Smoking is a bad habit. I can say that because I am a smoker. To be completely honest I am addicted to smoking. And have been for nearly 2 decades now.

That said, I am also an American citizen. Cigarettes are legal and available for purchase across the nation, if you are of legal age. Which I am. I pay corporate taxes, state, local, and extra taxes on my cigarettes that goes to who knows where the politicians use it.

What's the big deal? California. Specifically their obsession, seemingly, with trying to mandate how every citizen will live. It seems like the entire state is trying to force a diet and lifestyle a vastly smaller portion of the population lives.

California lead the rally-cry to ban smoking. In effect they removed the ability for adults to make a choice about their lifestyle. Then they used that rally to spread their ideals across the nation. Now we have multiple states that have banned smoking in most public places.

I can understand restaurants, the subway, and probably the workplace. Not everyone smokes. Some are allergic. Fine. But I still disagree with it.

Financially I know of dozens of businesses, in fact every bar or restaurant that had a bar and smoking area, that have NEVER recovered from the smoking ban. The initial hit was a 30% drop, or more, from the ban in New York State. Add in the loss in revenue from the additional tax placed on cigarettes forcing people to buy from out of state and its a huge revenue hit. And then there is the social aspect.

The problem is that the Government decided that it knew what was socially best for the citizens. The Government NEVER knows what's socially best for anyone. Every social experiment I can recall has failed and wrought worse problems than existed before. Especially in California, a state that leads in social experimentation.

So what has happened? After a failed attempt in some California towns to regulate what people do in their own homes - a ban on smoking in your home - L.A. is now considering banning smoking outdoors.

What is wrong with these people.

"When you get into the government telling you what to do outdoors, I worry about that," said Montes, a 43-year-old computer systems technician. "I understand the health reasons for it. . . . But for me it's about Big Brother. How far is it going to go?"

This in a city where the very air is toxic and more of a health hazard to the populace than all the crime combined. If they really wanted to help the people, why not install (actually re-install) a massive, effective, mass transit system. That would make the lives of people far better there. But this is an easy target, and it asserts the control they want.

'Don't worry about the smog, don't think about the massive carbon footprint made everyday. We will ban smoking outdoors and you will live better. And next week we will decide what color clothes you can wear, what clothes you can buy, the home you can live in and what shows to watch on television. Because we are the Government and we are smarter than you.'

Tell me how we don't get to that point. That the Government isn't slowly saying these things. I mentioned years ago that an outdoor ban was coming. That soon cigarettes will be illegal, like prohibition. That Government never gets smaller and once it interferes with your daily life it only wants more control. And mark my words, in at least parts of California they will start banning various types of food en masse.

Hell, in New York State the Government is considering a tax on the foods we eat. Tell me how that is not an attempt to exert control over our private daily lives? What happens when they start to tax or otherwise influence the lives of those overweight, or with an illness, or that they just don't like.

Yes, children should not smoke. It's a horrible habit, with questionable health ramifications. But it is legal and adults make choices. Just like with food, or sex, or driving, or parenting. Until the day the Government says you don't have a choice in that too.

L.A. cannot stand up and make a case in how they are protecting anyone. They are just being bullies. And other states will follow as they always do. But it's not just smokers that are getting screwed. We may be the first on the list, but we won't be alone.

Labels: California, Los Angeles, New York, smoking ban

Recently I saw a headline that I just could not help but stop to read. It stated Obama says he won't be smoking in White House

Why does that matter? Because President Obama is a smoker. Just like millions of other Americans. And it was kept so quiet you would have thought it was a national secret. You would be amazed by the number of people I have spoken to during the Democratic Primaries and since that have no idea President Obama smokes.

Not that it should be a big deal. He is in good health, exercises, eats well and is relatively young. He has been smoking for 20 years now. And it's political ramifications are really meaningless.

Yet it seems to be a big deal somehow. And I feel that is because these days smokers are treated as if they are second-class citizens.

We have all heard the horror story figures and stats that are proclaimed by anti-smoking groups. Some might even know that many of these stats are made up or based on false figures from the Government. That does not make smoking something worth doing, but it makes it far from the plague some would like others to think.

President Obama smoking does not mean the nation will fail to operate properly. He would not be the first, and very likely not the last, President that smokes.

But think about this. The White house is the home of the President. And in his own home, the President is not free to make a decision on how to live his own life. He can have a bowling alley installed, or a movie theater. he could get a pool or virtually anything he wishes in the White House, but he can't have a cigarette without breaking the law.

The President is not free enough to do as he pleases behind his own closed doors. Some in California love that though. Notably those that would ban smoking in your own home, as was attempted earlier this year. But I find it a terrible insult to personal freedom.

Just as smoking has been banned in bars and other public places across the nation, it is banned in the private residence of the symbol of American freedom. That's not a positive statement. Nor is the fact that he has had to hide his smoking from the public.

Smoking is not the healthiest habit. Neither is eating McDonald's every day. But as adults and consumers we have the freedom to make that choice. And nothing should prevent anyone from such a choice in their own home. To do so is tantamount to restricting the television you can see, the movies that are made, the books that can be in a library and so on.

Freedom is only free if it allows choice, not Government mandate. If President Obama chooses to quit smoking it should not be a political mandate, nor based on public polling and political gain. And if he chooses not to quit, he should be free to do that as well. A restriction on his personal freedom, in an act that is legal and enjoyed by tens of millions of Americans, is a restriction on freedom in America.

Health nuts may not like that, but that is their freedom to express that thought. But if we can restrict the symbol of freedom personified in the Office of the President, the act of freedom can be restricted on anyone. It's just a thought you might want to consider.

Labels: California, President Barack Obama, smoking ban, White House