Answer for: If you could make anything illegal, what would it be?
#6 The prohibition of victimless "crimes" like smoking
| 
7 Comments
"... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
-John Stuart Mill
Related Answers
Grupies who voted on this answer also voted on:- Self-righteous people who try to ban everything
- Politicians purposeful lying
- Using a mobile phone while driving
- Spam
- Using car-honking sound effect in radio commercials.
Comments |
Leave a comment
Yes, because that worked so well for alcohol.
Just to clarify, I'm saying it is the *prohibition* of victimless crimes that ought to be outlawed, not the crimes themselves.
Agreed, but a lot of people underestimate the negative effects of what they do. Smoking in the company of other people, for example, increases their risks of getting lung cancer et cetera. In countries with public health systems smoking also costs the government a lot of money. It's still not necessary to completely prohibit smoking though, just limit it... Various forms of piracy is another crime a lot of people think is completely victimless. I'll just say that sharing and "trying before bying" is one thing(or two to be accurate), blatant piracy is another.
When the only place you can smoke is outside,100 ft. from the doorway of a business, ect... how much more can this be limited w/out infringing on the smokers rights as a human? Also are there more "bad habbits" that have quit so many limits on them?
Erik,
We're definitely on the same page as far as piracy goes. Anyone who thinks piracy is a victimless crime is an idiot. (In my experience, pirates are actually quite eager to make victims of the executives and corporations they see as the main entities bearing the costs of their actions.)
Secondhand smoke ... that's a different matter. For one thing, governmental propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding, there's pretty scanty evidence that occassional exposure to secondhand smoke represents a serious cancer risk.
But, even granting that secondhand smoke does pose a risk to nonsmokers, that doesn't change the fact that consenting adults can make an informed choice about whether to patronize a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed, the same way that one might, for instance, decide to attend a rock concert every now and then with full knowledge and understanding of the fact that it might pose a long-term risk to your hearing. There are no "victims" among people who voluntarily patronize private establishments where certain risky behaviors are allowed (or even encouraged).
As far as the taxpayers allegedly victimized by smoking go, perhaps they should have thought of things like smoking before they decided to turn health care into a government-guaranteed "right." The whole point of public health systems is to absolve individuals of the responsibility to bear the costs of their own health care. How can you institute such a system, and then start picking and choosing which health care expenditures are legitimate and which aren't. And doesn't that kind of thinking ultimately require that the government be empowered to force you to brush your teeth twice a day, hit the treadmill three times a week, and cut back on the ice cream?
I guess through this same logic we should also make automobiles illegal, because the chances of you dying in a car wreck on the way to work are infinitely higher than from second hand smoke.
http://www.grupthink.com/answer/34371