Um, I abstain from all three, so how is it "MY bad choice?" I've never smoked. I'm currently 6'0 and 165 pounds. That doesn't just happen, I have to watch what I eat for that to happen. And I don't go around having random unprotected sex. Yes they can all be "bad choices." The difference is, two of them can be done correctly. You can eat in moderation. You can demand anyone you sleep with to be tested for STDs before you have unprotected sex. Smoking? There are no degrees. THERE IS NO "RIGHT WAY" to smoke that won't adversely affect your health. I see the point you're both making, but it doesn't change my own point. I'm not heartless. I voluntarily do community service just because I think it's a good thing. I'm an atheist, so I sure as hell ain't trying to get into heaven by doing that. There are plenty of people I pity more, plenty of people who need help a lot worse than people who voluntarily kill themselves by smoking.
I actually think smoking is so foul that I won't hire anyone if they smoke or I smell smoke. If you can't take care of yourself, how can you take care of other people's business?
So because smoking is universality bad, you put smokers on a sliding scale based on a lifestyle choice? Why not alcoholics? If the idea is to reduce the actual cost of money payed out by insurance companies, surely making drinkers pay more for health insurance makes more sense. What percentage of ER visits are caused by alcohol and how much does that cost before you even get to long term health effects? Why is it OK to abuse the necessities of life but not ok to partake in a universal vice?
yeah, i'm not sure how i manage to make it through the day assisting our clients since i smoke. i basically spend my entire day banging my head on my desk and picking my nose. i can't believe i haven't been fired yet!
NOOO but I have to pay for obese people who don't eat in moderation!! NOOO I have to pay for terrible drivers/motorcyclists who injure themselves or others!! The 'ban/regulate tobacco because I don't want to pay for other people's vices' is a great way to have a nice circular, unproductive debate. BTW Ron Paul better blow up in 2012 or this country deserves what's coming.
Answer: Because regulating "abusing the necessities of life" is damn-near impossible, and "partaking in universal vices" is not. Simple answer. How in god's name would you regulate over-eating? Follow everyone around and count their calories for them? It's logistically impossible. Similar with alcohol: studies have shown the occasional glass of red wine can have health benefits. Smoking is a lot easier. You do or you don't. Further, the title of the thread is "moving towards tobacco prohibition." Why is the idea of prohibiting cigarettes so much more terrible than the fact that weed is already illegal? Meth? Cocaine? They're all "personal choices," right? Do you feel the same way about illegal drugs as you do about smoking? If not, can you tell me exactly what the difference is other than the government deciding for us that they're illegal?
BTW, while I'm thinking of it, something in a similar vein: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html ...taxing sodas to help pay for the health care overhaul! I buy soda all the time, and I fully support this idea. Everyone knows drinking, say, water or milk is much healthier than soda, and soda contributes to obesity and higher health care costs in general. I 100% support passing those costs to consumers, very much including myself. For the people at a pretty decent income level, their habits wouldn't be deterred and they'd likely consume the same amount but at a higher price, and so would be paying for their own higher cost of health care up-front... and the people who can't afford it would just drink stuff that was cheaper and healthier for them, like water. Brilliant idea.
