You’ve Heard Of Second-Hand Smoking, Now Meet Second-Hand Drinking
Ugh...
Read the whole thing.
This "harm to others" argument is an effective one. As the article indicates, it is the argument that has resulted in many smoking bans being passed. It is also the argument these same nanny-state, "we need laws to protect you from yourself" people will use when they decide to go after fast food, guns, sugar, coffee or anything else that you might be able to harm yourself with.
What bothers me is how many see this as an argument in favor of limiting personal freedoms and choices as opposed to an argument against a society that far too often holds the collective responsible for the personal choices of the individual.
The campaigns to combat the effects of ‘passive smoking’ are widely credited for Europe’s growing number of smoking bans. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health lobbyists, and they have invented the concept of ‘passive drinking’ as their killer argument.
I have seen a leaked draft report for the European Commission, which is due to be published some time in June. It makes claims about the high environmental or social toll of alcohol, the ‘harm done by someone else’s drinking’. The report is likely to inform proposals for a European Union alcohol strategy later this year.
Dr Peter Anderson, the report’s lead author, who has a background in the World Health Organisation (WHO) and plays a leading role in Tobacco Free Initiative Europe, tells me that the concept of social harm takes the alcohol debate beyond the traditional limits of individual choice and addiction. ‘You can make the argument that what an individual drinks is up to them, provided they understand what they are doing and bearing in mind that alcohol is a dependency-producing drug…. But when you talk about harm to others then that is a societal concern and justification for doing something about it. I think that is an important argument. If there was not harm to others then the argument gets a little less powerful’ (1).
Read the whole thing.
This "harm to others" argument is an effective one. As the article indicates, it is the argument that has resulted in many smoking bans being passed. It is also the argument these same nanny-state, "we need laws to protect you from yourself" people will use when they decide to go after fast food, guns, sugar, coffee or anything else that you might be able to harm yourself with.
What bothers me is how many see this as an argument in favor of limiting personal freedoms and choices as opposed to an argument against a society that far too often holds the collective responsible for the personal choices of the individual.
pparets
laydownSally
Puzzlefeet
The Whistler
Brian
