Does it disturb you when people call for bans on things they personally do not agree with?

Question

I just answered a question (that I think may have been sarcastic) proposing a ban on alcohol. Their defense was that they don't drink, and alcohol kills people.

What does it say about our view of freedoms when people call for banning of things simply because they don't agree or partake with them? I don't understand why ANYONE would ask the government to restrict what a grown adult has the right to do. Don't they do enough of that on their own without our interest and insistance of more frivolous bans?

No, I would not pay your medical bills. No one held a gun to your head to force you into a place that allowed smoking. You went there on your own accord. How am I responsible for where you choose to go?

Hunt - Why this insistance on people picking up the medical bills of others. I'm responsible for my health, and it's subsequent bills. That's why I don't support Nationalized Health Care - which you must obviously be a fan of, considering you already are trying to pass the buck (and assume others do too) on medical bills.

Answer 1

I avoid the angst caused by calls for prohibition by being pre disturbed. This simple expedient allows me to avoid being emotionaly disturbed by anything. It does not matter if the Government bans smoking, drinking, eating, breathing, playing with ones bits, hopping, skipping, jumping and putting sheep in fruit loaves. I am already livid with indignation and hence feel entirely unaffected.

Answer 2

Government speak with forked tongue. Less government, more control. Hello? I'm quite sure they aren't going to put a ban on alcohol, any more than on smoking cigarettes, (although they've made the expense out of sight). Yet, marijuana is illegal & probably the most benign. PLEASE. I think it's New York that's restricting (unhealthy) fast food. Hey, it is NO ONE'S BUSINESS WHAT A PERSON WANTS TO EAT. The reality is, people will do what they do regardless. (Look at prohibition!) Oh, forget it. Just people with their own pet peeves who want to change the rest of us. I live in a condo complex, & people on the 3rd floor complain about someone smoking on the 1st. Give me a break. The FDA passes a drug, & just a little later, withdraws it because it KILLS people. Our supreme guardians. I depend on them so much!!! Scott L's answer was a good satire! The only way a ban will be passed, is if it doesn't impact a favoured manufacturer's profit, &/or pastes a star on a politician's forehead.

Answer 3

Is it a question of democracy where the majority can step on the minority or something more insidious? If you look into Hitlers actions against smokers it will become clearer.
http://193.78.190.200/smokersclub/klass2.htm
This issue has nothing to do with the government trying to protect us against ourselves it has to do with control! If the government had the slightest interest in our health why don't they stop Fluoridation of water and toothpaste? Why don't they remove all mercury bearing vaccines from the market?

Answer 4

it doesn't disturb me that people think that way: it's another version of not in my backyard. i guess i should expect it by now- if someone's offended by my right to do something, instead of (politely) asking me to change it, or by pointing out how harmful that behavior is, it's much more in vogue to coerce me into stopping by 'banning' it. ettiquette, remember that? or has it been banned as well?

i DO see the point in worrying about someone else's behavior if it directly impacts my own life and livelihood, but those cases are extreme: you do have the right to keep and bear arms, but you DON'T have the right to break into my home with said weapon. you do have the right to enjoy tobacco (alcohol, whatever) but you DON'T have the right to come up to me and blow cigarette smoke in my face to make your point.

what does this say about our view of freedoms? i'd say that it indicates selfishness... i can enjoy MY freedoms and you are entitled to yours, so long as the two don't collide. if you're doing something i disapprove of, you are no longer free to partake. and as to frivolous lawsuits that help point the government in the right direction, again, i guess that's nimbyism all over again. if you don't like the sound of jets, why in the world did you build your house next to the airport?

Answer 5

Well, we banned slavery, curtailing the freedoms of the slavers. So much as I object to religious zealots working politically to ban euthanasia, stem cell research, birth control, and other things on which I hold opinions as strong as theirs, I don't think we can ban attempts to ban things, or oppose what we believe, or even to intrude in what we regard as personal freedoms. In a democracy we can fight back, however, and preserve and extend democracy in the process. What we can demand is civil discussion and debate in Parliament and media, and politicians who listen to the arguments and vote accordingly - rather than merely pander to special interests to get sectional votes. Democracy only functions effectively with participation, engagement, and information. So its down to us. We may not get the democracy we deserve, but we do get what we create, by action or default. Sadly - mostly by default of the many, and the assiduous pursuit of people with bees in their bonnets, axes to grind, or profits to get.

Answer 6

Government is in a nasty position:

1) Ban this, ban that (food industry, food additives) or we'll sue the Food and Drug, Health and Education departments.

2) Let us do anything we want, but when we hurt ourselves, we cry, "How come you didn't protect us!?"

It's not just.

Answer 7

If I had it my way, I would make banning against the law. In essence I want to ban banning. And if another ban arises from banning the people from participating in the ban vote, I'd ban that ban as well. If someone wanted to medically assist someone I banned, I would offer them some banned aid but that would be it, all other help would be banned.. Some people need their government to ban things periodically. If you don't legislate morals, everyone would turn into a liberal agnostic heathen funnygirl like Mizz Penfold above, and who'd want that!?

Answer 8

But but if the government didn't ban things, how would I know what's right and wrong? How would I know what is and is not safe for me or good for my country? How would I figure out how to open the sheep-proof box my conscience is in and who will explain to me how to use it?

Answer 9

if i believe its right i will do it wether its banned or not.... its my freedom as an american, thats what washington stood for. I refuse to be told its against the law to do something ive enjoyed doing, and i will fight tooth and nail against it. I oppose all banning laws...

ps. unless it was a ban against banning then im cool.

Answer 10

Well, it disturbs me when that person is the current idiot-in-chief.

But as for banning alcohol - have none of you heard of prohibition ?