[FoRK] Re: Smoking
jbone at place.org
Tue Apr 12 19:56:36 PDT 2005
> the state might well have a compelling case to ban smoking
> outright in order to protect smokers and potential smokers.
This would be the "nanny" element I'm talking about. I don't think
it's the business of government to protect people from themselves and
the consequences of their own choices --- indeed, I believe the very
definition of "freedom" INSISTS that this be avoided. That's the
bottom line here. It matters not whether the risk in question is
smoking or bungee jumping or eating too much red meat or watching too
much TV or line dancing or shooting smack in the eyeball or running
In a free society it is presumed that citizens are adults capable of
making their own decisions.
But to your point, Lucas, you've hit the nail on the head. The real
"problem" at the heart of the anti-smoking crusade is moral outrage,
NOT public health policy. Most folks that are vehemently anti-smoking
would, in clearer-headed moments, just as vehemently disagree with some
populist crusade to ban various other risky but less politically
Free means free. Accept no substitutes.
PS - another sound bite, just for uptight Ian: the only thing that's
completely intolerable is intolerance itself.
More information about the FoRK