[cooldude]

Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised.

There are many reasons to be skeptical about what professional anti-smoking advocates say. They personally profit by exaggerating the health threats of smoking and winning passage of higher taxes and bans on smoking in public places. The anti-smoking movement is hardly a grassroots phenomenon: It is largely funded by taxpayers and a few major foundations with left-liberal agendas.

A growing number of independent policy experts from a wide range of professions and differing political views are speaking out against the anti-smoking campaign. They defend smokers for several reasons:

* Smokers already pay taxes that are too high to be fair, and far above any cost they impose on the rest of society.

* The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science.

* Litigation against the tobacco industry is an example of lawsuit abuse, and has “loaded the gun” for lawsuits against other industries.

* Smoking bans hurt small businesses and violate private property rights.

* The harm caused by smoking can be reduced by educating smokers about their options.

* Punishing smokers “for their own good” is repulsive to the basic libertarian principles that ought to limit the use of government force.