Link Of Interest: Forces International

I was doing some light research, more like curious browsing, on second hand smoke and found the Forces International website. Perusing through its honorary committee list I discovered Joe Jackson is on it. Party on, dudes. What led me to the site was a report during a news telecast about doctors asking the government to step in and tax bad food in order to prevent heart attacks.

And the madness of relying on government continues.

Back to the second hand smoke thing. Friends, family (and even strangers) always look at me in horror whenever I claim the anti-smoking crusade is rooted in self-righteous demagoguery. Call me a boob but I just don't believe there are too many people involved in this whole machine who care for me personally. Qui bono, folks. Qui bono.

In different variations I get the, "You? Mr. Health food sports fanatic? You accept this?" line. I can separate the two, you know. Do I wish no one smoked? Of course. Do I feel it necessary to interfere in the lives of others? It depends. But I do feel we go overboard.

It's pure anti-liberty the way I see it. You can't legislate every facets of our lives. It's ok to have awareness campaigns about the dangers of smoking but to actively infringe on civil liberties is another matter; annoying habit with life threatening consequences notwithstanding.

Here's an excerpt of who Forces are and its philosophical message:

"FORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to – the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive. However, FORCES goes well beyond this, into a critic of aspects of medicine, politics, public policy and scientific research that tend to undermine cherished barriers between public and private, between the state and the individual, and between those special powers that the liberal democratic state can normally only claim only in extraordinary circumstances (crises of epidemic disease, war) and those much more limited powers that are understood as appropriate under normal conditions of life."

As some of you may know, I'm not exactly fond of government. Wait, that came out awkward. In some instances government participation in society is healthy. What concerns me is the expansion of our reliance on government. I try to keep a logical balance between the two lest I become an anarchist or radical civil libertarian.