Quote:
Quote by: gr8fuldaniel  I dont get it. First you say...
Then you contradict yourself....
Is it OK to "harm OTHERS" or not?
If the restaurants are killing people, should the government just stand by and watch, or not?
I agree with your first post. The restaurants should do what they want. As long as they do not harm others.
I dont want to smoke your cigarettes either. Those damned things have killed too many of my friends. Keep them the fuck out of my lungs. Thank you very much. |
Dan; I don't want other people's cigarette smoke or trans fats either but why does government have to
force the issue one way or another on the public. Can't the public determine what they want and when they want it?
Now I agree about non smoking buildings where the public must gather for the good of society like government buildings, airports, or in other public places.
So restaurants ban cigarette smoking. The smokers will go somewhere else where they are allowed, even encouraged, to light up. Non smokers stay away. Why does government have to
force its will upon private enterprise when private enterprise is perfectly capable in regulating themselves? For examle, Yankee stadium has banned smoking not only indoors in the clubs, but also outdoors in the stands. This is a perfect example of private enterprise regulating itself for the good of the public.
However, this is not about smoking cigarettes.
It is about trans fats. Let the public decide. This nanny statism continues to erode the rights of all individuals. The diner and private enterprise because they have no choice in the matter and the health concscious individual because they impose their will through government control upon individuals and private enterprise. Today transfats and tomorrow perhaps alcohol? Where does it end.
Perhaps government will decide to impose a weight standard upon all people, for the good of all people, so anyone over weight by 10% must diet or be thrown in jail? Sounds far fetched but it could happen under the same philosophy that has brought you laws regulating restaurants and transfats. Restaurants could be prohibited from serving you, if you are overweight, the cheeseburger you would like to have for lunch. Furthermore, obese people cause "harm" to all of society because their health requires more attention from experts than do "skinny" people. This in turn increases all of our health insurance premiums so therefore we must regulate "fat people" from making poor choices in their diet since it affects all of society. Where does it all end?
This is the exact case for transfats. Government is usurping individual choice by regulating private enterprise. Aren't people smart enough to make their own decisions with regard to transfats? And if they aren't, then who is among us to make that decision for them? I don't feel I have that right. Maybe you do but I say that is elitist in philospophical nature. It presupposes that others want you to make that decision when you don't know that to be the casse at all. You have removed the individual choice before they get to even make it.
Just what is wrong with self determination? There were many restaurants that were non smoking establishments here in Connecticut
before the law was passed to go smoke free. It is my idea to solve these problems without the intrusion of government because it is by far better for the philosophy of the US society, and the role of government in that society, rather than to get government involved with every issue by passing laws to regulate personal health behavior.
Now, I don't want to get into a big discussion of smokers vs non smokers. I would rather focus upon the intrusion of government into private enterprise and personal health habits, that force the will of one group in society upon another by making "health" laws to control individual behavior . I say government has no business doing this at all.