There is a tremendous gulf between "I think it might" and murder as in your later example.
Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
So is driving a vehicle. In fact so is owning a firearm.
All laws are "forced behavior modification". ... Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it? (as per your examples)
No, not at all. Those laws provide for punishment for harming others. There is no intention in them to modify behavior as per this cap-and-trade scheme which allows the behavior but works at (in theory) getting people to gradually change behavior. Your view of the purpose of criminal law is skewed 180 degrees out of whack. You are imposing your own emotionally based motivations and perceptions over the actual bases and genesis of criminal law.
If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question.
This statement assumes that the question of whether second-hand tobacco smoke does do harm is settled. That is far from being a known fact. It also assumes that every behavior that contains some potential harm (as opposed to absolute harm as in murder, fraud, theft, etc) is subject to governmental authority.
In those cases, as with others, the interests of the People outweigh the individual's liberty. I submit that smoking might meet that same criteria.
"Interests of the People" is a perfect definition of socialist criterion for governance.
Enzi, as well as other anti-smoking politicians, was elected. You can't pretend it's some Marxist dictatorship just because you disagree with the representation.
I neither said nor implied any such thing. You are being disingenuous to suggest that I did. I said that Enzi's plan fits those models of governance and not ours. That is true. That it might be implemented by elected representatives under the rules of constitutional governance doesn't change the character of the plan itself. Nor the consequences.
Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
Empty hyperbolic rhetoric intended to imply that I did. I did not.
*sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
It's all about choices. You stated this position before so I threw out some rhetorical questions to give you a baseline you might use to sort out your priorities. What you do with it is your business. Either you set your priorities based on support for the principles of governance you want or you set them on the outcome you personally desire in each situation. The former sometimes means supporting the liberty of others to do things you don't care for personally.
There is a tremendous gulf between "I think it might" and murder as in your later example.
Yes, there is. It was intentional. The point was to clearly illustrate that one person's personal liberties may be denied when those liberties intrude on the liberties of another.
Murder is an obvious case to illustrate the principle, and I believe smoking is a murky case which could go either way.
> Both the effects of and the decision of smoking are tainted with other factors.
So is driving a vehicle. In fact so is owning a firearm.
True, but both of those are examples where the people, in the first case, and the Founding Fathers, in the other, have concluded that the importance and benefits of those activities outweighs the harm and/or risk. That's a difficult case to make for smoking, which is purely a "because I want to" thing as far as benefits go.
> All laws are "forced behavior modification". ... Each of those is a "forced behavior modification" to that individual who might want to engage in them, isn't it? (as per your examples)
No, not at all. Those laws provide for punishment for harming others.
...which is a method of behavior modification, is it not? Punishment is clearly intended to modify behavior, or every sentence would be for life (no expectation of change).
There is no intention in them to modify behavior as per this cap-and-trade scheme which allows the behavior but works at (in theory) getting people to gradually change behavior.
As I wrote above, I disagree. And, because this is dealing with behavior that is currently legal, it's reasonable that a gentler approach be used. Quitting smoking is exceptionally difficult, so applying some longer-term economic pressure rather than immediately handing out citations sounds like a prudent course, given our experiences with outright prohibition.
Your view of the purpose of criminal law is skewed 180 degrees out of whack.
It seems to be out of whack with your view, though it seems a bit presumptuous to label your view as "the purpose".
To my understanding, criminal law is to protect and defend the people from infringement of and damage to their rights. As I explained above, I believe there is a case to be made that smokers do, to one degree or another, infringe on the rights of others.
Of course it isn't as severe as murder, but the principle of infringing on the rights of others is still there. Other minor infringements are illegal as well. Speeding, running stop signs, jaywalking and simple trespassing are all quite minor, in the overall scheme of things. Yet each of them is illegal.
Trespassing is a particularly good example. For me to jump your fence and walk across your property against your will does very little, if any, damage to you. Yet you are well within your rights to deny me access and perhaps to have me arrested for it. If I trespass, I have infringed on your rights, though I have not harmed you in any significant way.
Similarly, non-smokers have a right to not smoke if they so choose, don't they?
You are imposing your own emotionally based motivations and perceptions over the actual bases and genesis of criminal law.
No, I'm thinking that non-smokers are having smoking, and some degree of associated health risks, imposed on them. I realize that the degree of harm and risk aren't completely settled, but it seems pretty clear to me that some harm and some risk are involved.
> If there were some way to ensure that smokers could only put their own health at risk, with no possible way to harm another to any degree, then there would be no question.
This statement assumes that the question of whether second-hand tobacco smoke does do harm is settled. That is far from being a known fact. It also assumes that every behavior that contains some potential harm (as opposed to absolute harm as in murder, fraud, theft, etc) is subject to governmental authority.
That there is some harm is nearly undeniable. It's only how much that's in question, I believe.
Another analogy: How much would you allow your neighbor to molest your child? If it's only a little, and scientists haven't proven any lasting harm, should you be able to deny him?
Child molestation is, clearly, morally repugnant. Should we ignore that and make the judgment based only on scientifically proven harm? If a non-smoker doesn't want to be exposed to second-hand smoke, why is the question of scientifically proven harm the only issue?
> In those cases, as with others, the interests of the People outweigh the individual's liberty. I submit that smoking might meet that same criteria.
"Interests of the People" is a perfect definition of socialist criterion for governance.
How about "rights of the People"? That's contained in the Constitution. Would that suit you better?
> Enzi, as well as other anti-smoking politicians, was elected. You can't pretend it's some Marxist dictatorship just because you disagree with the representation.
I neither said nor implied any such thing. You are being disingenuous to suggest that I did. I said that Enzi's plan fits those models of governance and not ours. That is true.
How is his plan "Marxist", then? How does it "fit those models" better? What does his plan have to do with Marxism, fascism, etc. at all ?
I think the plain fact is, you just don't like it.
That it might be implemented by elected representatives under the rules of constitutional governance doesn't change the character of the plan itself. Nor the consequences.
I'll await your explanation of what you mean here.
> Until he leads an armed coup and takes over Washington, I think I'll hold off on the comparisons with fascist tyrants.
Empty hyperbolic rhetoric intended to imply that I did. I did not.
Why bring it up then? Why throw out the inflammatory references to Marxism and fascism? I still fail to see anything whatsoever in Enzi's plan that suggests (fits with?) those philosophies.
> *sigh* But I can't make up my mind to agree with him either.
It's all about choices. You stated this position before so I threw out some rhetorical questions to give you a baseline you might use to sort out your priorities. What you do with it is your business. Either you set your priorities based on support for the principles of governance you want or you set them on the outcome you personally desire in each situation. The former sometimes means supporting the liberty of others to do things you don't care for personally.
If it were simply a matter of not caring for those activities, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But there is some degree of infringement on others. That's where the conflict lies, for me.