Another Attack On Freedom

[pancreasman]

Yep we have a totally inconsistent policy on banning 'drugs'. If both tobacco and alcohol were discovered now, they'd be illegal. I agree with Seer. Decriminalise all drugs ... and tax 'em.

[Epoetker]

Getting suspended by a TV show for making certain remarks isn't a violation of freedom of speech.

Of course not. It's merely an effective demonstration and enforcement of where and when you can speak certain words, which makes it completely different from a violation of freedom of speech, and has nothing to do with people who may or may not be sympathizers and associates with those in government who may or may not be inconvenienced by that speech.

Being prevented from committing discrimination when you have a bakery that qualifies as a public accommodation isn't a loss of freedom of religion.

Nah, just freedom of expression of that religion in a public setting. You're still totally free in your own mind, which we may or may not take an interest in later depending on advancements in neurobiology and pharmaceuticals.

The tolerance argument technically doesn't have to be extended to tobacco, as the idea of tolerance is supposed to be that if you personally dislike something but it isn't harmful to you, then you ought to tolerate it--whereas tobacco could be harmful to you personally if you inhale too much secondhand smoke.

Comparisons to gays/AIDS and Africans/Ebola will no doubt be gratuitously forthcoming from Tweb's resident liberal plankeye.

[Sparko]

Overstated, overgeneralised nonsense ... As usual as regards anything regarding a progressive viewpoint. You have liberals here agreeing this is a bad way to go making your statement wrong on its face. You are capable of much better thinking.

let me modify that by saying "radical liberals" - those on the bleeding left edge of liberalism.

Not all liberals are as I stated previously.

[Sparko]

The only genuine violation of conservative rights/freedoms that anyone on this site has provided is the Houston mayor's sermon subpoena, and she's not going to get away with that. Your rights aren't being taken away at all. Getting suspended by a TV show for making certain remarks isn't a violation of freedom of speech. Being prevented from committing discrimination when you have a bakery that qualifies as a public accommodation isn't a loss of freedom of religion. So no, there indeed doesn't appear to be a slippery slope or removal of rights.


Sort of like how you're demonizing liberalism (which I don't fully agree with myself) right now with these broad-brush strokes?


While some people go too far in their reactions to the anti-gay side, I'm really not sure where this "demonization" of tobacco users is taking place. Banning tobacco isn't demonization.

Not to mention, it's inaccurate to place tobacco restriction in the same category as same-sex marriage legalization, because 1) restriction and legalization are opposites, and 2) smoking tobacco is demonstrably and inherently harmful to the user and to others, whereas homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not inherently harmful.


The tolerance argument technically doesn't have to be extended to tobacco, as the idea of tolerance is supposed to be that if you personally dislike something but it isn't harmful to you, then you ought to tolerate it--whereas tobacco could be harmful to you personally if you inhale too much secondhand smoke.

I bet you don't do anything that some people consider "unhealthy" do you? Things like Eat junk food, sugary soft drinks, smoke pot, riding a motorcycle, doing something high risk like mountain climbing or parachuting, or even sit on the couch all day playing Xbox games or watching TV? Yes, by all means let's go and ban everything that can be unhealthy to you. After all, the nanny state just wants to protect you and those around you.

[Leonhard]

I bet you don't do anything that some people consider "unhealthy" do you? Things like Eat junk food, sugary soft drinks, smoke pot, riding a motorcycle, doing something high risk like mountain climbing or parachuting, or even sit on the couch all day playing Xbox games or watching TV? Yes, by all means let's go and ban everything that can be unhealthy to you. After all, the nanny state just wants to protect you and those around you.

In line with the mixed feelings, if it was merely privately unhealthy, not much of a problem. The problem is that smoking is publically unhealthy by secondhand smoke, plus its really annoying and gross. Especially if its cigarettes, euch...

[Cow Poke]

In line with the mixed feelings, if it was merely privately unhealthy, not much of a problem. The problem is that smoking is publically unhealthy by secondhand smoke, plus its really annoying and gross. Especially if its cigarettes, euch...

Freedom includes the freedom to do dumb - even dangerous - stuff ---- like riding motorcycles without helmets.

[Sparko]

In line with the mixed feelings, if it was merely privately unhealthy, not much of a problem. The problem is that smoking is publically unhealthy by secondhand smoke, plus its really annoying and gross. Especially if its cigarettes, euch...

nothing is "privately unhealthy" - we all affect those around us, no matter what we do. If you sit on your butt watching TV all the time and die of a heart attack, you affect your friends and family. You affect the healthcare system who might have tried to save you. If you climb mountains, you could be encouraging others to do the same and risk their lives. We don't live in a vacuum. And unless you are crammed in a room with second hand smoke for hours a day, I don't think it will affect you much. And it is illegal to smoke in public buildings already, there is no reason to try to stop the sale of tobacco altogether. If someone wants to smoke tobacco at home or outside, then that should be their choice, even if it is gross to you, or unhealthy to them.

[Cow Poke]

nothing is "privately unhealthy" - we all affect those around us, no matter what we do. If you sit on your butt watching TV all the time and die of a heart attack, you affect your friends and family. You affect the healthcare system who might have tried to save you. If you climb mountains, you could be encouraging others to do the same and risk their lives. We don't live in a vacuum. And unless you are crammed in a room with second hand smoke for hours a day, I don't think it will affect you much. And it is illegal to smoke in public buildings already, there is no reason to try to stop the sale of tobacco altogether. If someone wants to smoke tobacco at home or outside, then that should be their choice, even if it is gross to you, or unhealthy to them.

But if I own a sports bar, and I allow smoking, nobody is FORCED to come in and breathe second hand smoke. And nobody is forced to smoke.

[Sparko]

But if I own a sports bar, and I allow smoking, nobody is FORCED to come in and breathe second hand smoke. And nobody is forced to smoke.

I totally agree.

[Zymologist]

Why should we not ban tobacco but ban other drugs? Banning what substances a reasonable adult can put into their own body is an attack on freedom. Plus, we know from experience that banning drugs doesn't get rid of them, it just drives the market underground. If the goal is to reduce the number of tobacco smokers, attack the cause, not the symptoms.

Ah, ok. I agree.

[Epoetker]

Ah, ok. I agree.

I don't. If China had the right to rage against its own opium addiction, so does America.

[Paprika]

Ah, ok. I agree.

Why should we ban prostitution? Banning employments a reasonable adult can do with their own body is an attack on freedom. Plus, we know from experience that banning prostitution doesn't get rid of it, it just drives the market underground. If the goal is to reduce the number of people who visit prostitutes, attack the cause, not the symptoms.

[Psychic Missile]

Why should we ban prostitution? Banning employments a reasonable adult can do with their own body is an attack on freedom. Plus, we know from experience that banning prostitution doesn't get rid of it, it just drives the market underground. If the goal is to reduce the number of people who visit prostitutes, attack the cause, not the symptoms.

I agree. I like this topic. It's very friendly compared to the rest of Civics.

[Paprika]

I agree. I like this topic. It's very friendly compared to the rest of Civics.

For now it is

I'm not a liberal (in the technical sense): I don't actually believe that freedom trumps everything short of criminal harm to another. That doesn't necessarily imply a nanny-state or the avoidance of any dangerous activity; I would argue for a reasonable tradeoff between freedom and the public good, with the range of good positions depending greatly on the conditions in the society.

[Psychic Missile]

For now it is

I'm not a liberal (in the technical sense): I don't actually believe that freedom trumps everything short of criminal harm to another. That doesn't necessarily imply a nanny-state or the avoidance of any dangerous activity; I would argue for a reasonable tradeoff between freedom and the public good, with the range of good positions depending greatly on the conditions in the society.

What would be a law or policy you approve of, think fits within the reasonable tradeoff, and doesn't involve possible criminal harm to another?