.  Again, Jacob Sullum has seen this trend himself and he wanted to clear up any bad information saying, “There is almost no evidence that advertising gets non-smokers to start smoking (Sullum 278).”  Rather, the ads that you used to see, but do no more, only created a shift of current smokers changing their preferred brand.  When an advertisement pitches any product, most of the time you have already made up your mind about it before the ad has finished.
The social view point is that Big Tobacco is immoral and smokers are sprinting to their deaths like pigs to the slaughter.  But these attempts at governing your life don’t do as much as they would like and so the anti-tobacconists head to Washington to have the government outlaw the things they don’t like.  The story that Jacob Sullum had in his book, For Your Own Good, about representative Durbin is a fantastic example of the busy bodies.  What many anti-tobacconists have realized is that their complaints to the smokers, themselves isn’t doing much good.  Smokers keep smoking and the world keeps spinning.  The thing is that the busy-bodies would happily stop the entire world on their behalf just so that they can be comfortable.  So they turn to those in office, because of their power to control the people and have them abuse this power for the sake of one single group of people.  One example of this was one Ahron Leichtman.  Leichtman was on a radio show and his host was smoking a cigar “blowing smoke in his face”.  This brought Leichtman to sue the radio host for giving him headaches and sinus problems (Sullum 139).  Later Leichtman was at the head of the non-smoker’s rights strike, which later became the Group Against Smoker’s Pollution (GASP).  This full on attack became so hopeless for the tobacco companies that they were willing to take anything they could get that was short of a total ban.  These bans rest solely on the data that the health institutes have published.
In the movie directed by Jason Reitman, Thank You for Smoking, a film adaptation of Christopher Buckley’s novel by the same name, a CEO, Nick Naylor represents and defends the tobacco industry.  At the end of the movie there is a scene which is a court hearing on a proposal to put a “skull and crossbones” with the word poison printed on it, on all packages of cigarettes to deter people from smoking.  At one point an anti-tobacconist, Senator Finistirre said, “The death toll from airline and automobile accidents doesn’t even skim the surface of cigarettes.”  Naylor then rebutted with this comment: “Oh, this is from a Senator who calls Vermont home.  The real demonstrated number one killer in America is cholesterol and here comes Senator Finistirre who’s fine state, I regret to say, is clogging the nation’s arteries with Vermont Cheddar Cheese.”  What this quote shows us that if we are going to give this treatment to one substance why don’t we give to all other substances that have been deemed dangerous?  That would be fair and equal treatment.  But we enjoy our cheese too much.
But these lawsuits and hearings have not stopped and for tobacco companies this has become routine.  When these companies are asked to reply they find it easiest to ask the plaintiff if they bothered to read the warning labels or listen to the warnings of prominent physicians or public officials (lcolby.com).  But even if the plaintiff loses that case it is an over all win for the anti-tobacconists.  This is just as good as the tobacco companies admitting that smoking causes cancer, and so making them uncaring monsters.  Some of the tobacco executives have even boasted that there is a risk even saying that they wouldn’t want their own children to smoke.  These executives are given hard questions like for example: Can you prove to us that smoking does not cause lung cancer?  But as any logician should be able to see this is a logical fallacy; since the executives cannot prove a negative they are left silent, not knowing they are being tricked.  Nobody can prove a negative.  Because they are not answering they presume that smoking causes lung cancer (lcolby.com).
There seems to be an overall confusion about tobacco.  Most people don’t mind it all that much, but the ones that do have such an adamant distaste for it they cannot bear that people smoke even when they aren’t around.  They create confusion between the words “risk” and “cause” and making believe they mean the same thing.  This allows them to take any case of lung cancer and trace it back to that one cigarette they once had years ago, that one guy they walk by regularly who smokes, or even smoke residue left on other people’s furniture or clothes, and blame tobacco for all of it.
There is a solution and it has been suggested numerous times to no avail.  When Melbourne, Australia was attempting to ban smoking in all restaurants and some of the Chefs who owned the restaurants wanted “the state government to butt out and let their diners continue lighting up on outside tables (Hargreaves 1).”  By this quote we gather that the question isn’t “who is going to win the debate?” but are things going to stay the way they are (free), or is this group going to legislate their personal utopia on everyone else.  In that same article a non-smoker chef Gary Mehigan was reported to say, “I’m a non-smoker, but it is ridiculous to ostracize smokers to such an extent.  We should try to accommodate the small number of smokers out there (Hargreaves 2).”  Is not this obvious?  Our solution is in the mouths of the people.  They understand what is at stake where as our government officials do not; they just see it as an opportunity to get what they want or the approval of a larger voting block.  The people are asserting that it is absurd to force certain practices out of businesses, even if it is unhealthy.  Food can be addictive for some and very unhealthy, but we have restaurants all over the nation enabling these “addicts”.  Customer based businesses are called hospitality for a reason; as the saying goes, the customer is always right.  They are having the government tell them to turn service away to a smoker who would like to enjoy a smoke in their business.  Harry Mount reported that in Stony Stratford, England where they were trying to ban smoking in all public areas, Gary Stubbs said, “They’re little health Hitlers, wanting to stop people smoking.  I don’t smoke, but I still object to the ban (Mount 2).”  This is an honest approach; don’t legislate it, get out of it!  The people see and agree, no matter their opinion on it’s health aspects, that getting the government involved is another step towards dictatorship.  
Any place you go you will find these opinions; people who feel the government is interfering too much in their lives and some of them are not even smokers.  And these bans have had a social effect as well as far as business goes.  Bars have been losing business because of smoking bans.  Now that bars can’t allow it, they cannot attract the whole smokers demographic.  The bars that didn’t allow smoking in the first place, don’t see any change, so it was not necessarily to their benefit.  It is to the nanny state’s benefit and those few who will make a fuss about smoke instead of getting out of it.
This has always been a strange debate since one group has always defined itself by it’s struggles with the other.  There is no third party.  Just the eradication of the other party.  Early in it’s use tobacco was seen as a moral problem and as this failed the anti-tobacconists they revised their morality to the secular kind.  This secular morality is preached by the health nuts.  Eric Burns mentioned in his book, The Smoke of the Gods, what the Tsar of Russia’s, Michael Feodorovich, had in line for punishment with those who were caught smoking and his distaste was obvious, “A first time smoker was whipped with leather thongs until bloody and repentant; after a second conviction his nose was slit, and if caught a third time he would have his head removed in a ceremony to which one and all were invited (Burns 41).”  Clearly, there is a grave over reaction.  But if we consider the effects reported about second hand smoke perhaps these weren’t so extreme after all.  If smoking is causing lung cancer then Feodorovich’s law was legitimate.
So we see that all the data gathered there is a mess of propaganda and suppressed studies along with even more fraudulent studies.  If these things are examined honestly then we will find that smoking has always been unjustly attacked, is not as dangerous as popular knowledge tells us and implementing smoking bans is nothing but a nanny state over reaching and trying to control what it should not.  If you ever see this happening in your community, encourage others to take a closer look at the facts and appeal to them to act accordingly.

Annotated Bibliography

Arnett, Jerome. News.heartland.org. Heartlander. 2008. Web. 2 December 2012

This was a fantastic that helps support my claims with a very credible source.  Dr. Jerome Arnett, a pulmonologist, wrote the article himself in which he uncovers all of the attempts to publish fraudulent data.  He speaks of scientists that change certain definitions in science so that they can get a result that makes tobacco look bad.  They other wise had no evidence unless they bent the rules.

Bain, John. Tobacco in Song and Story. New York. 1896. H.M. Caldwell. Print

This is a very enjoyable book for any smoker.  It is a documentation of stories, fables, histories all about tobacco.  And it also includes arguments and poems that praise tobacco for all of its merits.  Being a smoker I see the angle.  But in accordance with the general debate this is a mock piece that takes any chance it can get to shame the enemy; in the case I mention Bain calls the anti-tobacconists “cranks”.  I recommend it as a source because it helps one to better understand the smoker’s relationship to tobacco.  Even if it were killing them they would not care; it would be worth it for them.  Sadly, I could not find any information on who John Bain was but since this is more of a satire/piece of art I think it matters little what his credibility is.

Thank You for Smoking. Dir. Jason Reitman.  Perf. Aaron Eckhart, Cameron Bright, Katie Holmes, Maria Bello, David Koechner, William H. Macy, Robert Duvall. Room 9 Entertainment. 2005. Film

This movie is an adaptation of Christopher Buckley’s novel by the same title.  It follows the trials and tribulations of a CEO, Nick Naylor, who represents big tobacco corporations.  This was a great source which shows all of the unreasonable tactics of the anti-tobacconists.  Naylor is an omni-competant rhetorician who got his job because he was the only debater good enough to defend tobacco.  It is a testament to the fact that public beatings and shamings have “not gone out of style”; this is seen heavily in regards to tobacco.  It is an example of what has happened in our courts and perhaps foreshadowing of what is to come.  Even though it is a fictional story it is very accurate in it’s depiction of the state of the debate.

Burns, Eric. The Smoke of the Gods. Philadelphia. 2007, Temple University Press. Print. 

This book is a social history of tobacco, which gives some background information about the substance.  Even though it does not follow the debate explicitly these things come up regularly in the chapters.  It was written to help people decide for themselves what the effects of tobacco are.  It is very useful since it fills in a lot of the blanks about how tobacco came up and who were the first to oppose it.  Burns, too has an extensive bibliography that reassures you where the information cam from.  He is a former broadcast journalist and so it is safe to assume that he has good credentials.  Since it was written in 2007 the information could not get much more recent.  This is also a easy to peruse piece since a journalist is always trying to get as many readers as possible.

Colby, Lauren. Lcolby.com. 2.5, 2006, web. 2 December 2012

Colby’s claim is that much of what you hear today from doctors and scientists about tobacco is propaganda using fabricated studies and misleading reports to have people believe a negative story of tobacco.  It had been updated for 2006, but was written earlier.  It is very relevant for the debate on smoking bans and thinks outside the box regarding it.  It is a reliable source as far as legislation goes because the author is a lawyer.  Otherwise, Colby does a good job of quoting authorities in medicine; even some that agree with him.  The reading level is pretty high so it is not for everyone; this is very educated and smart and it assumes that you know certain things already.

Hargreaves, Wendy. “Dirty Habit or Freedom of Choice?” Australia. 2012, Sunday Herald Sun, 19 August 2012

This article was written to give an accurate assessment of how many people in Melbourne, Australia support or oppose a smoking ban.  It is supposed to be unbiased but it seems the author is in opposition to the ban.  This is good as a source because it helps you find common opinion of people who are directly effected by smoking bans.  The information is accurate as well as the author’s reliability.  She was there, interviewing the public opinion.  It was written just his year so it has no other.

Harticollis, Anemona. “Bloomberg Calls for Residential Smoking Rules”. New York, 2012, New York Times. 2 December 2012

This is a merely current source that I can relate to people who are thinking in terms of how they are effected by these things today.  This is to show that people can easily cite this topic in large metropolitan areas.  Also, this article is an example of poor media representation and democratic representation.  The article makes no mention of any opposing camp of the bill.  It is as if they don’t exist and this lessens the credibility of Harticollis.  What the article is talking about is evidential that government officials are not seeking out any other solutions than the ones they came up with.

Instah.com, 2010. web. 2 December 2012

This web page gave me a plethora of information about smoking bans in the U.S.  They had a very easily understood graph to look at where you can observe clearly a steady increase in the amount of smoking bans across America.  The page also came with valuable statistics that helped support my claims about the anti-tobacconist camp.  They use a lot of the same fallacies and mistakes that I mention in my paper, such as tobacco “related diseases”.

Lung.org. American Lung Association; 2012. Web. 2 December 2012

This website was made to give you statistics on what the current numbers of smoking deaths are and related topics.  It was written to get people educated enough about tobacco to get them to stop smoking.  This is useful because it gives me direct claims that make it easy to refute and understand the enemy.  The information is very accurate since it comes from medical journals.  The author is unknown.  The info is probably as up to date as it can be and it is easily understood by anyone.  articles that can be more current.  It is as easy to use as any news article would be.

Man, Thomas. A Defense of Tobacco. Netherlands 1602, De Capo Press. Print.

This book was written by an Elizabethan to make a defense of tobacco because of all the literature on why tobacco is bad.  He wanted to give it a fair trial.  He goes point by point to argue with another piece at the time.  It is not current by any turn of the phrase, but since I plan to give some history of the debate, this will prove useful to me.  The information is based on reality and experience so there isn’t a way to fact check this document, but the arguments are sound in their proofs.  It was written by Thomas Man was a prominent diplomat and had published very many other works before that like essays or translations of classical works.  His authority is very good for his time.  This is not by any means easy to use.  The grammar is old and out of date.  It was difficult to read.

Mount, Harry. “Health Hitlers and a Mutiny in the Town Trying to Ban Smoking”. London, 2011, Daily Mail. 12 July 2011.

This article was written to give an accurate assessment of the public opinion of a smoking ban in Stony Stratford, London.  This is also useful if I want to get a wide array of personal opinions to site.  Special cases are not just exceptions in these debates.  This was written last year in 2011 so it has nothing lacking in its currency.  The journalist is reliable since he writes for the London Daily Mail, and also easy to read and follow along if you want to keep up with the debate.

Mulvihill, Kim. “Health Watch: Sitting vs. Smoking”. San Fransisco, 2011. CBS. 2 December 2012

This article was astonishing when I first saw.  On one side I was complaining and on the other I could rejoice.  It shows that we will create a health scare out of anything and worry our heads over what we are doing all day.  On the other hand this was an opportunity to show people that smoking was only just as deadly as sitting.  So smokers are not racing to the grave any quicker than non smokers who are sitting down often.  Since then there have been many other articles that support this; so it was not just one crazy doctor with an absurd idea.

Smoking-facts.net. 2004. Web. 2 December 2012

This is another web site that is very helpful in understanding the mind of the anti-tobacconist.  The very website claims to be delivering “eye popping” statistics about smoking that will blow your mind.  They rely on hear say for their credibility and ad hominem for their logos.  It isn’t much good for anything else than to understand these minds.  But they have a wide array of different and completely unrelated facts which leads me to believe that the people who composed the website didn’t really know what they were talking about.

Sullum, Jacob. For Your Own Good. New York: 1998, The Free Press. Print. 

This book is all about the anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public health.  Sullum is against it.  He writes to uncover some of the less than prudent actions of the anti tobacconists.  It is useful for some one who has just entered the debate; seeing that there are not a lot of resources out there for pro tobacco this hits the mark in giving all the right info about how smoking bans came up.  The author is very accurate since he gives an extended bibliography of all his sources he used.  These are very easy to look up.  Sullum is a newspaper columnist and so his credibility is sufficient.  It is his jobs too have the straight facts.  It isn’t that current since it was published at the turn of the century but these things have changed very little since then.  The same things are still being said.  The reading level is low so it would not be difficult for and average adult to understand fully.