Smokers, Drinkers, Eaters and Livers (SDEL)

In Brazil, hostility toward smokers (of tobacco), drinkers, and carnivores, therefore toward normal people who enjoy life (hereafter SDEL), if I’m not mistaken, began around 1980, when those North American trends and woke agendas started arriving here more forcefully, with our “copycat monkeys” imitating everything that comes from abroad while claiming to defend national sovereignty.

Encouragement of gyms, so-called healthy foods, anti-smoking campaigns, vegetarian restaurants, heavy taxation on bohemians, “dry laws,” became media agendas and topics of conversation, emptying bars and counters and, coincidentally, beginning to increase the number of depressed and lonely people.

Around 2006, I was in a well-frequented bar, reading a book, smoking my cigarettes and drinking my little whiskey, with a snack, when a group of acquaintances passed by, “pseudo-intellectuals”, and asked me whether I went to a gym (implicitly a fitness gym), whether I walked, that I should take care of myself, and so on. I replied, rather rudely, whether they also went to those “academies” to ask people if they were reading books. They understood and there was general silence, but the intolerant looks — from those self-proclaimed owners of the truth, little accustomed to hearing disagreement because of so-called “political correctness” — turned hostile.

“Political Correctness” is the nirvana of intolerance. Any opinion, however idiotic, must not be contested. This is leading to the “dominance” of minorities and foolishness. It is somewhat frightening. Imagine a religion or a party claiming to be puritanical, calling the shots! Are we heading that way? Will my DNA go through that with my grandchildren? What a dark future...

The Greeks, who already understood things 3,000 years ago, did not create the god Bacchus for nothing. And I’m convinced that Aphrodite only went out with him. The rest were too boring! Look at Sparta, where there were only Spartans. Helen could not stand it and fled with Paris to Troy and stayed there for 10 years, until they hired a clever thinker (he must have drunk, smoked, and been a gastronome) who built that horse (would it have been the White Horse?).

Smoking and whiskey do not mean that a citizen is a criminal. Part of society has a certain sadistic anxiety to stage a scandal instead of punishing those who actually do wrong; they do not want to let a person drive because they “might” cause an accident. Nor smoke because they “might” get sick. Gone are the days when robbing the “Adhemar safe” was “outside the law” but within ethics, after all, a thief who robs a thief gets a hundred years of pardon. What happened?

It is that old story: what one cannot do does not mean one should not do. What one should not do is indeed definitively out of the question, condemnable. But the opportunist, the intolerant, the fanatic cannot change opinions, does not accept changing the subject, and is not satisfied with not doing something; he wants everyone else not to do it either, so he does not risk being wrong. Those against gun ownership are not satisfied with not owning guns; they want no one to have them. In the case of abortion, both sides are not satisfied with the state allowing and facilitating it; they do not accept those who think differently — they want consensus. Privileges for the elderly, for skin pigmentation, for this and that. Who pays? And euthanasia? It is difficult!

While acknowledging that laws are necessary for societies to function, we question what should become law. The same culture that (maliciously) confuses State with Government, with People, with Nation, with Country, with Territory, with Customs, leads people to simplistically understand that laws are intrinsically correct and true. It is the “faith” for which they were indoctrinated/educated. It is the belief that laws are to be obeyed blindly because “what is written stands.” Machiavelli already warned: to friends, everything; to enemies, the law.

Not long ago, two demonstrations were scheduled: one supporting marijuana legalization and another opposing it. The first was prohibited and the second allowed! So let us imagine, in 1880, a march against and another in favor of black slavery (which was within the law). The police (in the name of the Government but calling itself the State) would “crack down” on anti-slavery activists and/or prohibit their march. This applies to other issues: divorce, women’s rights, etc., which were only achieved because some people did not conform, did not accept “the Law” as truth.

Throughout time, as in Prohibition in the U.S., it has been demonstrated that the best solution is to let those who wish to drink, drink; those who wish to smoke, smoke; those who wish to homosexualize themselves, do so; those who wish to use alternative medicine, do so; those who wish to adopt a poor child or a pet, do so, etc. Note carefully: whoever wishes to smoke, whoever wishes to homosexualize themselves, and so on. It cannot be mandatory. Gambling cannot be mandatory either, but it should not be prohibited. Why is tobacco advertising prohibited and betting (a euphemism for gambling) advertising not?

Families and groups, when unfortunate enough to have an addict nearby (whatever the addiction), want the State to come to their rescue and for all of us to be forbidden from doing something they cannot control. Or, for religious reasons (beliefs or ideologies), they want everyone to think the same. We cannot grant the State these duties and/or rights, not if we wish to maintain freedom. And we are not here defending alcoholics, uncontrolled smokers, or compulsive eaters who do not even know how to appreciate what they do. Those fall into the category of addicts.

Until 2011/2014, if a bar wanted to prohibit smoking in its establishment, the laws did not allow it because it was considered a public place and everyone had the right to smoke. That was a mistake: “the Law above reason.” Now the mistake has been reversed: if someone wants to open a bar for smokers, they cannot. Since no one is obliged to go to a particular bar — one goes if one wishes — the bar owner should have the right to decide whether it would be a smoking bar or not, and each person would go wherever they preferred. Smoking was even prohibited in open places if they are merely “covered,” creating unnecessary confusion.

Ah, but by preventing smoking and alcohol, the burden on public hospitals with lung cancer and alcoholism is reduced. Then it would be better to prohibit motorcycles, which fill orthopedic wards and morgues daily. Ah, but we are saving (actually prolonging) lives! Is preventing a suicide correct? Or is it going against someone’s will? Should not each person be able to dispose of their life as they wish? If “smoking kills slowly,” for those who are not in a hurry, it may be a good alternative.

What might the next steps be? Prohibit industrializing tobacco? Homeopathy? Herbal medicine? Prohibiting smoking, prohibiting this or that costs nothing, generates revenue-raising fines, and makes headlines.

In the meantime, Jeffrey Epstein, besides being a pedophile, was a blackmailer and a swindler (like almost the entire financial market) and, to appear politically correct, was a philanthropist. He did not smoke, did not drink alcohol, did not use drugs, followed strict diets, and was obsessed with health and hygiene, even being germophobic (constantly disinfecting his hands). Similar to Hitler, although from a Jewish family. Both were also amoral, unethical, yet everything “within the law.” In other words, people fixated on physical health can be as dangerous or more so than normal livers. Or not. Certainly there are psychopathic smokers and drinkers. It is not that simple.

Paraphrasing: “whoever does not like bars is not a good person — they are either crazy or have something wrong with their feet.”

Miguel Fernández y Fernández, engineer, columnist and writer, member of the National Academy of Engineering and of the Engineering Institute # written between 2008–2026 R2026feb Ri, 7,614 characters