I think I'll wait until they actually come after the guns/ammo in that way and then worry about the guns/ammo.
Frankly, I would have fewer medical expenses if no one around me smoked. The whole "free to not go there" argument only goes so far. Hell, the nurse caring for me in a respiratory care unit reeked of smoke and worsened the breathing problem that had put in there in the first place. Now tell me, if a person if respiratory distress is "choosing" to expose himself to tobacco residue by going to a respiratory care unit in a hospital, where the heck is it safe to go?
I admit that personal experience has reshaped my opinion of punitive and restrictive smoking laws and taxes. I now agree that if people are going to impose enormous additional burdens on the rest of us by insisting on smoking--on the street, in the doorways of just about every classroom building in the country, in all kinds of difficult or impossible to avoid places, and then carry their residue with them all over the place, then they should bear some of the cost burden they place on everyone else.
Widespread use and ownership of guns and ammo, however, are a social good. They encourage hunting, an integral part of wildlife management, and they provide a fairly reliable stream of experienced or at least interested marksman for the military, and to a lesser extent, to police forces. They also have a demonstrated effect on reducing home invasions and related crimes. While the last is for some reason controversial, the first two are not, and indeed are supported by a variety of government programs, including DNR hunting programs, public ranges, and the CMP.
Legally, guns ownership and use is an enumerated fundamental right, whereas tobacco may potentially, if you really, really reach, be squashed into a general, unenumerated privacy right. Probably not though, considering the number of dangerous and less dangerous substances that are currently restricted by US governments.
Sorry, I refuse to get worked up over purchasers of luxury goods that are invariably harmful to other people--including children, worthy of specific mention because they do not have the option of choosing to not go where the smokers are--being required to pay additional taxes to partially defray the costs their behavior inflicts upon the rest of us.
Hm, actually I've gotten pretty worked up, but it's more about the logical leap from something invariably harmful to something nearly always beneficial.
