Smoking bans are NOT an example of a “nanny state”
Supposedly a “nanny state” is one that protects its citizens from themselves.
Helmet and seatbelt laws are excellent examples of this.
But I keep seeing bloggers I normally agree with refering to
By definition, best viagra ambulance they are NOT!
Smoking bans protect others from the behavior of smokers.*
They do nothing to protect the smokers themselves. (A smoker is always free to go outside and smoke or smoke at home.)
A law that outlawed smoking period would be an example of a nanny state.
Call smoking bans unnecessary. Call them an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of property owners. Call them fascist. But quit calling them an example of the “nanny state.”
If you don’t, I’m going to send you to bed without your supper.
*And, to me, protecting us from each other is the only legitimate purpose of any government.
13 comments February 27th, 2006