Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lucky2Bhere
I'm struggling to understand the LFOD mentality. In principle I agree with it but when peoples actions effect others it appears to be a societal issue. {snip}
|
LI has given you an answer that's better that I would have typed. Let me see if I can add just a bit more. In any of these type of decisions there are some that are "black", some that are "white" and these which are "gray". The reason given for smoking bans has been the Govt requirement for a safe workplace. The Surgeon General's report concluded that workers, in a constant environment of 2'nd hand smoke, have an undue risk* of cancer as a result of their workplace environment. So a ban becomes legally supportable. This part doesn't bother me so much. The problem I see is the
implied precedent it seems to set. That is, if "we" don't like activity A then it becomes OK to ban or restrict it
w/o any other considerations. Let's not kid ourselves, people vote for such bans because they don't like smoking, think it's bad and not (usually) because they're considering the worker's health. It's bad enough to balance trying to balance activities, such as having a drink with dinner, that can be abused to the level of causing problems for others, w/o having such precedents set. The LFoD mentality bends towards freedom first in these gray areas if only because of the slippery slope we're headed towards. Consider this: we're leaning towards an increase in socialized medical care in this country. It's only a question of when and how far. Smoking is attacked because it causes disease and death and costs $$s in our present healthcare system. This is a fact. Trans-fats are outlawed in NYC and soon in other states. Groups are lobbying against McDonalds ads using the precedent set for the tobacco ban on such ads. Can anyone dispute that health care costs due to excessive (bad) food and alcohol consumption play are a major cost driver in health care costs ? Anyone care to tell me what we're
be allowed to eat or drink in 10 or 20 years ? A LFoD state may cost more $$s to live in, may be more "risky" o live in but you'll have freedom to make some decisions for yourself. Perhaps that's the magic formula for America ...LFoD in NH and if you don't like it, you have the freedom to go to Massachusetts where all those pesky decisions of what to smoke, eat, drink or drive will have been made for you.
*I wonder when the case will be made that, due to the undue risk to police officers in their workplace, that nobody should own guns, knives or drive cars.
