|
This topic always amazes me. I don't see how pro-smokers view it as liberty when it obviously infringes on other peoples liberties. I don't have a problem with smokers in principle, just as I don't have a problem with people who drink or do drugs or send themselves over niagra falls in a barrel, but i do have a problem when their idea of recreation infringes on someone elses freedom. For instance, if my idea of a good time was punching people in the face, I should be allowed do do it, right? Because legislators shouldn't be able to tell me what i can and can't do, and frankly I'm addicted to punching people in the face. It doesn't matter what the punchee thinks about it, if they don't like it they can leave, right?
Eating fatty foods is only a slightly apt comparison. While obese people drain resourses with a preventable illness through healthcare etc, the 400 pound lady in the next booth eating two pound of steak tips and five baked potatoes isn't infringing on my enjoyment of my grilled shrimp salad.
Are there people who are proposing anti-smoking legislation because they feel that no one should smoke in their opinion, probably, but that doesn't make the people who want to enjoy a night out without having to come home smelling like an ashtray any less entitled.
__________________
"Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about"
--Sam Harris
|