I was going to add this to the other thread, but decided to add a new one.
Where do we draw the line between laws that are beneficial to the whole and lack of laws that allow freedom?
More specifically, the discussion in the other thread was talking about bans on public smoking. Well, the rationale is easy: smoking has a bad effect on smokers, but also on non-smokers who around them. Non-smokers have the right to not have their health in jeopardy, so smokers must go to their own area or outside. Right there, the public good argument wins out.
Take it a step further ... why isn't smoking and cigarettes banned at all? Think of the economic cost the smoking causes the tax dollars going to public health services. With rising food costs, the farmland for tobacco could be better used for other substances. Why not invoke the public good argument and ban smoking?
While we're at it, take it a step further ... why not ban alcohol? How many lives are lost by drunk driving (and people still do it)? How much public tax dollars go to alcohol related illness? How much lack of national productivity could be contributing to alcohol? There's all sorts of affects. Ok, time to ban alcohol.
Take it a step further ... limits on amount of red meat (health costs), punishment for not getting enough weekly exercise (health costs), and so on, and so on. Ban any vehicle that can't run on 35 mpg or better.
It starts to sound ridiculous, but to be honest, there's a small part of my brain going ... IF those things happened (they won't), and they could be enforced (they can't), the overall state of the country and for almost all individuals would be better.
Question
Guest
I was going to add this to the other thread, but decided to add a new one.
Where do we draw the line between laws that are beneficial to the whole and lack of laws that allow freedom?
More specifically, the discussion in the other thread was talking about bans on public smoking. Well, the rationale is easy: smoking has a bad effect on smokers, but also on non-smokers who around them. Non-smokers have the right to not have their health in jeopardy, so smokers must go to their own area or outside. Right there, the public good argument wins out.
Take it a step further ... why isn't smoking and cigarettes banned at all? Think of the economic cost the smoking causes the tax dollars going to public health services. With rising food costs, the farmland for tobacco could be better used for other substances. Why not invoke the public good argument and ban smoking?
While we're at it, take it a step further ... why not ban alcohol? How many lives are lost by drunk driving (and people still do it)? How much public tax dollars go to alcohol related illness? How much lack of national productivity could be contributing to alcohol? There's all sorts of affects. Ok, time to ban alcohol.
Take it a step further ... limits on amount of red meat (health costs), punishment for not getting enough weekly exercise (health costs), and so on, and so on. Ban any vehicle that can't run on 35 mpg or better.
It starts to sound ridiculous, but to be honest, there's a small part of my brain going ... IF those things happened (they won't), and they could be enforced (they can't), the overall state of the country and for almost all individuals would be better.
So ... where do we draw the line? And why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.