The justification for people’s right to not have to be exposed to smoke is never-ending. Do you remember how it got started though?

68% of the population in the US smoked in the early 1960’s. When our governments (in EVERY country) started this “war against smoking”, they said it was because it was costing the health care system a lot of money. That is certainly untrue now, because of the amount of taxes that are collected from smokers. In the meantime, the number of people smoking has been reduced to about 25% - 30%. We are definitely the minority now.

The next argument used against smoking was the dangers of second hand smoke, especially for our “children of the world”. I don’t believe most of that, but I am still respectful of the perception and don’t smoke in indoor areas where children frequent. I smoke in my own car with my own children occasionally, but unless I am going a long distance, I don’t smoke with other people’s children in there. I have never had a parent say that their child could not take a trip or holiday with me because I smoke though.

The recent argument, now that we are all smoking outside or in our personal confined spaces (where non-smokers do not have to frequent), is ridiculous and prejudiced. This is no longer about “health issues”, as clearly people can not be DAMAGED or HARMED by smoking that occurs in wide open air in such places as a park or beach. The complaint now is that people don’t like the smell.

There are plenty of smells I don’t like, or am allergic to, but I don’t wave my hand in front of my face, nor would I have ever endorsed a law that persecutes people for smelling offensive or because of my personal allergies to their smell. Where is this level of intolerance leading to? Are we going to start banishing people to their homes because of bad breath, body odor, ethnic food smells oozing from their pours, perfumes, fabric softeners, etc? Shall we start being as rude and condescending to less then perfect non-smoking “stinkers” as we are to smokers?

Now that the gears are in full motion to banish smoking virtually everywhere, and it is deemed socially unacceptable in most environments . . . the government and health associations are changing their focus. The talk now is starting to focus more on the number one health cost in the US which is OBESITY . . .

While MOST people with an obesity problem do not have it because of genetics or a thyroid problem (some do, but not the majority), MOST people with a smoking habit do so because they are addicted. Addictive predisposition is also genetic.

Smokers have been prejudiced for a long time, including often paying double the healthcare premiums. We also pay for our health care costs, as well as the cost of many non-smokers, due to amount that is paid on taxes for cigarettes. We ARE paying for the right to smoke. Obese people are not currently paying for their right to be unhealthy.

People have to eat, but not to the point of "unfit obesity”. They can control their behavior just as easily as smokers can control theirs. Even if they do have a genetic problem, there are ways to stay reasonably fit and healthy, by exercising, etc. Look at those people on The Biggest Loser. Some of them are still over 200 lbs by the end of the show (obese, by most standards) . . . but they are fit and can hike up a mountain or climb a retaining wall. Fitness, not fatness, is the issue . . . and anyone can choose to be that way, except maybe those who are disabled, like yourself.

I am disabled too (not from cigarettes, from MS), and I can’t walk 2 blocks to have a cigarette every time I want one OUTSIDE, where it is causing no harm to anyone. I pay higher insurance premiums, and am shunned from society for my lifestyle choice. What about when we start making the obese people walk 2 blocks to eat their french fries and burgers, because that is “repulsive” behavior and an unhealthy example for our kids? Most of them have no excuse for their habits either.

Obese people cost our health care system more money, so should they be paying double premiums. They also cost employers more money to have on staff, because they are usually unhealthy in other ways too (lacking vitamins, sick/hurt more often, etc.). Quite often, due to their weight, they are more prone to accidents and they are not as physically capable as fit people. Is it fair to discriminate against them because of that?

Be careful what you wish for, and welcome to our world, obese, perfumed, laundry-sheet users . . . etc!

None of us are perfect, so why not let people be? The war on smoking/non-smoking is two-sided, and there will be a fight by smokers to retain the rights they pay for. That is where I'm headed, I assure you. I am a very tolerant person of others, so long as they are tolerant of my imperfections too. If I am forced out of wide open air space to smoke, or have to quit because of the laws, I will start getting in other people’s faces about their unhealthy, offensive, and/or “bad example” behaviour.

And, rest assured, once the government is done with smokers, they will be moving onto obesity.

Cherie