data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c20f/1c20f9975a40f28237b77d7db9c6158a321a53d6" alt=""
There are places, namely government buildings and other "monopoly" places, that non-smokers have no ability to avoid. In those cases, anti-smoking laws are fair and make sense. There should also be restrictions on people subjecting those who cannot decide for themselves, like children, to the dangers of smoke. On the other hand, property owners should have the right to decide whether to allow smoking in their property and then let the people decide whether to frequent such establishments.
Imagine two restaurants next door to each other. They are very similar except for one thing. One allows smoking and the other does not. People can choose at which restaurant to dine. If enough people frequent the "smoking" restaurant and are willing to assume the risk, so be it. It's not the government's place to be the people's nanny.
That story contrasts sharply with this morning's passing of Milton Friedman in San Francisco, which is only around twenty miles from Belmont. Friedman won the Nobel Prize in economics. He was a longtime and outspoken champion of the free market. He professed that the more limits on government interventions on society, within reason, the more that society would thrive. Below is a video in which Friedman, using a number 2 pencil as his only prop, explains in a simple and entertaining yet powerful way how important is the free market to our everyday lives.
4 comments:
Forget making it illegal to smoke in most places they should make it illegal to smoke period.
I'm not sure if I'm reading your post correctly. Are you suggesting that the government make tobacco smoking illegal?
yes.
I hope this doesn't sound facetious, because I don't intend it as such, but what other activities in society do you think the government should prohibit?
Post a Comment