Bamboozled

Our country was founded on the peoples right to choose and make their own choices weather these choices be right or wrong. We were given the freedom of speech, the right to bare arms, and the right to pursue happiness. Now certain things have always been illegal such has hurting others, stealing, and using mind altering substances. Other things however have recently been made illegal due to a concern for public safety and the apparent public ignorance to these things. So if the public is so ignorant of their own safety then why can we still elect the people that control our country? What makes these people in power know better what may ail us than us? Do they feel superior and think that the general American public has no idea what may cause them harm?

With the millions of anti-smoking ads that play across the television screen every night like some horrific game of flash cards how would the general public not know that cigarettes cause cancer and multiple other illness. In that respect in this day and age what doesn't cause cancer? I have come to the conclusion that I will die of cancer weather I smoke or not. With everything from cell phones to the rubber in my shoes linked to some form of cancer or the other it seems the disease is inevitable.

So why is it that our states and political leaders are banning smoking everywhere from public places to your car when minors are present? Cigarettes are taxed in almost every state and pull in only god knows how much money a year in state and federal taxes. So why do these people in power want to limit where the smokers can partake in the cloudy habit? Which brings me to the point of what happen to our right to choose? Currently every public establishment in the state of Washington is not allowed to permit smoking inside the building because of second hand smoke. Now I understand that over the years second hand smoke has been "proven" dangerous, mostly by people attempting to prove it is dangerous, but why should a place of business not be able to choose weather they will allow smoking or not. They say it's because the establishments may not have the best interests of their customer's in mind; that they are out to make money. I say you're right! They are a business, that's what they do; they are interested in a profit. If we made choices for all business in a similar fashion how many would have to be regulated and controlled but an outside body? Too many to count my friends.

Every one has been educated on the dangers or smoking and second hand smoke so they should be able to make the choice of weather or not to be a patron in an establishment that contains a room full of smoke. So if you aren't concerned with your health come on in and if you are there is sure to be another place of similar minded folks such as yourself. But here's where the preverbal smoke hits the fan, what if this particular non smoker does not want to go some where else? What if they want to stay at that location but not have to partake in the foggy atmosphere? This is where people become angry and usually ask well if I'm not a smoker why should I have to either be exposed to the smoke or go somewhere else?

This is were the issue becomes a toss up because the same question applies to the smokers, why should they have to go some where else? In reality there is no real answer to either question. It comes down to people and what they can handle as a person. You will most likely find smoking in bars, bowling alleys and similar places. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone smoking in a restaurant. People have to realize there are places where smoking is just a part of the establishment like funny pictures on the wall or ladies in skimpy clothing.

In Washington State to go along with the no smoking in public establishments you must also be 25 feet away from any public entrance. This always makes me smile as it poses many more possible problems that is solves. For example some people who don't smoke will smoke when they are drinking alcohol and bars are notorious for being filled with a grayish blue haze from the customers all drunkenly chain smoking. So in Washington State to obey the law when these patrons want to smoke they must leave the bar and walk 25 feet from the door. Now you have to be careful because of the other public entrances that may be around, potentially you may end up a block down the street from you favorite hole in the wall. The point being, you now have an intoxicated person or persons on a public street corner smoking. This may not seem like a problem to most but you have to read between the lines. Public intoxication is against the law, as well as loitering. These well meaning folks have just broken two laws that are ticket able as well as potentially arrest able in the pursuit of a fulfilling puff. Now on the flip side of things alcohol tends to intensify emotions. You have a bunch of goofy drunks hanging out on a corner smoking and there is eventually bound to be a problem. Some bars have set up outside smoking areas which I personally think it great. Only problem is they are generally not 25 feet from a public entrance, and around and around we go.

I recently read that California has banned smoking in vehicles where minors are present. I can understand this. In many cases the child is with parents or a person of authority and can not challenge the person who is smoking. I have no problem with protecting this country's children. I can not argue too much on this other than again it takes away our right to choose. As a parent you raise your children the best you can and try not to expose them to anything harmful but in this case you are a smoker with an addiction and can't help but lighting up while on precious car rides in the country with the little ones. As I said I don't think you should smoke with the rugrats in the car but there are a few issues I do have. The law states that a person can not be pulled over specifically for smoking with minors in the vehicle but must have been pulled over for a different driving infraction such as speeding. So, you can be ticketed for this "crime" but you can not be pulled over for it? Interesting, how long do we think that will last? Before long a police officer will see a cigarette and a car seat and then man those lights will be flashing. It makes me wonder how many times law abiding citizens will be pulled over after dropping off little Suzy at daycare. This law also can open the door to your home. How long until someone decides that people should not be allowed to smoke inside their own home while children until 18 are present in the residence. As they say the hits just keep on coming. To stay on the vehicle and driving subject but to steer away from cigarettes lets talk about seat belts.

The same issue applies to seatbelts. Our right has been taken away to choose. From the time a teenager becomes interested in driving they are show movies, pictures, and multiple variances of things that explain the tragedy of car accidents and the potential hazard of not wearing a seatbelt. So why is it that we need the state and government to step in and make it law to wear a seatbelt? The powers that be state that it is for our own safety and they are looking out for our best interests. I can understand this but why is it that they feel the need to take away my right to make that decision? In no way does my not wearing a seatbelt endanger or affect others. Every driver is fully aware that if they are to jump in the car with out wearing a seatbelt and race down the interstate at 1000 miles an hour and hit anything they are bound to be thrown through the windshield or bounced around the car like a pinball machine. People should have the right to make that decision weather right or wrong. If I decide to put my life in jeopardy then so be it, that is my choice and my right.

My real question is how far will all of this go? With the current "obesity problem" in the US today is food next? Will the state or government soon be telling us what we can and can not eat? Take a walk through the grocery store and look at how many food items are unhealthy on the isles. Should the state or government be able to limit what we can purchase and eat in our best interest? Should they be able to mandate exercise and a low carb diet?

If the state and government can make us wear seatbelts and determine when and where we can smoke then why can't they decide what we eat for our own best interests? For god's sake too much sun has the potential to cause skin cancer are we to be limited on out amount of time outside? Some say that a few of these laws are a morale issue. I can believe that some of them are. With the government on a general standpoint of separation of church and state where does it come into play that they can legislate moral issues? They can not as each person has a different set of morals and values. Which once again reintegrates my point of the reason why we have the right to choose and make choices for ourselves. The point of the entire debate is that when we allow small things to be taken away we open the door to bigger and bigger things. I compare our slowly pick pocketed rights to that preverbal thief in the night, you don't notice the change from the dresser missing but when you get to the living room and the plasma is gone you stop and realize you've been bamboozled.