That is the law. It was made the law during the last administration.
Ok, so it’s the old “ it’s for the children” argument. What is the level of imposition on adults to make their own choices that crosses the line from justifiable to too much?
Most people don’t start smoking at 18 they just start being able to legally purchase them. Most of my friends who smoked picked up the habit well before turning 18. If your old enough to vote and go to war you should be able to smoke or have a beer.
100%. Legally one should be considered an adult will full rights and consequences, or not. This graduated gray area is harmful to everyone.
I dunno, a couple dozen of these guys going off into some serious lights at a rave while I am tripping out might win me over.Yup. Like, there is no way to make this cool.
Maybe I could strap a couple to the cab of my truck to blow out of fake exhaust stacks once we transition electric semi trucks.
On the other hand, if we’re not going to provide universal healthcare, then the poorest among us being one of the likeliest groups to do something that will also make them the sickest among us, creates a drag on all of us. These are after all also the groups who are the least likely to be insured, or are underinsured. That puts strain on medical services, increases costs, and so on.
I’d say your post nails it on all points.
That’s fair on all counts. I only meant that “paternalism” seems to imply, to me, that it’s a decision made for the smokers’ good, and for their good only, and I just don’t think that covers the extent of the overall perceived benefit.
The reason I term it paternalistic is that it appears to be made for the benefit of folks who are for one reason or another are perceived incapable of making their own decisions. Regardless of whether it may or may not have larger societal benefit, the approach that certain folks can’t make the “right” choice so the choice must be made for them is where it rubs me wrong.
...which results in more people declining to, or unable to, carry any coverage at all, relying on things like emergency services when they have to, and otherwise deferring all healthcare until they’re in a crisis. HCPs providing care to these folks must then also defray their expenses by increasing costs to people who do carry coverage, meaning that the insured are not only subsidizing the uninsured, but are doing so at astronomically higher rates than would be necessary if those people had access to affordable, regular healthcare in the first place.
This discussion easily spirals out into one about how all kinds of laws are paternalistic under that rubric, which I don’t think you’d disagree with, but many of them I think would be more popular with most of us because they’re already codified into the fabric of what we think of as the background for the general welfare. This one is only different in that it’s new, not in its sort of philosophical underpinnings.
