Three Things I Don't Understand

I consider myself to be a smart guy, but there are certainly some things I don't understand, such as quantum mechanics and Finnegan's Wake. But complex science and cryptic literature are only two things that puzzle me. There are some common things that leave me utterly confused. So here are three rants about three things that I don't understand.

Smoking is first on the list. I don't understand smoking. I really don't. Why anyone thinks it's a good idea to burn stuff in a paper tube and suck back the fumes baffles me. I'm not limiting this to cigarettes. Smoking is smoking, whether it's cigarettes, cigars, a pipe, a joint or whatever it is someone might use to smoke crack. It's nonsensical and highly self destructive. But millions and millions of people smoke every single day.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike smokers. I have friends and coworkers and relatives that all smoke. It's their choice, and so long as I don't have to inhale the smoke, it's not my problem. Of course, it's a problem for most of them, whether or not they want to acknowledge it. Thing is, I don't think any of them actually want to smoke. They know it's bad for them. They know exactly what it's doing to their lungs. They'd probably all quit tomorrow if they could. But the fact is that most of them won't.

It's really tempting to turn this into a long rant about why people shouldn't smoke, why the government is evil for taxing tobacco instead of banning it, and why the cigarette companies are twice as evil for actually making the products. Thing is, we know that already. Telling people not to smoke is like telling whales to stay away from beaches, or telling Ryan Seacrest not to be such a dork. It's not going to change anything.

Plutonium is commonly thought to be the deadliest substance known to man. This is not true. While it certainly is a highly dangerous substance, there are deadlier toxins, such as ricin, some arsenic compounds, and botulin toxin. It is the last one that I am concerned with today. Botulin toxin causes nerve damage and muscle paralysis, and can be ridiculously toxic, but one of it's derivatives is injected into people every single day. I'm talking about botox. It was originally developed to treat certain neurological disorders, such as neck spasms and uncontrollable blinking.

But that's not why I'm talking about botox. Since it paralyzes muscles, it's also highly effective at smoothing out wrinkles. And so women in their forties have botox treatments (at hundreds of dollars a pop) so they can look a few years younger — at least for the three to six months that the treatment lasts.

So one of the deadliest substances in existence is used for cosmetic purposes by vain people. Botox is of course approved for pharmaceutical use, but the long term effects are still unknown. This means that down the road there might be all sorts of problems, but since we don't know that for sure, let's keep using it.

I'm not a plastic surgeon or a dermatologist or anything of that nature. And I realize that getting injections is less invasive, less painful, and imposes less healing time or risk of infection than having a full face lift surgery. But if you're so concerned about a few wrinkles that you're willing to paralyze the muscles in your face with a deadly toxin, maybe the laugh lines aren't your biggest problem.

When I'm in a car, I wear a seatbelt. It's pretty much a default behavior. Sit down in car, put on seatbelt. It's not something I have to stop and think about. The fact that there are laws that compel seatbelt use doesn't really factor into my behavior all that much.

But there are lots of people who are strongly opposed to seatbelt laws. While some cite that seatbelts can cause injuries in some situations, which is true when seatbelts are worn improperly (such as around the waist only, and not over the shoulder), the most common reason for opposition to seatbelt laws the complaint that government should not be telling people what to do.

Of course, anyone who has ever dealt with any level of government, which is probably everyone, knows that telling people what to do, and what not to do, is what government is all about. In fact, that's pretty much why we have government. We have traffic lights and speed limits and stop signs for safety purposes, and while we might dislike these at times, they are necessary to prevent people from driving in a chaotic manner and causing injury to others. But a seatbelt only protects the person wearing it, and therefore a law compelling seatbelt use does not contribute to public safety. A seatbelt only protects the person wearing it. The argument is that government should not force people to protect themselves if they don't want to.

While much of the developed world has strong seatbelt laws, and accordingly high seatbelt usage, in the US, however, there is strong opposition to seatbelt laws. It ranges from the weak "Seatbelts are dangerous" argument, but more commonly falls under the "Infringement of Freedom" banner. There are actually people who consider being told that they have to wear a seatbelt a form of grievous tyranny. Some of these people make statements like "I always wear a seatbelt, and I make my kids wear them, but I don't want the government telling me what I should do."

I don't know what to make of this. Americans hold their liberties dear, but demanding that the government allow you to not wear a seatbelt is like demanding that the government allow you to play tag with lawn darts. Maybe it's a little bit of petty rebellion or something.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder if government should allow these people to drive without seatbelts if they really want to. After all, there's nothing like a trip through a windshield to make someone realize the error of their ways.