Sugar is the best analogy so far--thanks for that. I still don't think there's any problem with comparing smoking to particular foods. What we need isn't "food" per se, it's certain compounds which are most readily found, most easy to process, and most pleasurable to ingest when they are found in food. We could meet all our nutritional needs through appallingly unpalatable means.
(Speaking of SF, I'm reminded of Vance's "The Last Castle" where the alien slave caste is forced to take their nutrients intravenously through packs on their backs so they don't waste time eating. When one complains, he is told, "The syrup meets all nutritional requirements." "So why don't you eat it?" he snaps back.)
My point about religion is simply that just because a certain activity is ultimately a choice doesn't mean that (a) making a different choice is trivial or (b) discrimination against the person who makes that choice is justified. Prejudice is ugly even when it's directed against a "deserving" target. (I'm not saying all anti-smoking attitudes amount to prejudice, but an awful lot of them do.)
Again, just because a tax can be avoided doesn't meant it's not discriminatory or otherwise unjust. I think that whenever a government decides to treat one group of citizens markedly differently than another, then it needs to go some distance to justify this unfairness. Prove to me that the guy lighting up next to me in the bar does more damage to myself and society than the guy who drove 50 miles to be there (and whose gasoline taxes don't even cover the costs of the roads he uses, much less the externalities), and then maybe I'll have a more sympathetic ear.
no subject
(Speaking of SF, I'm reminded of Vance's "The Last Castle" where the alien slave caste is forced to take their nutrients intravenously through packs on their backs so they don't waste time eating. When one complains, he is told, "The syrup meets all nutritional requirements." "So why don't you eat it?" he snaps back.)
My point about religion is simply that just because a certain activity is ultimately a choice doesn't mean that (a) making a different choice is trivial or (b) discrimination against the person who makes that choice is justified. Prejudice is ugly even when it's directed against a "deserving" target. (I'm not saying all anti-smoking attitudes amount to prejudice, but an awful lot of them do.)
Again, just because a tax can be avoided doesn't meant it's not discriminatory or otherwise unjust. I think that whenever a government decides to treat one group of citizens markedly differently than another, then it needs to go some distance to justify this unfairness. Prove to me that the guy lighting up next to me in the bar does more damage to myself and society than the guy who drove 50 miles to be there (and whose gasoline taxes don't even cover the costs of the roads he uses, much less the externalities), and then maybe I'll have a more sympathetic ear.