Occasionally I find myself arguing against people who I would usually not want to argue against, and arguing points that I know will make me seem (in their eyes) intolerant, conservative, etc. etc. One of these typical cases is when I mention that the world is dangerous, and that people should take precautions to keep themselves safe. As sound as this argument sounds when I say it, if I took it into the context of rape I would probably instantly be accused of victim blaming. I am not going to go into it. The blame is on the raper. It always has been. It always will be. I still suggest being watchful when you walk home on your own at night, I still recommend being careful who you drink with.
I feel at these times like I am on the border. I consider myself left-wing. Very much so. I think abortion is a right of all women, I don't believe in the death penalty, and socially I believe on relatively high taxes in order for a good health system and a good education system to be in place. I am a pacifist (and generally against armed intervention in conflicts), I am an environmentalist (though you probably wouldn't believe this if you looked at how I live my life, unfortunately I cannot defend myself, I have let my standards on this are slip considerably), I believe people should have equal rights and equal access independently of means (to an extent).
And this to an extent is why I'm on the border. Yes, I believe that education of a high standard should be provided for all children by the state. This does not mean that I believe that everyone should go to University (especially not "because it's the right thing to do").
I believe that there should be an excellent healthcare system that provides for people when they are sick. This does not mean that I believe every intervention and every treatment should be paid for by the government.
In general, I believe that the state should provide (within its means) systems to make societies more equalitarian, I believe that the state should take care of the people who want to be taken care of. This does not mean that it's a free for all and that everyone has a right to everything for free. And it doesn't mean that the state has any right to tell me how I live my life.
A few years ago now (was it 2006?) smoking was made illegal in bars in Spain. I disagreed with the measure. Not because I smoked, but because I thought it was reducing the freedoms of smokers. People told me I was in the wrong: it was smokers who were making it impossible for others to enjoy bars, it was them who were reducing freedoms. And as much sense as this argument made I couldn't help but be annoyed by it. Any bar could decide to make smoking illegal on its premises. No one was stopping them from doing so, yet very few did. Making it illegal to smoke inside takes away the freedom of choice. I would never have been against campaigns to make bars smoke-free (I personally love smoke-free bars, and have welcomed the difference the law has made), but I am against making things illegal. The idea that the government has any right to take away my freedom of choice horrifies me.
And yes, the following question is where do I set the limit. The government illegalising anything at all is the government taking away freedom of choice. Should we legalise murder? Stealing? Assault? Rape?
No. I don't know where to draw the line. Previously, I thought that any laws regulating things that are outside causing physical or mental harm to other people or their property were out of order. Then I realised that good educational and health systems were impossible without these laws. I have said it, I don't know where the line of the law should be drawn, but I think it's definitely a step before what they should do in private spaces (bars are by definition a private space, since they belong to the owner of the bar who has the right to refuse admission).
As regarding non-smokers having the right to enjoy bars, it's not just an issue of the nuisance of being in a smoke-filled bar - it's also very clearly a health issue, aimed at preventing smokers from causing serious harm to non-smokers by forcing them to passive smoke. By your own admission, laws regulating things causing physical harm to others are okay.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I'd have never stepped into a pub at all if the law forbidding smoking in closed public spaces hadn't been brought in just before I started uni. It was lucky. I think that would have seriously impacted my social life and by extension, my happiness over the last seven years. So yes, I'm biased ;)
I agree to an extent. Yes, smoking is harmful for passive smokers. But no one is forcing you to be a passive smoker. As I said, I would leave the smoking or non-smoking regulations of a pub up to the owner, so there would still be non-smoking pubs.
DeleteMany people argue that if not illegal, all pubs would allow smoking. I think this is not true. The majority of people are not smokers, and if enough pressure were made by the non-smokers many pubs would probably be non-smoking. After all, even some smokers agree that it's really nice to have a smoke free environment when they're drinking.
In any case, for me it's more about the principle of making things illegal or controlling people than it is specifically about the matter of smoking. I am also against CCTV, illegalising drugs, etc. etc. etc. In general I support a greater freedom for people. I have had people argue against me that allowing smoking in pubs is reducing the freedom of those who cannot stand smoke at all (people with asthma or other respiratory problems for example) and although I understand their argument I still think it's the pub owner's decision. I have to wonder on the other hand how much worse tobacco smoke is than the pollution caused by traffic, especially somewhere like London. In any case, I do see and understand both sides of the argument when it comes to smoking, I just err on the side of letting people do what they want in their business.