I am always amazed at the way people treat smokers. We are no longer allowed to express any criticism of homosexuality, we cannot say anything about promiscuity or teen sex, we cannot say anything critical about the behavior of protected minorities or about specific religions, yet people feel no hesitation to say the most hateful things to anyone they see smoking. It appears that one the current hierarchy of values, smokers rank somewhere a bit below child molesters.

If you think I am exaggerating, think about this. We cannot say that Islamic calls for jihad may have something to do with that big hole in Mahattan, in fact we can't say anything critical about Islam at all, and I am probably in violation of some rule by having said Islam three times without adding "the religion of peace" somewhere. Or, on another topic, we are forbidden from suggesting something as objectively true as the fact that homosexuality may have health consequences, for fear of being thought insensitive.

Yet people have no trouble walking up to strangers and angrily insisting they stop smoking.

Nor is it just a fear over "second hand smoke". There have been laws proposed to stop smoking in private automobiles, in private homes, even in all outdoor locations, presumably to include areas where the smoker is absolutely alone. This is not a health question so much as it is a crusade.

I don't know exactly why smoking has come in for such vehement response. Obviously some object because of excessive fear of second hand smoke*, but many object to smoking which is nowhere near them.

Nor are those objecting to smoking that consistent. They want to stop smoking and control what we eat in order to "protect us from ourselves", but other activities which cause as many lost years of life per participant are completely ignored. And harmful, but protected, activities are ignored as well. The number of years lost to health problems associated with homosexuality (such as AIDS, now MRSA) are never mentioned. Nor are drug users as abused as smokers, as the left tends to paint drug abusers as "poor addicted souls", and makes them into victims of society, unlike smokers who somehow are not given the addiction exemption from criticism.

But I think that may explain the whole reason smokers are open to abuse. The health nazis on the left engage in their health crusades for any number of reasons. Some do so as they really believe in a purely material existence, so purifying bodies takes the place purifying souls does for traditional religions, they are on a crusade to keep others alive. But most, I think, find the health crusades a way to feel good about themselves, not only are they "doing good", but it also gives them a chance to show how much smarter they are than everyone else. Only THEY know the secret to being healthy.

And that is why smokers are so reviled. Smokers may accept that there are health risks associated with smoking, but they resist the attempts to better them by the health nazis. For that reason smokers (as well as those who insist on eating "bad foods") are treated as pariahs for refusing the accept the left's self-appointed role as guardians of health. When a smoker rejects the "help" of your average health nazi, he is questioning their innate goodness, which is why he is so reviled.

Now, I am sure someone will tell me I am wrong, they hate smokers because smokers endanger their health or something similar, but if that is the case explain this: Smokers were once allowed to smoke in buildings in nice, sealed smoking rooms, until the law moved them outside**. They now cluster near doorways getting MORE smoke on passers by. If the purpose is to prevent non-smokers from being "contaminated", why this plan? It seems much more an effort to punish smokers, or to place them where they will offend more nonsmokers and thus bring even harsher measures, rather than an effort to accommodate smokers without inconveniencing anyone. If the intent is to keep smoke form drifting near nonsmokers, then eliminating smoking areas seems counter productive. But it certainly is in line with a crusade aimed at making all smokers comply with the wishes of the health police.

Oddly enough, I expect this to get more angry responses than anything I wrote so far. It seems defending smoking actually gets more angry responses than even writing in favor of NAMBLA. What an odd society in which we live.

------------------------------------------------------------------

* We can argue about which reports to believe about the harm done by second hand smoke, but whatever your position, you have to imagine that the amount of exposure from second hand smoke is much less than that to the smoker. That being the case, it makes little sense to believe in scare reports which make the harm from second hand smoke GREATER than the harm done to smokers.

** For that matter, does it make sense that my state bans smoking in tobacco shops? Or in an outdoor stadium which is built next to a garbage incinerator and an elevated highway? Apparently the belief of Maryland is that cigarette smoke is worse than burning garbage and auto exhaust.