Liberty, the Government, and 'For Our Own Good'

On Wednesday, a group of doctors advised the government to pass a ban on smoking in one's car. There is no point even trying to argue against the negative effects of smoking, be they physical, financial or psychological. Put bluntly, smoking kills.

Similarly, I myself dislike and disagree with the idea of smoking. I am also personally against taking illegal drugs. But do I think that my own opinions and the fact that things are dangerous make sufficient grounds for making something illegal? No; not by any means. I don't ever think personal views on a certain area should ever be the basis of legislation which will affect the whole country. My distaste should not translate into infringements on others' liberty.

Take the smoking in the car debate as an example. Obviously, if there is someone in the car with you, particularly a non-smoker, then the situation changes. You shouldn't be allowed to smoke in a situation such as this where it infringes on another's health. However, should it still be banned if you are the only passenger? No. What right does the Government have to say what you can and can't do with your own body? Yes, it's dangerous, as are drugs. But then again, so are knives. So are painkillers. So is alcohol So are plastic bags, and hammers, and chocolate.We don't ban those things. These are clearly not the same things, but the principle is the same. Danger and ill-health, when caused with consent, should not be reasons for illegalisation in my mind.

I cannot reiterate enough that I am against smoking. But what I am against more are the patronising, arbitrary attacks on liberty. By all means, try and discourage people from smoking, and taking drugs, and drinking too much. The fewer people that do these things, the better. But ultimately, it is their choice. Someone may choose to smoke 40 cigarettes a day and send themselves to an early grave, and many would disapprove of this. I would. It would be heartless not to care. But if it were their decision, then so be it. It was their path, and it was the right of no-one else to forcibly move them. Your body may be a temple, but everyone should be able to worship in their own way.

It's for this reason as well that I agree with President Santos of Colombia as he pushes for the legalisation of drugs. Personal liberty is ultimately the strongest driving factor for me, but there are swathes of other reasons. A regulated, taxed drug industry cuts out the evils of dealers with their shady methods and tainted products. It would also bring in large amounts of revenue; vastly more than the costs to any nationalised healthcare.

To an extent, I also find myself agreeing with the UK Libertarian Party's idea to "repeal nanny-state legislation such as compulsory seatbelt and crash helmet use". Harsh in words, but ultimately sound in reasoning. Quite honestly, you'd be an idiot not to wear a seatbelt or a crash helmet. I see no reason why one wouldn't want to. But equally, I see no reason at all why 650 well-off, predominantly unrepresentative people should be allowed to smother liberty, that most precious of commodities, in such a patronising, demeaning manner.

I wouldn't smoke, or take drugs. Nor would many other people. But, as I said at the start, I am not everybody. And the opinions of one should not block the freedom of many.