If one looks at the anti-smoking campaign from the point of view of how rather than what, i.e., its tactics and means alone, certain questions about it are highlighted seperately and distinctly from the question of whether or not one should smoke. For instance, consider:

Legislation is being passed and ultra-heavy fines levied against the producers of a legal product resulting in stiff price increases to the end users of that product, not to mention exorbitant taxation.

These end users are denied any input in the process and are thus disenfranchised, allowed no say in affairs directly effecting their personal lives and pocketbooks. As a resuilt they are being deprived of individual liberties long associated with the American way of life.

The whole process is a result of unprecendented collusion between private coalitions and governmental powers with respect not only to the methodology, but its financing.

Objective consideration of these facts casts serious doubt on the legitimacy of the entire undertaking.

You may not approve of smoking but the question becomes, do you approve of the systematic dismantling of individual liberty? of taxation without representation? of subverting due process? of the interference of government in the private lives of citizens?

If so then you must stand ready to welcome with open arms the insurgence of a totalitarian state, for that is precisely where the path ultimately leads because the movement will not stop with tobacco. In fact the spread to other areas has already begun.

So ask yourself if this is the future you really want.