Smoker's Choice (or lack thereof)

OMG-I'd never survive in Baytown--my lawn looks like little Arkansas right now.

I agree with you Nancy in theory. Look at American people...over 50% are grossly overweight. Working in the funeral industry, I can tell you, better to have a dead normal sized smoker, than a dead non-smoker weighing in at over 250 pounds. I know I'll get bashed over this one, but obesity has (unfortunately) surpassed smoking as the most preventable cause of death. None, the less, where does it stop? Take everyone's tabacco products, alcohol and twinkies away?

The irony is, these cities in California are worried about smoking when the state is being taken over by criminal illegals? Priority displacement on steriods?

Integrity,

Not to worry...the state is working hard on curing obesity also. (Remember a few years ago when, with the stroke of a pen, millions of people became 'obese') Setting the stage for the government to come in and fix another phony crisis. Banning trans-fats, sodas, serving sizes, etc.

Wether it's smoking or food or sex, the government should NOT be in the business of regulating behaviour. Very dangerous precedent and where does it stop??

Nancy,

I, too, am a smoker. I have a limited income so I cannot live a lavish lifestyle. I choose to smoke as it is one of the few pleasures I can afford at this time. Unfortunately, with the coming proposed tax rate increase of $.61, bringing fed taxes up to $1.00 per pack, and the probable increase in state tax because "big brother" did it, I will not be able to enjoy even this small pleasure.

The fact that our corporations have opted for outsourcing has left many Americans without jobs or health insurance. We smokers are now expected to make up for their abandonment of the American worker. Once we cannot afford to smoke anymore, who is going to pay for the proposed health care? Perhaps before a corporation is allowed to outsource, they should be assessed a fee to be placed in an UNTOUCHABLE fund toward health care of ALL Americans that have been displaced.

Carmen,

If you do not choose to smoke, that's great. Some of us do and we do it responsibly. I do not infringe on anyone's airspace but check with them first. If they are against it, I move to another area. Consider also the gum chewers of the world, walking around like so many cows chewing their cud and then discarding these gobs all over the ground. Consider the disgusting spitters, leaving gobs of phlegm all over the world. Do not walk around barefooted. It could be lethal.

Finally, once we smokers are all put to rest or unable to indulge in our pleasure, who will be the next scapegoat? Who will pay the bills with exorbitant taxes? Will it be the senior citizens because they have lost their value in the "workplace" (lol) and are a potential burden on our health care system after their years of contribution to an economy that has been outsourced? I do not think it will be all the "cokeheads" and other drug imbibers in the government and otherwise. They must be on drugs because they don't seem to have any clear thoughts in their heads. I do not think it will be the upper classes. The middle class will be virtually non-existent so it won't be them. Maybe it will be those "aliens" from Mars or somewhere from outer space that we are paying billions of dollars to find.

Pastor Carmen A. Cantalupo said: So sad too see people destroy their lives for a cancer stick. Lost mother and brother and aunt to it. Like booze it should be out lawed. If you want too somke do it. Just think how much money you could save buy not somking.

Pastor,

I would think you of all people would recognize and respect free will.  It is the God given property of mankind that along with a soul sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.  Persuasion should be preferable to laws.  I don't have a problem with legally preventing somebody from being exposed to smoke or intoxicants or whatever involuntarily just as I expect laws to prevent anybody from harming another.  But we can waste our lives, our health, our wealth, our time and we should only be answerable to our God.  Is it charity of the heart when government takes from us to give to the needy?  I don't think so.  And so it is not a benefit in a spiritual sense for us to avoid vices due to law vs the development and exercise of our own moral character.

Shun smokers.  Preach the evils of smoking.  Vote against the social safetynets for smokers paid for by tax dollars.  Vote against tax subsidies for tobacco growers.  But don't outlaw it.  At best, you will just create a black market with the associated violence and crime.

Ohio said: I don't want booze outlawed!  I rinse my hair with Vodka all the time. 

Hair? Hmmmm hair hair.......OH!! OK hair,,,,,, now I remember. Yea I have some of that laying around somewhere,... maybe inside the vacuum cleaner.

I don't like being manipulated or patronized for someone else's agenda. That's why I wrote this article. Perfect example of the hypocrisy is made by RaChalet regards gays.

If the government's real agenda was to protect health, protect the children, why then do they spend our tax dollars advocating the homosexual lifestyle. Why do they continue to shower more rights on those engaged in a risky, dangerous sexual practise.

Like smokers, gays have the right to their choices, as long as they don't hurt others. Far as I can see, their choices DO hurt others in terms of breakdown of the family, rededfining relationships etc and have the risk of putting children in a 'less advantaged' place than do smokers. (I refer to single family or 'partner' families which result in more poverty, illegitimacy etc.)

One has to wonder what the real agenda is.