if smoking kills, why is it legal?

Tyla is 23, works in hospitality and she's thoroughly confused about all the anti-smoking hype. She enjoys a smoke socially -- so she's not yet a daily addict -- and it's at this stage in her life that she feels the government should stop flip-flopping on the issue and either ban the sale of cigarettes or get off smokers' backs.

"In my work I get to see plenty of off-duty health officials and they're off their face with one drug or another," laughs Tyla, "and while it's true that very few of them would be sneaking out back for a smoke the fact is that they don't practise what they preach."

"If smoking kills then the government would ban the sale of cigarettes outright, wouldn't it?" asks Tyla. "Either the government is deliberately killing us by not banning tobacco or it is deliberately lying to us in order to keep the money coming in. Which is it?"

"Maybe I'm naive, but when my government bans a substance I believe it's harmful and when it doesn't, I believe it's okay."

"Because the government is flip-flopping on the issue of smoking -- on one hand telling us how harmful it is and how we can't smoke in certain places any more and on the other hand it allows tobacco products to be sold in supermarkets and at the local store -- I don't know what to believe any more."

"If alcohol isn't allowed to be sold in supermarkets and local stores like cigarettes are," says Tyla, "then that means that cigarettes must be safer than alcohol, right? So why aren't there any warnings on liquor bottles and cans?"

"Can you see how confusing all this is to young people?"

"Like most of my friends I am left wondering about what the hell the government is really doing."

"Either it is deliberately lying about the harmful effects of smoking or it isn't -- which is it? -- and what part does money play in its flip-flopping behavior?"

"It seems to me that the government stands to gain both ways from its present position -- being supported by both the tobacco industry and the anti-smoking lobby --and a total ban on the sale of tobacco products would be detrimental to all three parties."

"If tobacco products are harmless and the government is just going along with the anti-smoking lobby in order to appease it and gain votes and money -- then that's understandable," says Tyla, "but if tobacco products are really as harmful as the anti-smoking lobby says they are, then by not banning the products the government is deliberately killing us -- and that's criminal behavior."

"I guess the government could squirm out of the inconsistency by saying that it cannot ban smoking because it doesn't want to infringe on our rights to choose our own poison," muses Tyla, "but that's a load of bull because we only have two legal choices -- alcohol and cigarettes -- everything else is banned!"

"It's only by making harmful substances illegal -- like heroin and cocaine -- that people understand the risk they're taking when they use it," sighs Tyla. "Just putting a warning label on a pack of cigarettes is not going to have the same effect because warning labels are everywhere these days -- even on plastic bags."

"Sure, cigarettes might kill you if you eat the damn things just like a plastic bag might kill you if you tied it around your head -- and idiots need to be warned about these dangers," laughs Tyla, "but if used for the purpose they are sold freely and legally on the market no product should be harmful."

"So, is our government sanctioning the sale of a harmful product or isn't it?"

"While I'm still young and not yet addicted to cigarettes I want to know if my government refuses to ban cigarettes -- and is deliberately killing me -- because it's in the pocket of the tobacco industry and wants to squeeze more taxes out of me for as long as it can," says Tyla, "or if it refuses to ban cigarettes because it does not consider tobacco products to be as harmful as other drugs and all the warning labels are just an appeasement for the anti-smoking lobby."

"Right now, I tend to believe the appeasement argument because if I died prematurely from lung cancer both the government and the tobacco industry would suffer financially -- they're not going to deliberately kill off a potential golden goose," admits Tyla, "but all the same I don't want to die prematurely from lung cancer and I certainly don't want to be a golden goose for the government, the tobacco industry or -- if it comes to that -- the anti-smoking lobby."

"I'm mindful that the anti-smoking lobby is making a lucrative living off smokers, too," says Tyla."If smoking was truly as harmful as they make it out to be then they would demand -- with everyone's approval, especially mine -- to have the sale of tobacco products banned outright."

"I don't see the anti-smoking lobby calling for an outright ban on tobacco and I can understand why -- if tobacco products were banned, their income and purpose in life would come to an abrupt end, right?"

"To be totally cynical, if smoking were truly as harmful as they make it out to be and the anti-smoking lobby does not call for a ban on the sale of tobacco products then they are deliberately killing me, too."

"To put a stop to all of this confusion I challenge the anti-smoking lobby to put its money where its mouth is -- cut the mealy mouth warnings, call for a total ban on the sale of tobacco products, and mean it -- or butt out of my life."