Does everything our gov't thinks is "Bad for U" HAVE TO be a law?

Question

Example: Smoking. In Michigan, They want to tell folks who live in apartment buildings they have 18 months to quit smoking or be evicted! Here in Tennessee, They want to TRIPLE the cigarette tax and they're talking about making it a smoke free state. Is this REALLY NECESSARY or is it just another chink in the wall around our liberty?

Answer 1

In the true spirit of how our government was founded, no they shouldn't be making laws of that nature. Rights are essentially freedom to choose what to do with you person, mind and property, inherent with choice is the choice to do the wrong thing and pay the consequences. If you want to smoke (using your example) then that should be your choice, and if a business owner wants to allow smoking at their establishment then they should be allowed to. If you don't like smoking you are free to choose not goto places that allow smoking.
Unfortunately law makers know the definition of Liberty and Freedom are eroding in this country, and are willing accomplices in destroying that, if it means brownie points with a voting demographic. There are growing number of people who don't mind the government providing them security from their own choices or from having to make choices in the first place. It is funny how a lot of people pull out the Ben Franklin Quote about security, where he says those who wish trade freedoms for security deserve neither (rough paraphrase), when it comes to wars over sea's but won't apply it to every thing else the government does, if you think about it you might see that it applies more than you think.

Answer 2

This questions covers interesting ground. Government often attempts to control behaviors through taxes. For example, federal income tax deductions for interest paid on home loans encourage home ownership. In the case of smoking, high taxes are allegedly for the purpose of discouraging smoking and, arguably, covering the increased costs to the state caused by ciagarettes and tobacco. They are also excellent revenue enhancers because addicts can't quit.

With that said, there are certainly "bad" behaviors that the government chooses not to address through either taxes or through flat-out criminalisation. For examle, obesity arguably costs both the public sector and the private sector millions if not billions of dollars a year (and forces the rest of us to look at fatties who choose to wear overly tight shorts in public -- eewwww). Yet no one is slapping a two-dollar tax on every Big Mac sold. Is this because more people would walk a mile for a Whopper than for a Camel? I don't know. But, it certainly is getting easier to pick on smokers.

So, next time you see a smoker standing outside on a thrity-below day bravely exercising her right to contract cancer, give her a hug and thank for striking a blow to fascism. Then go and make sure she's not part of your insurance group. Balance in all things.

Answer 3

I don't think so, and they're some things that I, personally, really oppose. However, I do not think that the government is overstepping its boundaries by restricting smoking. The government has a responsibility to keep the people healthy, and it has been proven that smoking is bad for the health and can affect those people that do not smoke. It's not like they are completely banning smoking or preventing cigarettes from being sold (even though that may be the next step)

Answer 4

no just whatever the lobbyists and special interest groups(churches) want passed. i wonder who is willing to pay the higher taxes to make up for billions that smokers pay annually. there was already many restaurants that didn't allow smoking,why worry about bars and peoples residences

edit. it is usually the smokers family that sues not the smoker. the tobacco industry made a settlement to end the lawsuits,the government has not held up their end of the deal. in fact the states have for the most part misused the money

Answer 5

Making smoking against the law and harder and harder for people to smoke freely will cut down on lawsuits. Smokers want to be free to smoke, and to be able to sue when that habit threatens to kill them. Of course, it is the tax payer who picks up the tab for the right to smoke. So as a tax payer I want smoking to be against the law.

Answer 6

Only if it is bad for me too. Example: you smoke I get lung cancer, my grandchildren get asthma or a newborn is underweight at birth. You do not have the liberty to make others sick or to kill us.
That does not even count the number of expensive meals ruined by the taste of smoke or the dry cleaning bills to get rid of the smell out of clothes & coats.

Nice speech though.

Answer 7

It is a horrible thing the Gov is getting away with. Congress should pass a bill to stop bullying tactics on tobacco companies and the such. They might actually get some respect then cause they sure dont have Americas respect after their military spending bill. They care about themselves.

Answer 8

Government must not use tax or harassments as forms of forcing people not to smoke. There must be proper ways to make laws lenient and not harsh.