Jiu Jitsu has been described as a method of using one's opponent's strength against him. And if there's one thing we know about liberals, it's that they very strongly hate cigarettes!
If burning the flag in public is protected free speech saying "I hate this country", why wouldn't burning a small tube of tobacco, wrapped in paper be protected free speech saying "I like tobacco"? They both produce toxic fumes and smoke. Why is one protected and the other not?
I have never been of the opinion that burning a flag was "free speech". And even if that particular action could be denoted as speech, it would have to fall under the category of "fighting words".
Under protected free speech, you may say that you hate this country and that you despise our flag. We get that. Once you cross the line to take the literally inflammatory action of setting Old Glory on fire in public, it goes beyond mere speech, IMHO.
But, if you can't lick 'em, join 'em! I will concede that burning the flag in public is free speech if liberals concede that burning cigarettes in public is free speech.
Full disclosure: I am not a smoker, nor have I ever smoked. My dad passed away from heart failure and emphysema brought about by a two pack a day habit. I think it is a filthy practice and one I encourage people walk away from, if nothing else, for the sake of their loved ones. But if people can burn flags and call it "speech" why discriminate against tobacco, just because the one doing the burning has something different to say?
In that case, what would we do about all those laws prohibiting the "free speech" of smokers in public buildings, hmm? You can't have it both ways!
Cross posted at Proof Positive