On what human sense are sensing: We simulate reality

What we sense really isn't exactly reality. The brain-mind has to create illusions and narratives to explain things that are very probably not fully understandable because they far too complex for probably any form of life to comprehend. An article by Discover Magazine goes into this for a general audience: 

How Quantum Mechanics Lets Us See, Smell and Touch

How much of the quantum world can we experience in our daily lives? And what sort of information can our senses glean about the true nature of reality? After all, as the origin of the theory itself makes clear, quantum phenomena can lie just under our noses. In fact, they may be taking place right inside our noses.

The Quantum Schnozz

What’s going on in your nose when you wake up and smell the coffee, or the slice of bread browning in your non-lethal toaster? For such an in-your-face sensory organ, the nose is poorly understood. No less a luminary than Enrico Fermi, who built the world’s first nuclear reactor, once remarked to a friend while frying onions that it would be nice to understand how our sense of smell works.

So you’re lying in bed, and someone has thoughtfully brewed some freshly ground Sumatran dark roast. Molecules from the elixir waft through the air. Your inhalations draw some of these molecules into a cavity between your eyes just above the roof of your mouth. The molecules stick to a layer of mucus on the upper surface of the cavity, embedded with olfactory neurons. Dangling from the brain like the tentacles of a jellyfish, olfactory neurons are the only part of the central nervous system constantly exposed to the outside world.

What happens next isn’t quite clear. We know the molecules bind to some of the 400 different receptors on the surface of the olfactory neurons; we don’t know exactly how that contact creates our sense of smell. Why is smell such a difficult sense to understand?

“In part, it’s the difficulty of setting up experiments to probe what’s going on inside the olfactory receptors of the nose,” says Andrew Horsfield, a materials scientist at Imperial College London.

The conventional explanation for how smell works seems straightforward: The receptors accept very specific shapes of molecules. They’re like locks, which can be opened only by the right keys.

But there’s a fundamental problem with the lock-and-key model: “You can have molecules of wildly different shape and composition, which all give you the same odor perception,” says Horsfield. It seems that something more than shape must be involved, but what?

A controversial alternative to the lock-and-key model suggests our sense of smell arises not just from the shape of molecules, but also from the manner in which those molecules vibrate.

Feeling Your Way

Now back to that cup of coffee. The cup feels substantial, a solid chunk of matter firmly in contact with the skin of your hand. But that’s an illusion: We never really touch anything, at least not in the sense of two solid slabs of matter coming together.[1] More than 99.9999999999 percent of an atom consists of empty space, with nearly all its stuff concentrated in the nucleus.

When you exert pressure against the cup with your hand, the seeming solidity comes from the resistance of electrons in the cup. Electrons themselves don’t have any volume at all — they’re just fleeting, zero-dimensional flecks of negative electric charge that surround atoms and molecules like clouds. And the laws of quantum mechanics limit them to specific energy levels around atoms and molecules. As your hand grasps the cup, it forces electrons from one level to another, and that requires energy from the hand’s muscles, which the brain interprets as touching something solid.

Our sense of touch, then, arises from an exceedingly complex interaction between electrons around the molecules of our bodies and those of the objects we encounter. From that information, our brain creates the illusion that we possess solid bodies moving through a world filled with other solid objects. Touch doesn’t give us an accurate sense of reality. And it may be that none of our perceptions match what’s really out there. Donald Hoffman, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of California, Irvine, believes that our senses and brain evolved to hide the true nature of reality, not to reveal it.

“My idea is that reality, whatever it is, is too complicated and would take us too much time and energy [to process],” he says.

Hoffman likens the picture our brain constructs of the world to the graphical interface on a computer screen. All the colorful icons on the screen — the trash can, the mouse pointer, the file folders — bear no resemblance at all to what’s really going on inside the computer. They’re abstractions, simplifications that allow us to interact with complex electronics.

In Hoffman’s view, evolution has shaped our brains to operate in much the same way, as a graphical interface that doesn’t reproduce the world with any sort of fidelity. Evolution doesn’t favor the development of accurate perceptions; it rewards ones that enhance survival. Or as Hoffman puts it, “Fitness beats truth.”  

So while one organism might construct a more accurate representation of reality, that representation doesn’t enhance its survivability. Hoffman’s studies have led him to a remarkable conclusion: “To the extent that we’re tuned to fitness, we will not be tuned to reality. You can’t do both.”  

As Hoffman’s work shows, we haven’t yet come to grips with the full meaning of quantum theory and what it says about the nature of reality. Planck himself struggled for most of his life to understand the theory he helped launch, and always believed in an objective universe that exists independently of us [I believe that too]. He once wrote about why he decided to go into physics against the advice of his mentor: “The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific pursuit in life.” Maybe it will take another century, and another revolution, to prove whether he was right, or as mistaken as Professor von Jolly.

The article is long and this is only about half of it. But I hope that one can get some feel for how complicated the concept of reality and human perceptions of it are. 

Footnote:

1. I have a quibble with the argument that we do not touch a solid thing. That feels wrong to me. When our hand picks up a rock or other solid thing, there is very close contact. Atoms or molecules of both are coming up against each other and a few diffuse into each other. Atoms of solid gold and other metals in contact with each other diffuse into each. Measured diffusion rates for metals was being published long ago, e.g., this 1950 paper, The diffusion rates of some metals in copper, silver, and gold. An 1896 paper commented: "The diffusion of molten and solid metals has long demanded investigation, their molecular mobility being of great interest in relation to the constitution of matter, and its results of much industrial importance." 

Just because atoms and molecules are mostly empty space, does not mean that atoms and molecules do not interact at the atomic level when they come in contact with each other. If the mixing of atoms and molecules of two different solids, liquids or gases does not constitute touching, then I don't understand what touching means. 

Acknowledgment: Thanks to ulTRAX for bringing this article to my attention.

Thoughts about near death experiences

CONTEXT

This is one of those topics where the human brain-mind likes to run wild. Most humans dislike ambiguity and incomplete stories. In the face of ambiguity, incomplete facts and contradictory narratives, complexity and the like, the human mind tends to fill in gaps, sanitize contradictions to tidy up cognitive dissonance and simplify complexity. We unconsciously often or usually do things to make the world seem to be safer for self-esteem, self, family and tribe interests and moral authority. Often times the reality our brain-minds create significantly diverges from actual reality, whatever that might be. 

Now, on to the main event:

On near death experiences (NDEs)

(Twilight zone music tinkling 

gently in background)

In 2014, one of the first papers that tried to prove that NDEs were real world experiences (objective realities) separate from brain activity (a non-physical mental event, e.g., activity of an immaterial soul) rather than experiences generated by the brain-mind. That was called the AWARE study. One expert, Steve Novella at Neurologica blog, commented that the study failed. Novella discusses a second attempt, the AWARE II study, to generate evidence to support or refute the objective reality of NDEs:

The notion of near death experiences have fascinated people for a long time. The notion is that some people report profound experiences after waking up from a cardiac arrest – their heart stopped, they received CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], they were eventually recovered and lived to tell the tale. About 20% of people in this situation will report some unusual experience. .... Of course the NDE narrative took on a life of it’s own, but eventually researchers started at least collecting some empirical quantifiable data. The details of the reported NDEs are actually quite variable, and often culture-specific. There are some common elements, however, notably the sense of being out of one’s body or floating.

The primary purpose of a research study like this is to distinguish among various alternative hypotheses. In the case of NDEs there are two main hypotheses. One is that NDEs represents brain activity that occurs sometime between the person having CPR and when they ultimately wake up and tell their story. The other is that NDEs represent a genuine non-physical mental event that happens close to death but independent of the body. AWARE did not provide any evidence to distinguish these hypotheses.

Since then Parnia has been working on AWARE II, with some tightened protocols. One is that they only use subjects who underwent CPR in a hospital, to control for the quality of the CPR. We only have preliminary reports of the data so far, which has not undergone peer-review or been published. The results will be presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2022 taking place in Chicago on November 6. We do have some details from interviews with Parnia, however.

“A key finding was the discovery of spikes of brain activity, including so-called gamma, delta, theta, alpha, and beta waves up to an hour into CPR.”

That’s interesting, and if anything supports the brain activity hypothesis. Reports that people are having NDEs while having no brain activity are not supported by data, for two reasons. The first is that there is no confirmation of when the memories formed. They could have formed anytime during the recovery period until the patient was fully awake. That is the reason Parnia wants to tie the experiences to the emergency room during CPR, to eliminate the possibility that the memories formed later. But he was unable to do that in AWARE and so far there is no mention of that in AWARE II. But you would have to couple evidence that the memories formed during CPR with convincing evidence for lack of brain activity at the same time. Finding spikes of brain activity during CPR would be strike two for the hypothesis that NDEs represent mental activity separate from brain activity.

A 2018 research paper described NDEs like this:

Near-death experiences (NDEs) are complex experiential episodes that occur in association with death or the perception that it is impending (Moody, 1975; Greyson, 1983). Prospective studies with cardiac arrest patients indicate that the incidence of NDEs vary between 2–18% depending on what criteria are used to determine them (Parnia et al., 2001; Van Lommel et al., 2001; Schwaninger et al., 2002; Greyson, 2003). Although there is no universally accepted definition of the NDE, common features include feelings of inner-peace, out-of-body experiences, traveling through a dark region or ‘void’ (commonly associated with a tunnel), visions of a bright light, entering into an unearthly ‘other realm’ and communicating with sentient ‘beings’ (Moody, 1975; Ring, 1980; Greyson, 1983; Martial et al., 2017).

Not surprisingly, some people are looking for, and want to find, a spiritual or supernatural explanation. A 2019 research paper, Near-Death Experiences are Not Evidence for Either Atheism or Theism, comments:

The failure to secure replicable positive results in near-death experience (NDE) target-identification experiments does not establish the nonexistence of any spiritual realms, but it does serve to substantially challenge positive arguments in favor of the existence of spiritual realms from NDE reports. For if veridical paranormal perception occurs during out-of-body experiences (OBEs) or NDEs, why the failure to find it in all of the controlled experiments that have been undertaken to document it thus far? Various explanations can be put forward, but in the absence of ad hoc maneuvering, the hallucination hypothesis predicts only one set of possible results: the results actually found. Until the time that properly controlled NDE target-identification experiments yield replicable positive results, they will take their place as historical curiosities akin to similarly unsuccessful direct tests of survival after death. While some eagerly await the results of the follow-up AWARE II study (which is recruiting subjects until 2020), at the moment the unsuccessful history of comparably easier-to-implement research into the paranormality of non-near-death OBEs does not bode well for those results.

Despite the inconclusive data, some people firmly believe that NDEs are true spiritual experiences that reflect actual reality instead of something the brain-mind created. The lead researcher on the AWARE and AWARE II studies, Sam Parnia, seems to be one of those people. Novella comments:

There are no reports of any evidence arising from AWARE II that places the experience in the ER, such as subjects reporting what was on the cards placed on high shelves. Parnia has reverted to characterizing the experiences themselves. He says:

“These lucid experiences cannot be considered a trick of a disordered or dying brain, but rather a unique human experience that emerges on the brink of death,” says Parnia.

But why? What does he even mean by a “trick of a dying brain”? Wouldn’t what is being reported be consistent with partial brain function during reduced perfusion from CPR? I get the sense that Parnia is desperate to interpret his results as finding something new and unique, but I’m just not seeing it. It also seems like an example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. The original intent of the AWARE studies was to demonstrate that NDE memories are formed during CPR and are not the result of brain activity. He has proven neither – there is no evidence from AWARE or reported so far from AWARE II that links the memories to the time of the CPR. Further, it seems there is evidence of brain activity during CPR.

In summary, it is reasonable to believe that NDEs are just what a stressed brain-mind sometimes generates. Evidence available so far indicates that NDEs do not to arise from a soul or other spiritual source, but since such things are supernatural, by definition, humans can never detect or characterize them. I suppose there could be a non-supernatural source of NDEs that science eventually comes to detect, characterize and at least partly understand. Then we will probably come to a better state of understanding. 

Democrats messaging seems to be gearing up; It's overdue

The Daily Beast writes: 

Democrats Are Ready for GOP to Make Hunter Biden the New Benghazi

It’s not Hunter Biden’s scalp they want. Rather, the House GOP caucus is poised to launch a two-year crusade to tarnish President Joe Biden’s character—and lower his poll numbers—just like they did with Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi hearings prior to her 2016 candidacy.

But things are different this time around—Democrats aren’t going to assume that voters can see through the partisan bluster, and are mounting a war room operation outside the White House. The Congressional Integrity Project (CIP)(a pointed moniker, to be sure) will try to fend off the Republican barrage, and go on the offensive in the information war.

“This is a battle over narratives, and we believe we can win that war,” says [Leslie Dach, senior adviser to the CIP]. “They’re (the GOP) saying it in plain English, they’re trying to hurt Joe Biden. It’s the Trump playbook of personal attacks.”

Kentucky Republican Jim Comer, the incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee, didn’t waste any time saying the quiet part out loud. Once the razor-thin GOP majority was confirmed, he said at a press conference, “I want to be clear, this is an investigation of Joe Biden, that is where the committee will focus in this next Congress.” 

Hunter Biden provides the cover for an investigation into “whether the president is compromised or swayed by foreign dollars,” said Comer.

That kind of admission cost Kevin McCarthy the speakership in 2015 when he told Fox News that the House Select Committee on Benghazi was created to lower Hillary Clinton’s polls. His forthrightness was widely seen as a gaffe. Until McCarthy let the truth slip, Republicans insisted the long-running investigation had nothing to do with politics. Rep. Jim Jordan (one of the most bombastic GOP members) had his moment more recently when he said Trump would be the candidate again, “and we need to make sure that he wins.” 

“I think the American people see the hypocrisy, but we’ll be showing it to them,” says Dach, who oversaw the Democrats’ successful messaging on health care that is credited with winning the House in 2018 and 2020. “There’s a simple story to tell, and you have to tell it every day.”  

Hunter Biden’s laptop, which he left at a Delaware computer shop and never returned to retrieve, has become the centerpiece of conspiracy theories about how he was ripping off the taxpayers and trading on his father’s name. The details are murky but like Hillary and Benghazi, it is a scandal that keeps on giving. The difference is that this time around, Democrats won’t be on their heels playing defense. They’re preparing to punch back.

Well, it’s about time. Finally. The Democrats are waking up to the critical importance of ramping up the intensity and aggressiveness of their messaging game. The comment by Dach that “I think the American people see the hypocrisy” indicates to me the Democrats are still are not fully aware of the situation. But at least they understand some critically important things to do, namely, (1) showing and telling Americans the hypocrisy, lies and slanders, and (2) telling it every day over and over and over. 

Golly, maybe the Democrats have finally graduated from the minor league messaging to the majors. 

Hunter’s laptop

The Republican smear machine strikes

News bits: White supremacists at dinner & whatnot

Trump’s dinner party that went awry

NBC News writes:

‘F---ing nightmare’: Trump team does damage control after 

he dines with Ye and white supremacist Nick Fuentes

The former president's campaign claims he didn't know anything about Fuentes, who joined the rapper under fire for his antisemitic remarks

Former President Donald Trump distanced himself Friday from a pre-Thanksgiving dinner at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida with Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, and white supremacist Nick Fuentes, claiming he didn’t know the identity of the far-right activist who was unexpectedly brought along with the rapper.

“This past week, Kanye West called me to have dinner at Mar-a-Lago. Shortly thereafter, he unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing about,” Trump said Friday in a statement on his Truth Social platform.

One can wonder, is Trump lying about not knowing who was at his own dinner party? There was this WaPo article entitled Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years.

Yeah, he’s lying. MAGA!!

Election fraud squads are laying goose eggs

while twiddling thumbs

The AP writes:

State-level law enforcement units created after the 2020 presidential election to investigate voter fraud are looking into scattered complaints more than two weeks after the midterms but have provided no indication of systemic problems.

That’s just what election experts had expected and led critics to suggest that the new units were more about politics than rooting out widespread abuses. Most election-related fraud cases already are investigated and prosecuted at the local level.

Florida, Georgia and Virginia created special state-level units after the 2020 election, all pushed by Republican governors, attorneys general or legislatures.

“I am not aware of any significant detection of fraud on Election Day, but that’s not surprising,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president of the Campaign Legal Center. “The whole concept of voter impersonation fraud is such a horribly exaggerated problem. It doesn’t change the outcome of the election, it’s a felony, you risk getting put in jail and you have a high possibility of getting caught. It’s a rare phenomena.”

From the shameless irrationality & hypocrisy files:

Election deniers flip flop and now decry voter suppression

Democracy Docket writes in an opinion piece:

In “The Bonfire of the Vanities,” Tom Wolfe wrote that “a liberal is a conservative who’s been arrested.” After this year’s midterm elections, I would add that a voting rights advocate is an election denier who lost a close election.

Ever since she lost her election for Arizona governor, Kari Lake has become deeply concerned with, of all things, voter suppression. Over the weekend, her campaign tweeted: “The appropriate amount of voter suppression is 0%.”

Left with no other option, Lake finds herself in the awkward position of blaming her loss on an unusual culprit for election deniers: voter suppression.

If you didn’t know better, you might think Lake was a champion of access to voting, supporter of funding for election officials and advocate for same day voter registration. She is none of those.

To the contrary, Lake has spent the last two years trafficking in election denying lies, bringing litigation to undermine voting rights and encouraging Arizona and other states to restrict, rather than expand, voting access. Though she now criticizes the state for its slow pace of counting ballots, she sued last summer to ban the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona and require that voters fill out paper ballots that are hand counted. Such a hand count would take weeks, if not longer, to complete.

Questions: What planet to these radical right Republican freaks live on? How stupid do they think we are?

Answers: Not Earth, and shockingly stupid.

America's creeping Christian theocracy

Key points are these:

• The radical right, theocratic Christian nationalist (RRTCN) movement holds religious freedom above all other rights

• The RRTCN movement intends to completely eliminate all vestiges of what little is left of the separation of the state from a hyper-aggressive church that wants to control tax revenues as much as possible

• The RRTCN movement employs ruthless but superb dark free speech tactics; for example, it portrays trivial and minor burdens on religious freedom, e.g., legalizing same-sex marriage and having to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, as horrendous persecution that prevents innocent people from being religious as they desire

• The RRTCN movement is open about its intent to use the superior rights of religious freedom to discriminate against and oppress non-White people, non-heterosexual people, women and non-Christian religions and people 

• The RRTCN movement already has enormously extended the scope of the religious freedom concept from human beings to legal entities like businesses and corporations, thereby enabling religious business owners and executives to oppress and discriminate against unworthy people in the name of their religious freedom

This article summarizes some of how the radical right Supreme Court is quietly but relentlessly forcing most of those key points to integrate into American society, government and business. MSNBC writes:

While [the Supreme Court] claims to be a nonpartisan, neutral arbiter of the law, its conservative majority was deliberately cultivated to expand religious freedom for conservative Christians at the expense of the rights of those deemed less worthy of protection.

The possible revelation of the Hobby Lobby decision — in which the court held that private corporations can demand religious exemptions from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employer health plans cover contraceptives — is the second Supreme Court leak in the news this year. The other involved an even greater victory for the religious right: the unsolved mystery of who leaked a draft of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning the right to an abortion. Both rulings were penned by Alito.

The Hobby Lobby chain of arts and crafts stores already had been the subject of an intense public relations strategy to portray the contraception coverage requirement as a dire threat to the religious freedom of pious business owners. Even before the litigation, the store was a beloved brand in the Bible Belt and beyond. Its billionaire founder, David Green, was long a respected figure and a major donor in the evangelical world. Even without Schenck’s help, Hobby Lobby had already become a poster child for a burgeoning campaign to convince the court to enlarge religious freedom rights for conservative Christians.

When, in 2012, evangelical and Catholic activists attacked the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, the notion of corporate religious rights was a novel legal theory. But when the court held oral arguments two years later, it was immediately clear that a majority of the court had embraced this theory. What changed? Hobby Lobby became a landmark Supreme Court decision owing to a well-funded network of lawyers and activists, and their shared ideologies with the justices who were selected for their positions on issues most important to conservative religious groups.

Before landing at the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby won its case in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in an opinion authored by future Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose nomination was heralded by advocates for this newly expanded religious freedom. The company was represented by Kyle Duncan, a lawyer with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. That organization’s board members include Leonard Leo, the dark money-backed activist whose list of suggested judicial nominees was adopted by then-President Donald Trump — who nominated Duncan to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In recent decades, activists on the right have successfully eroded church-state separation with increasing speed. In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, decided earlier this year, the court sided with a high school football coach demanding to pray with players on the field after games. These lawyers and activists have opened the door for religious business owners to refuse to serve LGBTQ people, such as 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court ruled for a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. That door could open wider in the upcoming 303 Creative v. Elenis, which concerns a web designer’s claims that a nondiscrimination law violates her free speech rights. Leo has been open about his hostility to Supreme Court precedent legalizing contraception and same-sex marriage. In a concurrence in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas echoed that hostility, even criticizing the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that made anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

Hobby Lobby was a key inflection point in an ongoing and largely successful right-wing campaign to undermine the separation of church and state and expand recognized religious rights of conservative Christians who claim that abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights infringe on their religious freedom. Alito’s dinner with Schenck’s emissaries is a symptom of cozy relationships, but the wider activism that shaped the court is a far more significant threat to the court’s willingness to protect the rights of all Americans. Requiring the justices to adhere to a judicial code of conduct to curb conflicts of interest and appearances of partiality would be a welcome reform. But fixing the undemocratic ailments of the Supreme Court will require much more.

In my opinion, the US is well on its way to becoming a Christofascist theocracy. We are not all that far off of that cherished goal of CN elites. What the rank and file knows or is thinking is hard to tell, but most appear to be oblivious to most or all of what is going on here. Mostly clueless seems an apt label.

The RRTCN movement via a series of Supreme Court decisions has neutered the establishment clause.[1] That had been the main obstacle in fusing the Christian church with the federal government. With that gone, nothing but time stands in the way of the radical Republicans who dominate the Supreme Court from converting America from a democratic country with secular law to a kleptocratic Christian theocracy with Christian Sharia law. 

I see no way to stop this Christofascist anti-democratic, anti-secular movement from destroying America as we know it. The RRTCN movement controls the Supreme Court. The clear intent and sacred dogma is to remake the US mostly into some cruel theocratic beast straight out of some time(s) in the past, maybe the Dark Ages, and/or maybe the 1700s or 1800s.

Q: Unreasonable hyperbole or plausible possibility? 

Footnote: 
1. Wikipedia: 

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The relevant constitutional text is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Establishment Clause acts as a double security, prohibiting both religious abuse of government and political control of religion.

Should Cigarettes Be Banned Completely?

Finally, marijuana is becoming legal in more States but still illegal federally. Not in Canada, but then again, Canada is always ahead of the curve.

Yet alcohol is legal despite the grief it causes and ditto for cigarettes.

This idea of banning cigarettes (or all tobacco products) is not a new one, I have heard the suggestion since I was a young lad. Usually the argument doesn't go anywhere.

So one site I found explores the question:

https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Should-cigarettes-be-banned-Arguments-for-and-against

Some of the reasons FOR the idea:

Cigarettes are the single biggest cause of premature death on the planet.

Nicotine is extremely addictive. The withdrawal symptoms are intense and there is a high rate of people who fail to quit, or relapse. Some people end up spending their entire lives addicted.

Smokers are a heavy burden on health care services, because of the severity and wide range of ailments that cigarettes cause.

1 in 5 deaths in the U.S. each year is caused by smoking.

Secondhand smoke causes around 50,000 deaths each year in the U.S.

Some reasons AGAINST the idea:

People's civil liberties are not negotiable.

Banning cigarettes would create a huge black market that would be exploited by criminals.

Smokers pay more tax than non-smokers due to the high tax on cigarettes, banning cigarettes would mean a reduction in taxation revenue for the government.

The tobacco industry creates thousands of jobs around the world.

SO, what do YOU think?