This is a great debate, and while I was joining the forums for other purposes, I couldn't help but jump in!
I absolutely believe that often parents/governments overprotect their children/citizens, and this actually has a negative effect on long term health and safety. Mandating protection is not as affective as teaching precaution and common sense.
A big example, for me. If I were in power (and one day I will be
) before I enacted a law requiring helmets and seatbelts, I would first make driving license applicants take a much, much tougher test. Hopefully, the latter would make the former unnecessary. It would be amusing if it weren't tragic that the USA is by far the easiest of the developed nations in which to get a driving license, and yet also has the worst statistics, proportionally, for casualties on the road, particularly among younger drivers.
But back to topic. I'm an ex-smoker who is comfortable around smoke and smokers, and I'm not a huge proponent of the law. But personally I can understand that people want equal access to public environments that doesn't force them to tolerate a substance known to hazardous to their health.
Now before I get jumped on, I fully realize that there are many things that are hazardous to our health in our world. I agree that passing a law against grilling meat or spooning lard onto my bread would be ridiculous. But there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere. That's what governments are for, without government regulation we would descend into anarchy, by definition.
While I love our motto 'live free or die', it's a bit misleading, and is often reiterated when the government enacts a law people disagree with. But I laughed out loud when I saw Pineedles seemingly promotes the ideals of this motto, while at the same time expecting that user Render would be at: Not only was it a good crack, but I don't think even Pineedles saw the irony that that Rander, who wants more government control, should be portrayed as an “anarchist” by Pineedles, who wants less!
But there has to be a line somewhere, and it’s not a straight line. What you do in your own home should be different from what you do in public. I wonder if user’s Goodsk8s, Pineedles and Argie’s Wife agree with me that we should legalize all drugs and intimate relationships. Personally, I think what people do in their own homes is their own business. I’m a little worried that legalizing crack will lead to addicts in the throes of withdrawal robbing my house for drug money, but honestly, that’s a price and a risk I am willing to pay for my freedom.
But in public we have to be restricted in our behavior in lots of ways. Should I be allowed to listen to hard-core gangsta rap music in a public place at volumes that could cause ear damage? Hardly. Parade naked? Maybe. What about exercising my conjugal rights with my wife on the steps of town hall?
Should we rescind laws requiring restaurant workers to wash their hands after using the bathroom? What about the laws regarding how kitchens and farms are allowed to store and transport cooked and uncooked meat, poultry and Diary products? And are we willing to accept the possible E. Coli and Salmonella outbreaks as the price of Freedom? Perhaps not.
So the question is not whether to “live free or die”, but rather where do we draw the line?
And now I’m really going to annoy some people.
I don’t mean to harp on Pineedles, I really don’t. I actually agree with 90% of what s/he says. But this was a wrong, I thought:
-Firstly, Rander isn’t asking for protection from the government in lieu of himself using “common sense.” He wants the gov. to protect him from other peoples use of thier common sense, over which he has no control.
-Secondly, as far as I can tell and remember from being a smoker, common courtesy would be to not smoke around people who are eating, especially indoors in places like restaurants. That would be common courtesy, but yet it’s rarely enacted.
-Thirdly, given the well known health effects of cigarettes, while smokers are exercising thier personal freedoms it is arguable whether they are at all exercising common sense.
Rander and other proponents of this law don't want gov. intervention so they don't have to worry about excersizing thier own common sense and common courtesy, they want potection from others who are failing to use thiers.
That's my final point. I’d turn Pineedles quote around. As I see it, the government is often forced to enact laws to protect the populace from individuals who are unwilling or incapable of “exercizing common sense and common courtesy.” That is to say that it is individuals who (ab)use their freedoms to the point that it has a negative effect on the lives of others will force the gov. to regulate, and in the end hurt mostly themselves.
Have at it, kids, the freedom to debate is the cornerstone of democracy, and not something all peoples of the world enjoy.