Isn't the regulation of smokers more about smoking's effect upon others than upon the person with the habit? Is there anything being done which deprives smokers of the right to screw themselves alone up?

Seems to me smoke is offensive to other people, as well as hazardous. I quit 21 years ago, loved the smell of it for several years, and have gradually come to the point where I really can't tolerate it.

And it's dangerous. The cost to the health system is enormous, and I don't think group policies can "discriminate" against smokers. Everyone has to pay for their ills.

Isn't smoking a bit like having a bomb. Bombs are illegal for the average schmoo like you and me. I don't think anyone cares I blow myself up, but I could damage other people. And cost 'em money.

I think there's a difference between mitigating the damage done to others and depriving some people of a right.

Now, they came for Padilla, they've come for God knows how many people we don't know about because it's illegal to talk about them, they've come for people who are deprived of contact with lawyers, when will they come for you.

For instance, do you want John Kerry to have the power to imprison you for life without any recourse or representation? Or your kid. To disappear without ever knowing anything about you again?

Now, that's scary.

By the way, did GWB lie about the privacy of medical records? See Spires post.