That's where the rub lies, IMO. Smoking in public is NOT purely private behavior. Drinking so many soft drinks that you become obese, get diabetes and require expensive treatment that drives up the cost of healthcare for everyone else is NOT purely private behavior. To say otherwise is disingenuous at best, but more like completely dishonest.

Smoking is obviously not a private behavior but is drinking pop in the same category? I mean really, can I go around to people at restaurants and say you can't eat that bacon because I don't eat bacon and I shouldn't have to pay for your illness? I don't drink pop but I don't care if you drink yourself silly. Or you aren't exercising enough and because I do my part and exercise and maintain a healthy body, I can insist that you do also, or what, you pay a health fine? I'm okay with saying smoke if you want as long as you can do it and not get it in anybody else's hair, lungs, clothing etc. I'm okay with putting a ban on the types of chemicals companies can create and introduce into our food products, but I'm not okay with saying the individual eating or drinking or smoking these items is costing me and getting on my soap box feeling resentful about footing the bill. Live and let live.

The problem, JimmyBobby, is defining where behavior becomes "purely private". We are defining more of our lives as "not private" with every new regulation and law. It wouldn't take much of a stretch to define everything we do as affecting someone else, or society at large. There are those who think we watch too much TV for our own good, and that it contributes to a sedentary lifestyle. Do we want the government to regulate how much TV we can watch? Or how much musis we listen to? Or how much time we spend reading? Reading, after all, is a sedentary activity, and reading the "wrong" books could put bad ideas into our heads, and make us not want to obey the government experts who know so much better than we do what is best for us.

This is one slippery slope that I will not go down for anything.

Good point, alittlesense. I'd also add that, for those who argue that smoking leads to increased medical costs for everyone, and therefore we should be able to dictate that people not smoke, that the same argument can be made with regards to children. Do we get to dictate mandatory abortions for babies with Down's Syndrome? Can society force people with a genetic predisposition to certain diseases to undergo sterilization, so they can't pass on their genetic problems?

I won't argue that there's a slope there, but we're way down it already. This ain't the Wild West anymore. We have laws about what people can put in their bodies already -- and so far no one is suggesting that marijuana usage is creating a health-care disaster in this country, though it is crowding our prisons with victimless criminals.

I believe there are two sayings to live by, one being the good ol' Golden Rule and the other being, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my chin." If you don't think the epidemic of obesity is costing us all a LOT of money, then you aren't reading the literature. And if you don't think we've already got plenty of laws telling us what we can and can't do, you must be living way out in the desert somewhere.

But that is really no answer. Being pretty far down the slope is not good, and it is no reason to go further down the slope, unless you are completely resigned to losing all the choices you get to make in life.

You say this isn't the Wild West. No it isn't, but it is getting to be a gray, listless place where people are becoming more and more passive. We could probably save huge amounts of money on health care costs by prohibiting the following: horseback riding especially competitive riding of any kind, any sort of flying other than military or air transport, contact sports, drinking alcohol in any form, private swimming pools, motorsports of any kind, including motorcycle riding for any reason, skiing, snowboarding, mountain climbing, sailing....you see where this is going?

We could have supervised mandatory group calisthenics, ban smoked meats, salty snacks, sugary desserts, organ meats, be vegetarian by government fiat.

But I bet the suicide rate would rise dramatically.

I'm just going further down the slope.

Again, you show more than a little sense. OTOH, I'm not sure I'd lump lifestyle choices that are likely to create chronic illnesses in with activities that have risks of injury. It's facile but not really honest. Of course, we have to live life and that includes skydiving and swimming in pools. There is no biological need to eat four Sara Lee cakes at a sitting, three meals a day -- or whatever it takes to put on an extra hundred pounds or two. The people who do so do not claim to be happy about the way they look and feel.

Think about it. If every other time I got on a horse I fell off and broke something, and you were helping to pay for my medical expenses -- after a certain number of times, wouldn't you suggest, perhaps even insist, that I find another sport?

Not sure if you meant to reply to me or that was an accident because we are both in agreement. But I was trying to point out the difference between smoking drinking pop. You can drink your pop, but you would not, for example, be allowed to spit it out on other patrons. I think smoking is all well and good for other people, but should be contained so as not to spew it all out at others affecting their clothing, hair and breathing.

No accident, I was replying to alittlesense (at least that's the button I thought I pushed), who wants to conflate different types of risky behavior in a way I don't think is honest or useful. I'll repost so that if alittlesense is listening, he/she will know I responded.

Cheers,

Again, you show more than a little sense. OTOH, I'm not sure I'd lump lifestyle choices that are likely to create chronic illnesses in with activities that have risks of injury. It's facile but not really honest. Of course, we have to live life and that includes skydiving and swimming in pools. There is no biological need to eat four Sara Lee cakes at a sitting, three meals a day -- or whatever it takes to put on an extra hundred pounds or two. The people who do so do not claim to be happy about the way they look and feel.

Think about it. If every other time I got on a horse I fell off and broke something, and you were helping to pay for my medical expenses -- after a certain number of times, wouldn't you suggest, perhaps even insist, that I find another sport?

You are absolutely right about there being no need to eat four Sarah Lee cakes at every meal and gain an extra hundred pounds. And I agree with you that people who do that are likely unhappy about the way they look and feel.

However, we can live life without skydiving and swimming in pools, or at least private pools. If you kept getting on a horse, falling off, getting injured and wanting to get back on the horse, I would probably recommend two things:

1. See a doctor to find out why you got injured every time. Most people who fall off horses aren't injured, at least not seriously.

2. See a psychologist to find out why you keep wanting to get back on a horse, even though you do it so badly you injure yourself every time.

Gotta say, alittlesense, I'm pretty disappointed in your flippant response. I thought you had more going on.