-
"They'll get over it" isn't a justification for banning something (or for introducing any legislation for that matter). We shouldn't use it against others because we don't ever want it used against us. The whole point of Dunt's piece is that there is a liberal principle that we should apply to any such suggestion i.e. that we should be free to do what we like if it doesn't cause harm to others.
Nobody used "they'll get over it" as a reason, that's a strawman. Millions of people dying slow, early unnescessary deaths is a burden on us all. Smoking, like the combustion engine, the wood fired stove, is coming to an end, because it kills us. Those whining about liberty are a minority, it's to be expected, but it wont have any effect on the wider trend of society moving away from things who's benefits are far outweighed by the suffering they cause, or which can easily be replaced.
William.-
They really do use that. Quoting from just one post here:
Smokers will be annoyed and then they’ll get over it and start being annoyed at something else.
The problem is that humans are hugely resilient animals and we can live relatively normal lives under really adverse conditions. The majority of the Russian population seem to have "got over" the fact that they live in an appalling kleptocracy led by a sociopathic gangster.
I'm not opposed to a fair level of government control, especially in public spaces where our actions effect others (e.g. SUVs) but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have that liberal principle at the heart of law-making.
ffm
"They'll get over it" isn't a justification for banning something (or for introducing any legislation for that matter). We shouldn't use it against others because we don't ever want it used against us. The whole point of Dunt's piece is that there is a liberal principle that we should apply to any such suggestion i.e. that we should be free to do what we like if it doesn't cause harm to others.