Read about this vegan couple (they do not believe in eating anything from animals, not even milk or cheese, etc). They recently had their first child, who they fed only soy milk and apple juice. Tragically, the baby lasted only six weeks, dying weighing less than four pounds. The good news is that these parents were sentenced to life in prison. Somehow, the only thing I could think of was that if the parents had decided seven weeks earlier to have a doctor mutilate the fetus they would have committed no crime. Please understand, I beleive a life sentence was appropriate here, but something seems out of whack when a parent can get life in prison for malnourishing a child (likely unintentionally, though anyone should have known better), but a deliberate, premeditated slaughter of that same baby a few weeks earlier would be no crime at all. Can anyone explain this too me?
A Minnesota college has decided to ban smoking anywhere on its campus, a first for Minnesota colleges. It is high time that we either made smoking illegal or quit persecuting smokers. Either it is too dangerous to use or not. While all other controlled substances that I can think alter the mind, tobacco does nothing of the sort. It causes no immediate risk to the user, motorists, passersby, etc., unlike alcohol and other drugs. Has anyone ever heard of a family being destroyed by tobacco? I haven't, but I have heard numerous such stories about alcohol or other drugs. It is likely to shorten one's lifespan, but so is McDonalds. I know there are people who would like to ban McDonalds, but I hope everyone sees the lunacy in that. The war on tobacco is massive distortion of priorities. On the list of social ills that need to be vanquished, tobacco falls well behind drug use, alcoholism,and sexual promiscuity. Yet, it is tobacco that recieves all the attention. Here is a question. Would you rather have your child take up smoking, or become a habitual lier and cheat? If this is a hard question to answer, it is time to do some hard thinking about how to prioritize these issues. The body will break down some day, no matter how well we take care of it now. Since this is true, shouldn't we give more attention to one's soul? Disagree? Let's hear it. I know some of you out there are appaled by the idea of smoking. Tell me why this defines morality for you.
5 comments:
I agree fully that the other things stated (alcholosim, sexual promiscuity, etc.) are much worse than smoking. I will state though that smoking, unlike the others, can affect me directly even if I don't know the people. The second hand smoke can actually be worse than smoking one yourself. There are hundreds of harmful chemicals in cigarettes. The smoke coming from the end of the cigarette is not filtered. I would love to walk in and out of buildings and not have to take those chemicals into my lungs. Granted you would have to be around it a lot to make an ill effect on your lungs but if there were no rules people would still be smoking on flights, in all restaurants, in enclosed stadiums, etc. That will add up over a lifetime and shorten my life.
This is stated of course that I have no real control of how long my life will be anyway. I do believe though we should protect our bodies from unnecessary risks. Having to suck in someone elses smoke is an unnecessary risk to me.
BS-
I see your point. I am fine with smoking bans in indoor, public places. I also think any private place should be free to prohibit smoking as well. Then of course, you could choose to avoid the smoking places. I don't mean to minimize the risks and general nuisance that smoking is (well, I do mean to minimize it a little, as I think it is overblown), but only to set priorities.
Thanks for the comment, your agreement, and you own perspective. You are a New Right All-Star BS
-NT
I am very honored and overjoyed to be a New Right all-star. I would like to thank my family, friends, and all my fans. Thank you NT.
I think the public nuisance model is probably the best way to look at smoking bans in public places (but maybe that's just because Ive been studying property law). Since it unreasonably interferes with the public's right to enjoy public spaces (and since most Americans so), I have no problem banning it. If people want to use it in their own homes, go right ahead, but second hand smoke is a huge nuisance.
It's not an issue of whether smoking is dangerous or unhealthy. If it were, then it would be completely inconsistent to ban smoking while still allowing people to drink in public. (Then again, when drinking rises to the level of a nuisance, then public intoxication can also be analyzed under the nuisance model). The issue is whether most Americans think second-hand smoke is an unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of public spaces. They do. The public benefit is more important than the individual in this case.
But at a more basic, visceral level, I confess that I have no sympathy for tobacco companies. Sure, they don't actually force anyone to use their products, each smoker is responsible for his or her own choice to smoke. But to prey on the weaknesses and temptations of others is a pretty poor way to make a living, and a pretty good living at that. In this regard, I see it as comparable to pornography. (Though of course, porn is morally worse).
I don't think smoking defines morality, at least not for smokers themselves. But it is a moral issue to exploit someone else's bad choices for your own gain.
Perhaps your best post to date. Vegans getting life in prison for malnourishing a baby - wow...unbelievable. Although I am not an advocate of life imprisonment, the lack of morality in doing what they did was completely uncalled for. What they should do to the couple is have them sit in the Minnesota legislature - it would drive them mentally insane, perhaps suicidal. The latter would put less of a drain on our tax dollars...hmmm...
BTW...probably won't become a baptist...
Post a Comment