"It is not the job of the law to police citizens’ personal health [...] No, children shouldn’t be allowed to purchase tobacco, but once you’re an adult, it’s your body and your money – not the government’s."
and this made me think of two things:
1) PROHIBITION! or the classic question of the law's ability to police morality. Raising the legal age to buy cigarettes in New York City is obviously not the same as outlawing them for the entire population but both Prohibition and this legislation have similar goals in mind. One council speaker said that "This is literally legislation that will save lives" shortly before the bill passed. It is unquestionable that getting cigarettes out of people's hands will save them from being more susceptible to lung cancer, just like getting booze out of people's hands will save them a liver. But is it right for government to determine what is morally acceptable when it comes to the health risks individuals take willingly and privately?
2) ADULTHOOD! specifically, when do we become "adults" and what benefits/responsibilities do we receive as such? In some cases of violent juvenile crime, "children" under the age of 18 can be tried in adult court and sent to adult prison. In those cases age doesn't matter so much as the actions an individual has taken. Currently the legal drinking age in the United States is 21; in Canada it's 18 (or 19 in some provinces), in Germany it's 16. Is this a reflection of cultural differences in alcohol tolerance or differences in how each country views the maturity of its youngest citizens? Is maturity or mature actions the prime indicator for when an individual reaches "adulthood"?
I can only wonder... isn't the prime directive of the police or any legislation to uphold order and civility? Without morality involved in legislation, we would live in a cold cold world (to say the least). So maybe the mayor was right to bring up that law, but even so, "who" can truly justify the balance of morality allowed to be played in legislation? Food for thought.
ReplyDeletepersonally, I think democratic theocracy would be a nifty experiment to play with....
Hey Amanda! This really reminded of prohibition as well! I don't think that this will be as big of disaster as prohibition was, but I think it might turn over a few tables. I will be interested to see what happens in 6 months. I also agree with your thoughts on adulthood...some people might appreciate the government watching over their health, but I know that a lot of people don't want their help.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to remember is that even under prohibition, drinking fell. Prohibition almost always decreases something. Often, the very folks who are critical of regulation of certain things because it makes something harder and thus decreases it (business and their hiring practices, for example) will come out and say that regulation in another case will be ineffective and will not reduce the activity as intended. So sometimes these arguments shift around or are used disingenuously.
ReplyDeleteAs you imply, Amanda, perhaps the question is really more one of morality and culture than of effects. I don't doubt that this law will reduce smoking. By how much is one question. Whether we should do it at all, and whether such actions simply enforce the immaturity of American culture, is another question altogether.