My post was not clear. I was talking about the article that Rhythmdvl linked, A Question of Intent. Smoking is an addiction that I struggled with for years. My life was much poorer for smoking, and may be in the future if I develop cancer or some other disease because of it. Still, the ideas expressed in that article scare the living fucking crap out of me. Government agencies doing thing for the “public good” are never a good idea. Smoking is bad, it’s insidious, it’s deadly. However, in spite of all the outcry against kids smoking, advertisements aimed at getting people to smoke or how bad it is, it still boils down to personal responsibility and personal choices. If someone enjoys smoking (and I did, dear God I did…I still would), then they should be allowed to smoke. There is no such thing as the “public good”. There are only a whole bunch of personal “goods”, and the only way to have a free society is to nurture the freedom for individuals to pursue their individual “good”. Imposing your will on another persons freedom to do as they will(as long as they harm nobody else) is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, no matter how you justify it. I’m not sure that forcing a ten year old into an arranged marriage with an octogenarian would be any worse, even with the disgusting sexual outcome that implies. Freedom is about freedom, and that implies the freedom to make bad personal decisions. So be it, freedom is worth it.
Well, that’s a little over-broad. Personally, I am glad the government won’t let my neighbor drain sewage into the gutter. I support most public health laws, and don’t miss the freedom to endanger other lives.
How about, government agencies doing things “to protect people from themselves” is rarely a good idea.
Considering that addiction is an illness, just the same as cholera or schizophrenia, I don’t have a problem with the government addressing it as a public health issue. I just wish they’d spend their time and money researching treatments and cures for addiction, instead of fruitless efforts to change public morality.
Along with that, though, I have absolutely no sympathy for cigarette companies. Any entity that purposefully markets an addictive, toxic substance to children deserves to be broken down, sold off, and scattered to the winds. The executives responsible should have faced criminal charges and jail time.
This reminds me of the issue of banng toy guns because cops see kids holding them and then shoot them.
It’s a story of political cowardice, of legislators who don’t have the guts to cast a vote to control the REAL things causing problems, so they vote against the toys that simulate them.
So am I. Maybe you should read for context:
Since your neighbor dumping raw sewage into the gutter obviously harms you and the rest of your neighbors, I have no problem with it being illegal.
I’d be fascinated to hear how you’re going to legislate against human error.
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You’re not just saying, “This is none of the government’s business.” You’re saying, “There is no kind of objection or criticism to be made of any commercial transaction between willing parties.”
I don’t claim to be able to solve real problems, but I’m fairly confident that legislating agains candies and toys isn’t real helpful.
Or general assholishness.
Which class, Rhythm? I think Heinzerling recommended it one day, which is how I was exposed, but I never took a seminar with her.
Great book.
I agree, but you said that legislators “don’t have the guts to cast a vote to control the REAL things causing problems”, and the example you gave was cops shooting kids holding toy guns. The REAL problem when that happens is human error, either by the kid for pointing a toy gun at a cop, the cop for shooting when there was no real threat, or a combination of the two. How is one going to legislate against that, assuming that one finds a legislator with the guts to try?
We are doing almost that here in California.
California raises tax on sweetened alcoholic drinks
So we are increasing the tax on something to discourage those who cannot legally buy something from buying it.
Would I be correct to assume your objection(s) is along the lines of selling smallpox or nuclear weapons would be ok? Would you object to me amending my statement to include “as long as third parties are not harmed?” I think the statement is ok without amending it, the sale of such things isn’t the bad part, it’s the use of them. However, it would be extremely impractical to have laws that way.
Raising training standards for being a cop. I’m sure that’d create it’s own problems that probably outweigh the benefit though.
Yeah, I imagine there would be lots of trouble having over-trained cops wandering the streets. 
There would be if that meant there were a heck of a lot less of them.
No it isn’t. While I disagree that addiction is a disease at all, even I’m wrong and it is, it isn’t the same as other diseases.
One doesn’t get cholera via willful misbehavior, and it can’t be overcome via will power.
The authorities already are doing it for me (thanks authorities!).
The authorities limit liberty all the time. For example, you can’t drink alcohol anywhere you choose either. I’ll fight any effort to ban tobacco, but when your right to smoke dirties the air I breathe, I’m all for limiting where you can smoke.[/highjack]
You’re mistaking public property with private property. A tavern is private property. The owner should be allowed to dictate what behavior goes on there if the behavior is otherwise legal.
Like I said, You cannot be for limiting someone elses liberty without somewhere down the line your own freedoms being compromised. The next time some law limiting your own free choices is passed, and you don’t like it, somewhere there will be someone who is ecstatic about it.