These days, people seem to think it is necessary to tell smokers what a bad habit smoking is. I know this because I smoke, and people do in fact frequently tell me I shouldn't. Now, I understand it's dangerous; according to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2003 (the most recent available year), 105,508 men and 84,789 women were diagnosed with lung cancer, and 89,906 men and 68,084 women died from lung cancer, making it one of the most deadly preventable medical problems. Of course, according to UnitedJustice.com, 114 people a day, or approximately 41,610 a year, die from traffic-related injuries, which I would say are at least somewhat preventable (if you actually follow traffic regulations). Oddly enough, I've never heard someone get angry with me for driving.
Why do people feel the need to intrude? I assume they think either I do not know the dangers of smoking, or they personally have enough authority and persuasiveness to change my mind. I seriously doubt anyone in the United States above the age of 10 has managed to somehow evade the surgeon general's warning about smoking, and I can say I have yet to meet someone who has convinced me of the error of my ways. Now, when that someone is a member of my family or a close friend, I can understand why they try, but the majority of people who try to correct my "problem" tend to be people I only vaguely know and would not confide in. I have to say all in all, I resent their intrusion into my personal space.
Am I saying you should never tell someone not to smoke? No, I just feel there is a time and a place, and this fact is normally ignored by the majority of my so-called “benefactors.” No matter your political stance, Americans generally agree that each individual has his or her personal liberties. And to a great extent, their personal liberties include the choice of how they live and, ultimately, how they die. To encroach on one liberty, no matter how trivial, sets a bad precedent. I do not believe it is some kind of slippery slope where one day we'll suddenly end up in an Orwellian dystopia because of the removal of a single freedom, but when you start, where do you stop?
This in essence is what worries me. I cannot strongly say my right to smoke is unalienable, and those who choose to remove my right are inhumane beasts of the apocalypse, but Machiavelli's statement, “One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others,” does make you question the validity of change. If there is anything to fear, it is once change has begun, it cannot be stopped.
Classic post. We learned in
Classic post. We learned in economics the other day that there is a 'valid economic basis' for governmental programs that remove liberties for your own good. An example is the helmet law for motorcyclists. The thinking is that the costs to society of medical care for those who wreck, and the costs of simply not having those people living--are great, and so society shouldn't be made to bear these costs. So we have mandatory helmet laws in nearly all states, that limit the rights of a few for a small benefit (presumably) to many.
The concept of costs to society and not just to those injured is called an externality. There are costs to society when people don't get vaccinated against contagious diseases. There are costs to society when people don't have at least SOME education. And costs when there's not enough healthcare, clean air and water, and so on. So we have subsidized vaccines, free education, healthcare, and environmental programs.
But the same dynamic exists, and is even more present with smoking. If tens of thousands of people die from it yearly, and if tens of thousands more are getting medical treatment that's paid for with tax dollars---then /of course/ the costs to society are huge. If policy makers approached a ban on tobbacco in the same way they think about the 'necessity' of helmet laws or education, then tobacco products would almost certainly be banned, too. I think the only reason it's still around is that so many people smoke; a ban would be extremely politically unpopular; it's such a direct, visible curtailment of liberties, whereas the others are hidden, i.e. through taxes, etc.
which notion is of course terrifying.
It's this constant tension between utilitarianism and liberalism. Democrats and Republicans are comfortable making policies that freely explore this tension, nay, stretch it to its limits. But libertarians are not, so that's why I am what I yam etc....