Recently, on my Comstock Laws post, I raised some hackles. Hopefully, I also gave some pause for thought.
Someone made the comment (since the person chose to remain anonymous, I can't say who it was.) that sex is not a need. That would be correct. As far as survival goes, it is not a need. However, it is an inborn biological drive that few try to ignore. Where in or out of wedlock, I'd say it's a fair bet that 90% of human adults will have some form of sexual contact during their lifetime.
Which brings me to smoking.
I am anti-tobacco. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. I think it's dangerous, unhealthy, and stupid. I made Builder give up smoking before we got married. I fully support the Clean Air Act, in all forms. I think any parent who smokes, especially around their kids, is extremely irresponsible. I would never allow it in my home or vehicle. And, if a person gets emphysema or cancer as a result of smoking, that's just too damned bad. Smoking is neither a need, nor is it a biological drive, so I think it is fair to say that the percentage of adult humans who choose to smoke at some point in their lives is below 90%.
That said, I also do not support passing laws that would cut funding, insurance coverage, or training for treatments of smoking-related illnesses. I would not support firing anyone who smoked. I believe that smoking cessation programs of all types should be covered by insurance. I also believe that all children should learn about the dangers of smoking from a young age.
Replace "smoking" with "sex", "smoking cessation" with "birth control" and "smoking-related illnesses" with "prenatal testing and amniocentesis," and you get the idea. And, as a reminder, we are discussing birth control, not elective abortion! Any comments on that topic will be deleted!