How can any person be against the deliberate and systematic reduction in public use of a product that causes the people around someone using it to acquire life-threatening illnesses? This issue is much bigger than protecting the income of business owners. Consider the plight of young people working in public places and exposed to second-hand smoke. Without regulation, people will continue to die needlessly from smoke-related illnesses. Pregnancies will be unnecessarily at risk. Since many of these people rely on those wages for daily sustenance, alternatives are rare. Smokers kill themselves, but more importantly, they kill others who are forced to live or work with them. Tobbacco-related chronic illnesses produce a drain on our healthcare system and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Government exists to PROTECT its citizens. Serving the needs of business owners (read taverns) over the public health of its citizens (many who are young), may be viewed in the course of history as barbaric and cruel. Since we now understand the vast negative healthcare consequences of second-hand smoke, it wouldn't surprise me to see future generations of citizens litigating against our current government leaders, should they continue to allow smoke-filled public buildings to remain open.
posted by Chaz at 06:27 P.M. EST on Thu Jun 10, 2004 #
How can any person be against the deliberate and systematic reduction in public use of a product that causes the people around someone using it to acquire life-threatening illnesses?
I can't imagine anyone is against a deliberate and systematic reduction. What some are against though is the legislation of it. Those are two very different things, Chaz.
This issue is much bigger than protecting the income of business owners.
You are absolutely right. In fact, to me, it doesn't have anything to do with protecting the income of business owners. It has everything to do with less laws, more freedom and the ability of society to take care of itself.
Without regulation, people will continue to die needlessly...
I find that to be a very depressing view of the world. "Without regulation..." people will or won't do this or that. Why does everything have to be regulated? Are poeple completely unable to make decisions for themselves?
smokers...kill others who are forced to live or work with them.
The classic liberal view of everyone as oppressed by someone else...they are "forced to live or work". Chaz, the only force that a person is a slave to is their own attitude.
Government exists to PROTECT its citizens.
This is so backwards I don't even know where to begin. Protect its citizens from what? Laws that limit their free choice and the use of their private property? I'll go with that.
posted by babbleman at 01:31 P.M. EST on Tue Jun 29, 2004 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
