New York City is raising the level of tax on cigarettes once again. By raising the cost of the habit, many of the cities elected officials believe they can stop people from smoking. You know, kind of like how prohibition did with alcohol. Cigarettes will no cost around $8.00 a pack. Some Democrats, and to this authors dismay Republicans, are trying to curb our freedom of choice, while simultaneously watering down the importance of self reliance in the name of the “public good.”

As noble as this seems, this initiative will do more harm than good. What good will a large population of people, that can not take care of themselves or make difficult decisions independently from the government, bring to this city? The answer: none. Teaching people that they do not need will power, because the government will protect them from themselves, is self defeating. Anything not in moderation can be harmful.

Too much calcium can cause kidney stones, we can not and should not expect the government to pass laws on the rationing of milk. Too much sugar rots teeth, but the government shouldn’t tell us how much sugar we can eat. One should think of the Senate testimony of Nick Naylor, a tobacco lobbyist in the fictional book, Thank You For Smoking by Christopher Buckley. Naylor makes the argument that since the number one killer in the United States is heart disease, there should be restrictions placed on cheddar cheese before restrictions are placed on cigarettes. One could argue that New York City is heading in that direction anyhow. With calorie information required on menu's and a complete ban on transfats.

There is evidence that shows smoking is harmful to your health, but we as an informed and civilized population should be able to decide whether to smoke or not. I find it ironic that the same people that would deny you your right to smoke cigarettes, would defend your right to be taken off life support, kill yourself, or even take someone else off life support, if they meet a certain criteria. It is simply inconceivable that we just have no idea how bad smoking can be for us? We are reminded every time we see a bus, billboard, or subway advertisement. And every smoker has that one friend who reminds them just how bad smoking is for them. But people still smoke.

It is clear that the Democratic City Council members, peering down from their pedestal of nobility and holiness, decided that they know what is best for us. They must know what is best for us correct? That is why we elected them? Right? Absolutely not. The liberty to make such basic decisions about our personal lives is being hijacked by a minority of limousine liberal hucksters who honestly believe that the only way we won’t self destruct is if they legislate every aspect of our existence.

This is not about the right to smoke. This is about a general usurpation of the basic freedoms and liberties this country is founded on. It is about our freedom to live life the way we choose, so long as we do not encroach upon that same right in others. Something so basic, yet so crucial to the longevity of democracy should be left to the people, as it was intended to be.

A new argument is emerging in defense of anti-smoking legislation. They are now doing it not just to protect you from yourself, but to protect others from you. This is the best argument for draconian smoking bans. However, there has never been a study linking brief exposure to second hand smoke to cancer, heart disease, or early death. All the studies done on second hand smoke have been on people exposed for 25 years or longer. So the idea of protecting the non-smoking citizens, while sounding better than protecting us from ourselves, is a lie. In reality, they are protecting themselves from annoyance. Non-smokers like myself do not like inhaling smoke. It can be offensive to the senses. But, as Fran Lebowitz  wrote,  "being offended is the natural consequence of leaving ones home".

If, at the age of 18, we can make the decision to fight for this country, to vote for our representatives, to gamble, to live independently, to drive a car, or to get married, you certainly have the right to choose whether or not to smoke cigarettes. The information is out there, no one is hiding it. You know the risks, make a decision, it is your right. It is not the right of far removed officials and legislators who think they know what is best for you. The truth is, they know what we know, nothing more, and if this is left to stand, our ability to make decisions on other basic aspects of our lives will be vulnerable to restrictive legislation.