I always found, even at a young age, the concept of banning smoking from every facet of life to be stupid. If people want to smoke, let them smoke. If people want to do drugs, let them do drugs. If two guys want to marry each other, then let two guys marry each other. And if I want to have a drink in a Chicago speakeasy in 1930, let me have my drink. It is the basic principle of Libertarianism, heck, FREEDOM, that if they ain't hurting anybody else then it's none of your damn business and you should let them do it. Sorry to curse.
Anyway, the people that go on crusades to impose their moral view on the rest of the world is not just relegated to religious folk, the anti-smoking Nazi's are also a perfect example, and the psychology of these people is what intrigues me. Since when did somebody else have the moral authority to tell me what to do and what is right or wrong. I've thus concluded folks that lecture other people about what they should or should not do have nothing better going on in their lives and somehow derive a sense of worth or purpose on going on these crusades. Again their desire to inflate their egos and makes themselves feel better by going on a crusade supercedes the cause.
Alas, why I was just laughing my ass off when I saw this picture from The Economist;
So, for all you anti-smoking nazi's and truth.org people, you won in America with your lawsuit, now you just must carry the crusade overseas and deal with the remaining 5.7 billion people and 175 other nations on the planet.
Ain't globalization grand?