From the Daily Beast, "30 Cities with Worst Smoking Smoking Problems".
#1 is Tulsa, Oklahoma, with a smoking rate of 24.6%. Well thank God that isn't us.
#2 is Wilkes Barre-Scranton with a smoking rate of 23.5%. Oops.
Now I guess I should do my normal smoking disclaimer before I ramble on further. Disclaimer? Well it's this: I don't care what someone else does to their own body. What I do care about though is what that action negatively impacts me or my family. Fair enough?
The problem with smoking is that it almost always negatively impacts others. For example, we have the "smoking section" of an institution. That's a joke by the way. Smoking/Non-Smoking sections within a facility make about as much sense as "peeing/non-peeing" sections of a swimming pool. Tobacco smoke simply doesn't obey the law. Then we have the much-increased healthcare costs associated with the addiction to nicotine. Simply put, no one can pour crap into their lungs and expect there to be no negative impact. The problem is that this voluntary activity (smoking) is always fatal, it causes damage from the first cigarette, and the drug in question basically makes it nearly impossible to quit. Now some tobacco apologists will claim "but, but, fast food is bad for you too!", which while true is a flawed argument relative to smoking. Why? Well if you are actually starving to death, a Big Mac could save your life. That Big Mac has protein in it, calcium, and tons of other good things (in addition to tons of fact). Bottom line: Even fast food has some intrinsic value; tobacco usage has ZERO value.
Anyway, this is one list I am ashamed we made.
PS - What's with "Wilkes Barre/Scranton"? That makes NO sense. Every hear of "St Paul/Minneapolis"? Or "Fort Worth/Dallas"? Or "Long Beach/Los Angeles"? Come on, Dan Flood is dead and decomposing, so maybe we can stop the nonsensical naming convention.