In this initial post I want to explain my intent for this blog, and give a samplng of what I will post about.

First I have to say, why would you want to spend the time to read something that mimics millions of other more informed and famous blogs? What do I have to offer that other’s don’t?

The answer to the second question is…nothing. You can read, basically, the same content on other blogs and articles. However, I will attempt to add something of my own unique ability and perspective that may intrigue some and infuriate others. Therefore, there is always going to be something here that you can get nowhere else.  Namely, me.

What is the blog about, and what is with the name?

The blog will cover topics that I deem relevant, important, and newsworthy. The name has to do with content. Salt is an essential nutrient. Without it, bodily functions cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am sampling different sources for the salt that they contain. What is needed from the different important topics of the day. I will soon have a website up and running with the same moniker.

So, to that first post.

Recently many cities across the ation have decided that it is their duty to police basic freedoms. Specifically, I am talking about public smoking bans. I understand that their are two sides to this issue. First government’s take.

Healthcare costs for those who smoke is astronomical. The incidence of heart disease, cancer, and related lung diseases is heightened. Then, there is the physical cost to those who inhale the smoke second-hand. Studies have shown that second-hand inhalation may be mopre dangerous than smoking the cigarette yourself. Also, an outcry from a very vocal public has asked for the bans in some places.

The issue I have is freedom. We are supposed to be guaranteed certain rights by our residence in this country. If one right is suspended, for the public good, then what about others? Politicians (especially the conservative ones) like to talk about “slippery slopes.”  What is more slippery than the gradual whittling away of our rights. I can undewrstand if some establishments are allowed to have smoing on the premises and they have to post a sign warning the general public that there is a risk inside. That would be acceptable. Why does the ban have to be all inclusive? We should still have the right to commit gradual suicide if we wish.

I have to say that I am not a smoker. I believe in the constitution of the US and some basic rights that are granted therein. No, there is no specific right to light up. We could site freedoms associated with expression and privacy, but they don’t answer specifically. However, it is easy to move from this ban to a ban on other substances that cause public harm. what if they take away your Big Mac non-smoker?

Gaines