() Comments
An instance where government should butt out
There is a limit to how much control government should exert over people’s lives, and some governments seem about to exceed it.
San Francisco is working on a law which would ban pharmacies from selling tobacco products. A bill in New York state would do the same. The rationale, said a legislator quoted in news reports, is that it seems inappropriate to have entities dedicated to good health simultaneously selling products which kill.
It is interesting that the reports also say most independent pharmacies in the country have already stopped selling tobacco. It’s the big chains such as Walgreens and CVS which will be affected by these laws.
The province of Ontario is taking a different approach. As of May 31, stores won’t be able to have any displays featuring tobacco products. All will have to be kept out of sight in, for example, overhead racks or drawers.
There is a broader principle at stake, however. Tobacco bans fail as an idea because they address the private use of a legal product, and it is a use which does not affect innocent bystanders. The reason public smoking is and should be controlled is that people who don’t smoke can have their health impaired and have no control over this other than to stop going to restaurants, taverns, offices, stores, or any other public place where smoking is permitted.
If we’re going to treat tobacco this way, why not alcohol? It’s a much more harmful substance in terms of the secondary effects on families, on health, on communities, and on businesses. Shall we forbid the sale of beer at gas stations because we don’t want to encourage motorists to imbibe on the way home?
This is a case where government should probably just butt out.
Special Offer: Get 5 Weeks of the Journal Times for $7!
|
 |
|
| Short-term fix means long-term budget problems | Political pals shouldn’t trump children’s future |
