[Eric Blair 2084]

If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question. It would be a clear case of individual liberty.

What harm to others are you talking about? SHS?

Before you spend 4 posts and 3,000 word manifestos that are longer than the Old Testament trying to obfuscate the issue, let me make your argument for you:

The Gubmint doesn't need to prove harm to others to enact laws...there are dozens of prohibited actions that are simply designed to protect people from themselves. Gambling, drugs...When did "harm to others" become a requirement for the nanny state? You can't play poker in your pajamas online, in your own living room, with your own computer and your own money. (I wouldn't anyway but that's not the point)

Why do previously free people willingly let the Gubmint be their masters?

[TChris]

...let me make your argument for you:

Yes, it is easier to debate that way, isn't it?