[per loin]

And the fact that you can bounce a quarter off of the rock hard abs connected to my lithe 195 pound frame really adds no information to the discussion, which is why I have not offered it until this time.

LOL. I'll believe that as much as I believe your:

"I believe, generally speaking, that the government that governs best governs least."

But the reason for my asking about your weight problem was twofold. First, I've seen that so many of those who speak against smoking are grossly overweight. Second, they are coming for you fat folks next.

[gridlock]

I do believe that the government should govern as little as possible. I also believe that a ban on a dangerous product is a lot less intrusive on liberty that government insinuation into every aspect of life in order to control the use of that product to varying degrees based on the particular situation.

In the current situation, for instance, it would suddenly become the government's concern whether or not you had a child in the back seat of your car. There is no reason for this to be a concern of the government, but the situational regulation of tobacco will make it so. So it is just a matter of time before the tinting of rear windows of automobiles becomes regulated, because the government will have a legitimate need to ascertain what is in the back seat of every car.

Similarly, it should be of no concern of the government how many barstools are in the corner pub, but the regulation on smoking in public places requires the definition of restaurant and bar, and that makes it the government's business. Add on all sorts of controls on room size, seating arrangements, ventilation, taxes, vending machine location, age limits, reletive location of windows and the whole laundry list of government regulations that go along with the continued availability of tobacco, and we would all be more free if the product were just unavailable.