Smokers, non-smokers and, yes, even anti-smokers!

Why? Because in doing so they defend their own rights.

There are actually two issues at stake here: Smokers' Rights and Everyone's Rights. Put another way -- if one segment of society can have their rights stripped away with a stroke of the pen the same thing can happen to other groups. And don't think it won't.

The anti-smoking campaign has become so overblown that in some places it infringes on businesses by disallowing smoking in public places, restaurants and bars in particular, despite the owners desires. On the other hand it has made anti-smoking hysteria so acceptable that in one case a business tried to ban employees from smoking in their own vehicles and even in their own homes! Fortunately a court decision forced them to back off and reinstate an employ fired for smoking in his personal car.

Banning smoking in condominiums and apartment buildings has led to equally extreme measures. In at least one case an apartment resident tried to prevent another resident from smoking in his own apartment. The principle of being "invaded by tobacco smoke from nearby dwellings" is utterly ridiculous and indicative only of a presumptuous attempt to restrict another person's freedom.

This is second hand smoke hysteria twice removed! But that's the way it goes once the trend starts.

If the anti-smoking bandwagon cruises to its ultimate destination -- the outlawing of tobacco and criminalization of smokers, what's next?

Probably the food and drink we consume. Alcohol of course is already under heavy attack. Food? On the "Today" show February 10, 1997 an FDA spokesman offered the following definition of a drug: "...anything that effects the function or structure of the body..." On guard, people! Here they come again.

This opens the door for an attack of the food we eat employing all the malicious elements of the war on smoking -- government regulation, advertising restrictions, government subsidies, higher taxes and a mandated education program. Not to mention the moral outrage and judgmental snotiness previously aimed at smokers but now turned on the over-weight, high-cholesterol sinners who eat what they want. As if it was anyone else's business.

Don't count the animal rights activists out either. Vegetarianism is apt to enter the fray as well. The recent change in the Body Mass Index (BMI) may be just another "official" volley in this overall battle.

Don't misunderstand me. Although I have smoked for 55 years now I would not recommend the practice to anyone, nor would I endorse a careless and dangerous diet. But engaging in either should remain a matter of personal choice, not something dictated from outside. No, given free rein the Lifestyle Police are unlikely to curtail their erosion of individual rights until none are left.

Intolerance is on the march with a vengeance. The right to bear arms, to wear furs, to read or look at any material once chooses, to use proscribed, politically incorrect language, to smoke cigarettes and God knows what else are all under fire by the self-lobotomized do-gooders who know what's best for us.

In their fervor to ban any action or language they consider offensive or improper they never stop to consider how offensive their own actions are in trying to impose their standards on society as a whole. In their drive to muzzle, proscribe and outlaw they have no perspective. It is always others, never themselves who need to be criticized and controlled. In psychology this is called "projection" and is symptomatic of a sick mind.

It usually starts out for "the good of the children." In reality protecting individual rights would be far better and safer for them.

Liberty, not control and legislation should be the goal. So, while you may not approve of my life style as a smoker, all you non-smokers and anti-smokers out there should re-examine your priorities and start protecting my Rights in the interest of saving your own. After all, in the final analysis we will all stand or fall together.