However, it is becoming increasingly clear that we're not just talking a handful of insane individuals issuing death threats and glorying in gory anti-smoker fantasies here. Their role models are as certifiably mad as the mouth-frothers themselves.
Consider this article from Montana.
Young women are discouraged from walking across campus alone at night. Most of the University of Montana stays well-lit, but dark shadows still creep across the grass and the flashing blue lights of emergency phones can seem far apart.Surely, in the modern atmosphere where all risk must be eliminated, a compromise will be swiftly drawn up to rectify this situation.
With the new smoking ban, young women living in the dorms must now walk to the edge of campus for a cigarette.
Chief of Campus Security Gary Taylor said this issue has not been fully addressed yet.
"We're forcing girls into a dangerous situation," he said.
"We've tried so hard to get people to smoke off campus that we never considered these girls,"
Nah, course not. They're only smokers, after all.
Linda Green, the director of Health Enhancement for the Curry Health Center, said she hopes students will follow the smoking ban despite the hazards of walking alone across campus.Here is a real identified risk to the safety of young girls, as opposed to absolutely no health risk whatsoever from passive smoke in the open air - nor will there ever be one since even the most extreme anti-smokers have completely given up trying to prove something so ridiculous - yet dogma prevails to the detriment of those under their care, coupled with a complete disregard for routine health and safety which would be unimaginable in any other circumstances.
Do read that twice, like I did, to take in the full psychotic - either that or deeply retarded - mindset of such grotesque people.
When seen in such a context, it's more easy to understand the gross gratification people like Australia's Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, get from placing superlatively gruesome images (one of the many recently unveiled examples is pictured left) on tobacco packaging.
Well, it can't be anything else, can it? There is no convincing evidence that such warnings will have any effect on reducing smoking, as implicitly admitted by the EU as a result of a report they commissioned back in January. Indeed, one of the very reasons the EU is considering plain packaging at all is that consumers are completely ignoring the graphic warnings. Conversely, there is evidence that such images could have the opposite effect.
While we have righteous, brow-furrowing idiots over here proposing bans on displaying the body beautiful, similarly myopic idealists are happy to unleash quite disgusting images which can be viewed by all and sundry.
It seems almost perverted that 'progressive' politicians can, on the one hand object to mild nudity, while at the same time be overjoyed at thrusting guts, disease and healthist porn in front of an apathetic public?
These people have lost the plot. Totally. In pursuit of their obsessions, they have turned into hideous anti-social animals intent on the uglification of our lives for their own personal gratification.
And there is a very real possibility that they won't be stopping there, either, as pointed out by tobacco control veteran Michael Siegel last week.
For example, could the New York City Health Department not then require that McDonalds display prominent anti-obesity posters at point of purchase of Big Macs, with gross pictures of fat-laden arteries and a message urging consumers not to consume this fat-laden product?There's no 'could' about it! Judith Mackay confirmed as much just a few days after Siegel's hypothesis.
Could the Boston Public Health Commission not require that coffee containers include a graphic picture of a person suffering a cardiac arrhythmia, with a warning discouraging consumers from drinking coffee out of fear of suffering such an arrhythmia?
Every single measure against alcohol, fatty foods, salt, coffee - and any other public health target you can mention - has drawn on the methods employed by fanatical tobacco controllers.
They don't care if young girls (or anyone else, in fact) are unsafe as a result of their policies, and they don't care that the world will be a more ugly place in their drive to re-create it in a form that they, personally, have decided is ideal.
When, as a society, we're choosing who requires denormalisation and banning from civilised discourse, it's the prohibitionists and their hideous, sick-minded methodology who should be first in line. Not the sane and tolerant global majority.