Mark lost me after he tried to attack Christianity in a pro-smoking essay. Well, he can hop in his time machine and enjoy Red Russia’s gulags if he wants to know what real indoctrination looks like.

By the way, I think there are some father-son and projection issues in this piece here too. Not to overanalyse, but who is controlling whom when taxpayers are lumped with health bills too?

Hasbeen: That's why so many public transport proponents prefer trams and electric trains; they don't stink like buses.

Ozandy: There's no comparison between the war on tobacco and the wider "war on drugs". Nobody is suggesting that possession of tobacco should be a crime, let alone that if someone plants tobacco on you, the onus should be on you to prove that it was planted. But that's precisely what happens with other drugs. In reversing the onus of proof, the "war on drugs" forfeits all resemblance of legitimacy. I therefore draw your attention to the proposed GetUp! campaign on drug law reform:
http://suggest.getup.org.au/forums/60819-campaign-ideas/suggestions/1067729-drug-law-reform-drugs-are-implicated-in-most-of- .

I liked the article. There is a point when something goes beyond protecting others to excessive control.

I remember when a older guy I worked with many years ago would wind up the car windows before lighting up his smoke and there being nothing much I could do about it. I'm glad those days are gone but we don't have to go back to that period to recognise that current measures are not just about protecting the rest of us from excessive cigarette smoke inhallation.

I remember sitting though an expensive concert once being constantly distracted by the very strong stench of garlic coming from the person next to me. I've gagged on a long bus journey jammed up against a very obese woman with very poor personal (and more than one train journey). I've had many a nice evening walk become not so peaceful by chorus of barking dogs that either don't think I should walk past their house or those who join in sympathy.

Lifes like that.

Legal intervention should be at a level that strikes a balance between "public good"(whatever that is) and personal freedom.

Of course the root cause is that we have a political system where people fight hard to become "leaders".

The system pretty much guarantee's that it will be overloaded with those who think that they know how others should live and want to do something to make it so.

R0bert

The "campaign" against smoking certainly needs a critique, along with other public health campaigns. The old doctrines of liberalism usually don't take the analysis past a few simple abstract dichotomies, such as the individual versus the state, or freedom vs control. And terms like "social engineering" are an empty echo from the cold war conspiracy days. Instead, it is more helpful ask about how campaigns are constructed and impact on different social classes. Hence, a more useful question to pose is: Why does the public pay for these campaigns, and not the corporations that make addictive and dangerous products?

Jesus! This whole thread smells like an ash tray! Its poison, and your throwing away thousands of $$$$$$$ for nothing:) You suckers:) Where,s OUG...he loves a puff..lol...also, non-smokers are never accused of pot smoking when pulled over by the police, I mean the benefit of the doubt is strait away on your side........and it stinks! Man' I can not stand the smell of it.

"They might be wrapped in good intentions, but anti-smoking zealotry and other social engineering crusades are mostly about control."

What a lot of cobblers. The only thing I can see it helping, is population reduction. All other,s here that can see the negatives as to the public health system purse, well..........I guess it keeps altogether the myths of all thats not well in doing it in first place.

But see, here,s the problem..........its makes a truck-load of cash for the big guy:) and we all want to help him...right?

LEAP

An attempt to initiate National anti-passive smoking laws in the USA failed some time ago because - in spite of other evidence - there was no definite statistical proof that it was harmful (The science had been deliberately "tainted" in the manner of todays AGW debate).

All subsequent laws have been State, Regional or Local and has been legislation based on behaviour rather than on scientific evidence, like anti-littering or public drunkeness laws.

Zealots in any camp are the people to be worried about.