Replies

As was mentioned in another post, it was her decision to smoke. But did the use of her "personal freedom" to smoke affect anyone else? Disregard the issue of SHS. Who takes care of her? Who pays for her medical bills? (We all help, she goes to the VA.) Other people are attending to the consequences of her "personal freedom". So you see, smoking is not a "personal" freedom issue. No man is an island.

But where do you stop? Alcoholics often need new livers because of their lifestyle choices (and if they're celebrities, they usually get to the front of the line, but that's for another thread.) People get AIDS from their own lifestyle choices. Obese people have all sorts of health complications due to their lifestyle choices. Do you see what a slippery slope there is once you start legislating against these things?

The examples you mention, aside from maybe alcoholism, are all the results of unhealthy choices during the course of living a life (eating, sex). Smoking, OTOH, is something that is totally unnecessary. My concern was that conservatives would use the right to personal freedom to extol smoking, which is harmful to the person actually smoking as well as those around them. I don't want more government intrusion in my life, but as I said, if it helps even one person quit or not start or not be affected by SHS for x amount of time, it's a good thing.