It is interesting to note that the first modern day smoking ban was enacted by Hitler. He was also a huge proponent for animal rights. He also outlawed homeschooling, which the Germans saw fit to keep on the books after WWII and is still in effect today (in fact, the law was just upheld by the European courts, which said that parents’ rights to raise their children were superseded by the state’s right to make sure that children were properly educated).

Unfortunately, such feel-good laws like smoking bans have majority support in this country since it helps everyone: those who don’t smoke don’t have to breath the toxic fumes, and those who do smoke are helped in their obvious need to quit. Furthermore, in some parts of this country, the medical profession has decided to not give out transplants to alcoholics and long-time smokers. What next, someone who eats fast food on a regular basis can’t have a heart transplant?

Organ transplants offer an understandably fine line… denying people care just because they have a bad habit is not right, yet if there is a shortage of organs, why should someone who knowingly took a risk by abusing cigarettes get an organ before someone who showed more restraint?

As for organ transplants, I think that’s a different story. There indeed ARE rules about organ transplants. Those who drink on a bad liver usually are not first in line for the organ when they come in. But if I can take your point a bit further, and show that if all healthcare becomes “publicly funded” (socialized), then it is the GOVERNMENT who makes final choices on such things. Talk about legislating medical from a bench.

I find the lack of personal responsibility expected here ridiculous. If this idea did make it across the pond (which wouldn’t surprise me as that is the direction we are trending), I can see it being met with much enthusiasm. We are, after all, the country where the “Oops, I Crapped My Pants diet pill is flying off the shelves.