Today the question that is playing round and round in my head is “where is the line for what’s appropriate to do even when you know what’s right?” What this question relates to is smoking. Now I am not pro-smoking by any means, and it’s indisputable that smoking is bad for you. My discussion is not about that. What’s more, I agree with educating people to stop smoking, to think about their habits, and to choose lives they really want. I even agree with regulating smoking, or banning it altogether, indoors, as well as controlling where it’s ok to smoke (as in not around children and the like.)
However, what I’ve seen lately is beyond educating.
What I have heard said (and I work in the healthcare profession so I’ve heard a lot) is that it’s ok to do whatever it takes, including stigmatizing people, using scare tactics, exaggerating the facts, and manipulating people to get them to not smoke/stop smoking. This is beyond the pale for me.
Keep in mind, if people want smoking to be illegal, then make it so. Otherwise, if it’s legal, let people make the wrong choice. Freedom isn’t about letting people only do what’s appropriate or good for them. (I’m talking about adults here.) The thing is that makes me nervous about the near religious certainty that any and all tactics are equally valid in order to get people not to smoke. My problem with it is that same fervency can translate to ANYTHING that is deemed “wrong.” I’ve already seen it spread to obesity and other social issues.
Keep in mind, even if everybody stops smoking, people will still die of other things. The argument that smoking makes people die expensively is ludicrous to me, because dying of old age in a nursing home is by far the most expensive route. If people quit smoking of their own free will because they’ve looked at the facts, then I applaud them, but being manipulated into that decision out of wanting to be more acceptable, well that’s a kind of social engineering that I don’t want to happen.