Hacker News Reader

Comment by sarah180 | Hacker News Reader

The land of the free, where the government decides what adults can with their own bodies.

I'm all for taking new steps to reduce the troubling increase in teen use of nicotine. Also, cigarettes should not be nearly so cheap: they should carry taxes that fully offset the health impact so smokers are not free riders. (This would add $10 per pack to the price.)

However, freedom means adults should be free to make their own choices—even if they're bad ones—as long as they bear the costs. It's appropriate for government to persuade, but not to choose.

View on HN

> The land of the free, where the government decides what adults can with their own bodies.

I have found that such black-and-white sentiments are common here in the US, and surprisingly missing a lot of very importance nuance.

So... you will never use publicly funded (often emergency) healthcare? Do you really understand the risks that you are taking? Are you sure that the risks have been accurately and understandably explained? Are you sure that only adults will be targeted? Are you sure that commercial interests are not lying or exaggerating to you?

I remember analogous arguments in the late 70's / early 80's regarding the use of seat belts. "It's my body! I know the risks!"

It is the role of a functioning society to find a way to help protect its own members from non-obvious, long-term harm. We can argue if government regulation is the proper outlet, and we can argue about efficiency and details, but... no no sane world does a "I can damned well do whatever I want!" attitude build a safe, equitable society.

There's nothing other than an annoying chime preventing you from not using a seat-belt. In all but the "nanny-ist" of states they can't even pull you over for it (but they may be able to tack on a $50 fine or something if they see you not wearing it when they pull you over). You can even buy clips that plug into the seat belt latch that make it think it's buckled when it's not.

Mandating that seat belts be available in vehicles for those that choose to use them and making it annoying to not do so is a far cry from banning an entire category of product.

I think you're willfully ignoring the bulk of my comment.

>So... you will never use publicly funded (often emergency) healthcare?

When the overweight start getting hauled off to prison I'll find this argument compelling.

In this case you can do what you want to your own body, you can't just sell it to others and cause them harm.

When are we banning fast food?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com