I truly don't care what anyone wants to put into their bodies or do to themselves.
My problem comes in when they affect others. That applies to a wide range of situations from excessive drinking to smoking (ever go to a concert and you have to sit in a cloud of smoke, breathing what came out of others' mouths?) and more.
I think everyone should be free to do as they please to themselves. The red line is when their choices infringe on someone else's right to not be affected in any way by their decision. If you choose to smoke, that does not give you the right to have the smoke that comes out of your mouth go into my lungs.
Respect for freedom requires respecting everyone's freedoms and rights. A self-serving stance will never result in expanding freedom.
Why is this important?
To continue with the hypothetical, if the smoker does not respect the right of the non-smoker to breath clean air, the non-smoker will eventually want to (need to!) seek ways to restrict the smoker's freedom to smoke. Everyone loses because society becomes more restrictive.
In a sense, not much different from the concept of freedom of speech. In order to preserve it you have to allow --and protect-- that with which you disagree to have a voice.
I truly don't care what anyone wants to put into their bodies or do to themselves.
My problem comes in when they affect others. That applies to a wide range of situations from excessive drinking to smoking (ever go to a concert and you have to sit in a cloud of smoke, breathing what came out of others' mouths?) and more.
I think everyone should be free to do as they please to themselves. The red line is when their choices infringe on someone else's right to not be affected in any way by their decision. If you choose to smoke, that does not give you the right to have the smoke that comes out of your mouth go into my lungs.
Respect for freedom requires respecting everyone's freedoms and rights. A self-serving stance will never result in expanding freedom.
Why is this important?
To continue with the hypothetical, if the smoker does not respect the right of the non-smoker to breath clean air, the non-smoker will eventually want to (need to!) seek ways to restrict the smoker's freedom to smoke. Everyone loses because society becomes more restrictive.
In a sense, not much different from the concept of freedom of speech. In order to preserve it you have to allow --and protect-- that with which you disagree to have a voice.