You'd have to be a hermit to ignore the growing number of cigarette smoking bans across westernized countries. Not a single ban is the result of chance...but all are the result of diligent work and lobbying campaigns by anti-smoking advocates.

Some cities in the United States have banned both indoor and outdoor smoking. Smokers could be fined up to $100 for lighting up outside in a dark alley. Some apartment buildings in New York City prohibit smoking in residential (private) apartments, and thus, may not only refuse to lease an apartment to a smoker, but reserve the right to evict the tenant if s/he takes up the habit while in residence.

A growing number of employers too in the United States have devised methods (personality tests) to determine whether or not a potential new-hire candidate smokes cigarettes...suspicion alone or an affirmation to the question keeps the candidate out of a job. Are these rules and habits fair, or do they create an illusion that by not smoking cigarettes you will live forever? Better yet, is this the most important issue facing the world today?

In the latest research on cigarette smoking, Norwegian scientists said that even by smoking one cigarette per day -- you will die, plain and simple: Quit now or die, they said. What the scientists did not say is that their conclusion is 100 percent true...with or without a cigarette per day.

Professor Sir Richard Peto said at a cancer conference in Birmingham, United Kingdom, in October 2005 that developing countries were likely to be hit hardest with smoking-related deaths in coming decades and the world must act now to prohibit smoking in those nations.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer says 5 million per year die from smoking and the death rate must be snuffed out immediately worldwide. Smoking will kill 1 billion during the 21st century said Peto. Put into perspective, the world population in year 2099 is estimated to be about 11 billion, and at that time almost all of today's 6.3 billion humans will already have died (save some of today's babies of course.)

If you read the news headlines alone, it could be assumed that putting one cigarette to your lips will immediately kill you. And if you sniff-up someone else's smoke only once, you cut your life expectancy by half; in other words it is all over, forget retiring you will just die at age 37.

The anti-smoking lobby, itself a behemoth of corporate culture, is worth about $26 billion annually, and therefore has the power to fund experiments, research, and advertising campaigns. Looking at numbers their scientists use to grab news headlines gives a different perspective than the initial press conference.

First; the second-hand smoke figure, which is the leading cause of smoking bans across the United States and now in Europe. If a non-smoker hangs around smokers for a long period of time, 10 consecutive years in a smoke-filled room at a standard 40-hours per week, the risk of developing lung cancer from breathing in a lot of other people's smoke is 1 out of 1,000. In fact, the figure is so low it is impossible to tell whether or not that risk is actually related to other factors; environmental pollution, diet, or genetic predisposition.

Second, the real numbers on smokers show that teens who pick up the habit and smoke until age 30 run the risk of developing lung cancer by 2 percent, which is 2 in 100 (a figure still too low to determine if other factors were actually the cause.) A 40-year veteran smoker stands an 8 percent chance of developing lung cancer due primarily to smoking, which is 8 in 100. If you are a life-long smoker, at age 70, the risk you'd die of lung cancer is 16 percent or 16 out of 100. However...you have a 100 percent chance of dying, no matter what you do. Does death at 74 prevent a prolonged death due to other, more painful causes at age 93? Science can not answer for what is already determined by your genes.

We can't make up the numbers --science does give some sound statistics-- but the missing link should be found before tagging a remote case as reason for all. How much does McDonalds' fast-food habits contribute to cancer, what will be the affects of long-term cell-phone use to the body? Questioning these methods however do not make for interesting headlines. McDonalds and the cell phone companies will make sure such blasphemous headlines stay out of the hometown newspapers they use to advertise their services.

Anti-smoking advocates (at least in the United States) have successfully legislated bans on tobacco advertising. Selling the idea that "prevention saves you from death" is a banner head that grabs attention and sells advertising spaces...of non-tobacco related products.

Research results for the biology of the human body concludes that cancer in some form is what likely ends all our lives after age 70, with some bodies surviving longer than others. The mental health of the patient is the second greatest factor, not his/her habits.

No one could argue smoking cigarettes is the best idea for one's general physical health, although eating at McDonalds three times per day must be worse and that habit faces no ban. But should someone's choice inside their own home be legislated?

Does regulating one's choice to smoke open the doors of regulating how often we could visit McDonalds, or lead to banning the entertainment we chose to watch?

Should the average "westernized" nightclub or "private club" be regulated as non-smoking when in fact these businesses serve as the primary meeting places for recreational (illegal) drug buys? Where do the anti-alcohol abuse advocates or HIV-prevention activists stand on private nightclubs? Patrons may drink and engage in risky sexual behavior in these clubs, but smokers are prohibited from lighting-up.

Has smoking (cigarettes) become the world's most important mission at this point in time? Where are everyone's priorities?