As President Obama signs what is said to be the most powerful anti-smoking act, it seems time to question the fairness of the impact this has on smokers.

It seemed at first that, although many didn’t particularly like the act that banned smoking in public places in Illinois, they understood it. We have a right to smoke; they have a right to breathe clean air.

Fairly simple, right?

However, the new laws that will be taking effect question moral boundaries in some opinions.

The new law will ban the production of “flavored” tobacco products and the use of the word “light” cigarettes. What I fail to understand is how this should apply to tobacco products but not alcohol products.

Obama says that 90 percent of people who smoke began at the age of 18 or younger and that is why flavored tobacco should be outlawed. So flavored tobacco is appealing to minors but flavored alcohol isn’t?

News flash, President Obama, the average age of a first drink for a boy is 11 and for a girl 13. Forty-one percent of teens have tried alcohol by the age of 14 and most drink regularly by the age of 15. Three million teens are thought to be full blown alcoholics, and last but not least the leading cause of death in people age 15-24 is alcohol related automobile accidents.

Now, I understand President Obama’s desire to save teenage lives, but to point the finger in one direction and not the other equally is unbalanced and illogical. Flavored drinks are as tempting as flavored tobacco. Period.

Another thought is that the tobacco companies are completely banned from advertising except in certain magazines under certain laws whereas the alcohol companies tear up the airwaves.

Honestly, how many sports events do alcohol companies sponsor? Do teens not enjoy sports? During the Superbowl, who tops the advertising revenue charts?

Smokers are taking on major fallout including outrageous tax prices all the while alcohol is somewhat affordable. Tobacco companies are suffering profit loss while the alcohol corporations grow richer. Some people may agree both should be banned from advertising and maybe so, but for now it remains a civil unbalance in some opinions.

How do we weigh one factor of loss of life as opposed to another?

What about fast food? Perhaps burgers should taste bad and be taxed like no other so that America will be forced to eat healthy.

I simply think it is time to let the smokers smoke in peace. They already risk pneumonia having to smoke in the cold and rain and so be it because that is their choice and that freedom should be just as protected as the freedom to stuff our faces and bellies with cholesterol.

Julian Russell is a junior communication studies major. He can be reached at 581-7942 or at DENopinions@gmail.com.