Since 5000 B.C. There has been smoking. On nearly every continent there was a plant, it was burned and inhaled. An though travel was limited and distance great, smoking took on similar forms in each culture. Incense, hookah, peace pipes were all important elements in a communal culture; something to do while sitting around and talking. While smoking back then consisted of getting high on extreme doses of tobacco or opium after 7000 years the rituals still continue, to some extent.

It wasn't until the new worlds were discovered, colonized and trade routes formed that smoking began to see strong opposition. Several attempts have been made to ban smoking, the Ottoman Empire in 1623, James the I in 1600 and on and on yet all have failed. Why would people continue to smoke despite 4000% tax increases and the threat of being whipped till their skin came off? Is tobacco that addictive? Do the endorphins being released during smoking make that much of a difference?

I would like to believe that its the opponents of smoking the drive people to snub laws and taxes. Often those who come down hard on smoking are zealots with a single minded direction. Prominent religious leaders who said that smoking was immoral and blasphemous. Hitler with the aid of the Nazi party had a strong anti-smoking movement calling smoking, decadent, and said that women who smoked were less attractive and unsuitable wives. From a logistical stand point banning smoking makes sense in order to control people. A substance that gave people feeling of well being would be considered competitions for adoration. And smoking was an easy target to come down on, a substance that wasn't needed for survival and took time and money. I would also like to believe that people saw that a single plant was not the downfall and corruption of man and that it took a certain psychological disposition to be threatened by a plant. The truth however was smoking was an addiction.

Somewhere ingrained in humanity is an addiction to smoking. Not only the chemical addiction but the elements that go along with smoking. 7000 years after the first person lit a bunch of dried leaves and sat around to chat I hold a cup of coffee in one hand and a cigarette in the other. There are friends on either side of me and we take the time to relax, talk about nothing and everything. We commune. The rushing endorphins make it easier and time goes by without telling us. It is the nature of everyone to seek companionship and smoking helps form that bond. If you've ever smoked, know or seen a smoker you may have noticed the smokers code in action. The unspoken rules that anyone can “bum” a cigarette stranger or friend; any smoker can ask another smoker for a light; and any smoker can converse with another smoker without being ignored and without obligation of long term friendship. Race, religion or creed make no difference. I can think of no other universal thing that brings people together. It is this that has the world addicted to smoking.

And then there was capitalism. It was corporations in pursuit of sales that built the marketing machine we know as big tobacco. In the 1920's people were told that smoking was good for you. Then came cartoon camels and iconic images of rugged and suave men with cigarettes in there mouths. And like many times before smoking was said to have conflicting and miraculous properties in order to make sales. Then big tobacco started putting in additives for “better flavor” and the truth comes out. Smoking can kill you and they knew it. But was it there fault? How do you cope when you have a multi-million dollar company founded on a product used by most everyone on the planet and then find out that product can kill? Do you shut it all down? Do you tell people, “don't buy our product”? They were in a loose, loose situation and just happened to choose money. And would we be so pissed off if they hadn't made billions off of cigarettes?

And the world was outraged. From there on it was a piece of cake to build up an intense anti-smoking crusade.

And here were are today where cigarettes are heavily taxed and smoking is banned in public places (and on occasion in private places). With the recent trend of “ultra” health, eat healthy, live healthy, exercise healthy, smoking has become a social stigma. Parents grab there children and run.

But like before when smoking has managed to find away back. Technology has presented us with the electronic cigarette. A rechargeable device that uses a cartridge system to deliver flavored nicotine to the smoker. Though it can't truly be called smoking because the only bi product is a water vapor. There is no smell and there are no cancer causing additives. So what's the harm? The user makes a choice to intake nicotine without effecting those around him yet even the electronic cigarette is under attack. In three major countries it is illegal, in three others they can only be sold as a medical device and in several other they are debating on the legality of the E-Cig. Why? Well basically because it has no other use than to addict or continue the addiction to nicotine. Some might be able to argue that the major reason is that the E-Cig isn't as heavily taxed as true cigarettes. And since the movement to pass taxes on cigarettes is based on public health passing taxes on the E-Cig probably won't happen.

It brings smoking back to it's history of zealot opposition. Are government anti-smoking campaigns done for the good of the people or the good of the coffers? For the good of the people television time would be limited, junk food would be banned along with alcohol, people would be required to exercise and children would be forced into higher education. One of the many essential natures of a free society is the ability to make the wrong/poor choice. When a government(or society) forces its people, through legislation, taxation or popular ethics, to live by the “right” choice it starts to reek of a socialist dictatorship:

“...left-wing and right-wing radicals were able to exploit the horrendous unemployment rate and widespread economic misery. No more majorities capable of government were to be formed... As a result of the economic crisis, his National Socialist movement had become the strongest political force...” Excerpt From...

This was the state of the German government before Hitler took power. And while I know I'm using an extreme reference read the following post from a University professor.

“Would if the government decreed that gasoline can only be sold at 5 cents a gallon and milk can only be sold for, um, let's say 8 cents a gallon? Do you think by the time you got to the store there would be any left? Say it costs the producers 50 cents a gallon to make gasoline and 80 cents a gallon to produce milk. How quickly do you think a producer would make new supplies available if he were facing a loss of 45 cents and 72 cents per gallon respectively?...

What is the "fair price" of good(s)?

Price controls are tantamount to socialism. If the government decrees at what price your property may be sold, in what sense do you actually own the property? You are merely a steward of the property on behalf of the state. What distinguishes one dictator from the next is only the extent to which he is willing to use violence to enforce such controls.” Excerpt From...

Mister Reich is actually refering to Venezuela but how much of this could currently be applied to the United States? The heavy taxation of products that are found/deemed harmful. The granting of “bail out” money which essential says that no matter how low your company or property value falls you won't have to sell it at that bottom of the barrel price. The forcing of businesses (your not going to like reading this) like OPEC to not take advantage of the basic capitalistic principle of supply and demand. Or the joint effort of people and government to make insurance companies give policies at cut rate prices despite loss of income. What all of these ideas/laws/revolutions have in common is that “the cause” multiplied by popularity over shadows those who suffer from it. Most dictators earn popularity by reviving the economy and so people allowed them leeway. Popular opinion, for the moral good of the nation, voted to outlaw alcohol in the '20 then had it repealed after the over shadowed negatives came to light. And once again the moral populace has voted to ban gay marriage over shadowing the fact that married couples help stabilize the economy and increase tax revenue. It should never be the job of the government to dictate the morals and ethics of society. It is the job of the government to balance budgets, provide a safe environment for the advancement of its people and to protect our freedoms. Yet the people and sometimes the government like to do otherwise.

It only makes it more clear that we are no longer living in the world of the colonies and kingdoms. This is a global society filled with billions of people with billions of thoughts and billions of actions. The people, the government and the corporations live in a ecosystem where effecting one effects the rest. Or in other words every action, law or sale has a reaction.