The Food and Drug Administration has announced a ban on the sale of flavored cigarettes. "These flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular smokers," said Dr. Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA.

Well, sure. That's the whole idea. Let the kids ease into the habit. You can't expect them to jump right in with unfiltered Pall Malls. Maybe the Greatest Generation did, but kids have more options today. With that in mind, R.J. Reynolds has introduced such flavors as Twista Lime, Kauai Kolada and Warm Winter Toffee.

As regular readers know, I have certain libertarian leanings, and among those leanings is a belief that if a person wants to ingest something harmful, he or she should have the right to do so. That goes for a double cheeseburger, a joint, a chocolate malt, a gin and tonic or a plain old cigarette.

I understand that secondhand smoke is a legitimate health concern, and I believe that a health-conscious consumer should have the right to not patronize an establishment that permits smoking. But I also believe that the decision to permit or not permit smoking should be left to the owner of the establishment.

But you don't have to have libertarian leanings to wonder about the wisdom of the federal government's decision to discourage people from smoking.

In the first place, we tax tobacco. That is a tax that nonsmokers do not have to pay. So you would think that nonsmokers would encourage smoking. "Have another one, why don't you? It looks very cool." Personally, I like all sin taxes that are levied on sins in which I do not indulge. Thank you, smokers. Thank you, gamblers.

There is something else, too, something more difficult to discuss.

In a strictly economic sense, longevity is not exactly a good thing. Consider Social Security. We've all heard the scare stories. The system is headed toward insolvency. Most often, people blame politicians. "What happened to the lockbox? Those scoundrels have spent the money!"

Truth is, Social Security was always meant to be a pay-as-you-go sort of thing. Today's workers pay today's retirees with the promise that tomorrow's workers will step up for them. What went wrong was not any treachery by politicians, but the bugaboo of longevity.

People didn't used to live much past 65. They'd collect Social Security for a couple of years, and that was it. In 1945, there were 41.9 workers for each beneficiary. Today, the ratio is a little more than 3-to-1.

Not long ago, I got a call from the wife of a man who had retired at 55. He had retired from a union job under the so-called Rule of 80, which states that a person can retire with full benefits when his years of service and age add up to 80. The wife had called in response to something I had written, and she wanted to point out that her husband had played by the rules and it wasn't fair for me to suggest that the rules now be changed.

She had a point, of course, but still, her husband had worked for 25 years and now expects to continue a middle-class lifestyle for another 25 years without working.

As a society, we can't afford that.

Yet all sorts of research goes into increasing longevity. Well, fine. That's human nature. Cure cancer? That's a great idea. Like knocking out malaria in the Third World. But then what? Let's not pretend these things won't have economic repercussions.

Can we afford to be a nation of centenarians who spend 35 years on Social Security and Medicare?

Perhaps some of us can be centenarians, but certainly not all of us. So if you have a group of people who say, "We'll give up a few years, and we'll pay extra taxes along the way," I'd think you'd say, "Let me light that for you."

But no. We'd rather be scolds. We act disrespectful, rather than grateful, to people who voluntarily shave a few years off their lives by smoking. We treat them like lepers. We're mean to people who pack on a few extra pounds. We criticize people who like sugared drinks. We try to shame people who like tasty, fatty foods.

You know that will be the next target. Tasty, fatty foods. We won't stop at smoking.

Don't kid yourself about health care costs. Sure, people who smoke and eat fatty foods have health problems, but everybody eventually has health problems. You think people who live "right" don't eventually get sick and die? Maybe it happens at 90 instead of 65, but it still happens.

Now we're going to do what we can to prevent the next generation of smokers. So more and more people will live into their 90s. And how are we going to replace the tobacco taxes?

We're intent on getting older, not wiser.