Quote:
|
Quote by: CC Unspecified rights are still rights, especially if they are covered by a specified category of rights. |
I agree that if there is nothing saying you
can't do it then you can do it.
But I think where we disagree... and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm really into this discussion... is that if something is unspecified, and then someone comes along and says you can't do it, complaints are invalid.
I think this comes from how I was raised. For example, my parents never told me I couldn't have girls over afterschool, in the house, alone. In fact, the first time a girl came over and asked if it was okay, I gave a nice smug smile and said that my parents never said it
wasn't okay.
This went on for a month or two, and when my parents found out, they didn't punish me because they had never clearly said it wasn't okay. But they told me it would not happen again. It still did, but I just didn't get caught.
That's how I perceive this smoking issue.
The whole "it's my house I make the rules" aspect of parenting I think applies here. The issue is that the gov't had to choose a side in this matter, and it chose the non-smoker. It gave legitimate reasons for making the decision, and then told owners that something that was once unspecified is now specified.
I want to have a moral flexibility in this issue, but it just isn't in me. It's something harmful, it was unspecified, and the gov't did the same thing that my parents did to me, and that I will do to my kids.
That's the nature of amendments to laws and rights. Someone is going to be inconvenienced. With this specific smoking issue, the only reason I support it so strongly is that it's a matter of health.
They placed a higher value on the health of the
majority of people, the non-smokers, over the financial risks of owners.