¶ … New "Clean Living" Movement
Individual choice has perhaps been one of the most important aspects of the United States' Bill of Rights. Indeed, it is part and parcel of liberty, the principle upon which the country has been built since its inception. Nevertheless, even before the first foreign vessels touched American soil, the country has been home to a wide diversity of cultures and beliefs. This makes legislation and indeed the concept of individual and possibly harmful choice difficult.
I do however agree with the statement that individual and personal decision regarding health should remain largely untouched by legislation. The better option instead of restrictive legislation is education regarding possible harmful consequences of certain health choices. When universal restrictions are applied, society will often retaliate by finding unlawful ways of attaining what they want or need, whether it be tobacco, alcohol, or a termination of pregnancy.
In terms of second-hand smoke in restaurants and other public domains, this is the other side of the legislative coin. In cases where smokers impose their tobacco use upon bystanders, individual choice affects those not making the choice. Smokers are indeed not altogether prohibited from indulging their addiction. They are allowed to smoke in certain places. The restriction on the choice to smoke around individuals who choose not to smoke is therefore beneficial in terms of the general health of society in general, while not placing universal restrictions on smokers and their choices.
In conclusion, while I do support the choice of individuals, these choices should be freely allowed only insofar as they do not harm others not making the choice. If choices (such as smoking) are harmful to the public in general, restrictions should indeed apply as far as is reasonable. A smoker should therefore be allowed to purchase and use tobacco, as long as this is done in an acceptable and considerate way.
