|
So you do have a line on what choices people are allowed to make without government intervention. That is what I was asking.
If the line is direct impact on others then the decisions of parents would seem to fit that criteria pretty well.
And if over the course of a life not wearing a seatbelt increases the chance of death and injury by 0.1% while over the course of the life of a person with cancer switching to treatment B increases the chances of death and injury by 20% I don't really see where you're making the distinction that one is acceptable and one is not. The risk of death for not wearing a seatbelt is really very small, the risk of death from untreated cancer is really very high.
Also, the argument about the kid being ejected from a car and killing a bystander would the same justification for making it illegal for me to keep my laptop case in the back seat or making cars illegal outright.
And the odds of a alcoholic doing something because of alcohol that directly and negatively impacts me is probably much higher than the odds of the same from a pot user.
My recollection was that you support the criminalization of cocaine and heroin. Is that correct? Those would seem to have very low chance of being forcibly introduced into my body.
As for my views, I'm pretty absolutist on the parental right to make almost any stupid decision on behalf of their minor children (including alternative treatments, not wearing a seatbelt, smoking, playing with guns, etc.).
As far as I'm concerned the most harmful thing you can do to a child short of direct violence is raise them within religion. So if I don't get to outlaw what I think are the stupidest decisions parents could make I don't see why others should get to do theirs.
But for the most part society (and I think most of the people on this board) disagree with me and so I'm just exploring the edges of that.
|