Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Okay, but second-hand smoke is bad for non-smokers and who really cares "how much" bad it is. If the majority of people in a particular place (maybe by referundum or whatever) want smoking banned, then so be it and aren't you supposed to be, like, "government shouldn't interfere" and stuff? Or does the libertarian thing apply to what each individual wants to do, but not to what the majority of people want to do? Would it be okay if the no-smoking thing was enforced by non-government people? Private business? Vigilantism?
|
I have no issue with people passing referendums to ban smoking because they don't like it or want it around them, even if it weren't bad for people. People can vote to do whatever they like.
But the govt, and medical care professionals, ought to be honest with people about the risks of certain behaviors. We should not allow people to operate under misapprehensions that they're going to fucking die from everything, which the press loves to push on people, and the govt gets behind as a sort of "beneficial white lie." Epidemiological information should contain caveats similar to free stock market info... disclaimers that this is macro info, and "ymmv."
