Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons, than under omnipotent moral busybodies … those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis

The pendulum never swings but what it swings too far. Originally, smokers indulged their habit everywhere – restaurants, hospitals, you name it. Surely some restrictions were in order. But as usual in human affairs, the anti-tobacco reaction first reached a reasonable compromise, then continued on to become an engorged, meddling monster.

Authors of apologias often portray their objectivity by disclaiming use of whatever the disputed subject is. I won't scramble for that bit of cover. The reader may guess whether I smoke or not; the argument is the same regardless.

Like a good many things we humans do and enjoy, smoking isn't calculated to best extend our lives. In this it shares common ground with boozing, drugs, motorcycling, gay male sex, skydiving, firefighting, eating fatty carbohydrates, and the like. But life is far more than a pinched accounting of just how much longer we can extend our breathing into the future. People, once aware of the risks, might take certain precautions to avoid health problems. Or they might find that some things are worth the risk. The cost of their choices should be upon them, not society.

What is it about smoking that turns some people into Big Nannies who want to swaddle and eventually smother others? Examine their arguments:

Smoking hurts the smokers. Yes, as do alcohol with boozers and candy with fat people. Does the Health Reich recognize any limit on itself, or are our entire lives subject to its tender mercies?

Smoking hurts the passive smoker. Likely true, and irrelevant to bars, where consenting adults go to indulge their vices. Mock the barhoppers as irrational if you wish, but that only puts you on the same plane as those who, say, tweak golfers as comically dressed dorks chasing little white balls with a stick. Any human activity can be made to look ridiculous.

Smoking costs society money. Spare me. The social costs of tobacco don't amount to a hill of beans compared to the waste of alcohol. The Forum recently ran a front-page article on local law authorities who claimed, apparently only slightly tongue in cheek, that they could let a large portion of their officers and lawyers go if not for alcohol. The beaten wives, the crime, the tears, the broken families, the deaths and disease, the money lost, combined dwarf tobacco's burden. But I suppose the Big Nannies, natural bullies that they are, won't pick on alcohol again. Yet no vice is more harmful to others than alcohol, moderation or not.

Speaking of money, since the Health Reich keeps bringing it up, it's unclear what smokers cost us. Since they die 12 to 14 years sooner than their peers, society realizes huge savings on Medicare and Social Security. If this seems a tad morbid, remember that it's the Big Nannies who keep harping on money lost to tobacco use.

Like the abortion issue, we seem to have reached an impasse of worldviews on smoking. One side thinks it has the right to abuse the law to criminalize adults for their own good, even for trivialities such as smoking (or trans-fats, or seat belt use, or what have you), and that's that. The other side believes in liberty from do-gooders who should stick to tyrannizing and moralizing over their little dollies at home, not real live people.