6 ms·
> This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets. Maybe this is a petty, pointless distinction, but I think they're quite different. Singapore banned
by srl 7y ago
> This is like forcing motor cycle riders to wear helmets.
Maybe this is a petty, pointless distinction, but I think they're quite different. Singapore banned the ads, not the actual consumption. Not wearing a helmet chiefly harms yourself, and it's hard to argue that it's immoral. Encouraging others not to wear a helmet, though... that seems pretty objectionable, just like ads for tobacco etc.
(Of course there are plenty of caveats needed to avoid a slippery slope, like drawing a distinction between advertisements and opinion pieces saying "helmets are bad".)
- adrr 7y agoHelmet laws and seat belt laws cut the supply of organs to those in need.
- junipertea 7y agoThey also hopefully decreased the number people that need them
- philwelch 7y agoNah, organ recipients are usually people with chronic illnesses rather than people who survived traumatic accidents.
- alkonaut 7y agoPeople being injured or killed harms other people. Especially in countries with some form of universal healthcare (i.e most of the developed world).
- jacobush 7y agoMaybe even more in the other countries. Loss of productivity and loved ones is also expensive, albeit harder to directly measure.
- gdhbcc 7y agoBy that argument you could justify any restriction of peoples freedom. Ultimately if the state chooses to provide such services, then it must accept the costs that come along with it.
- alkonaut 7y agoYes, few restrictions are off the table. In reality, people don’t want more restrictions than necessary, so it’s usually not a problem. Here we even had resistance to mandatory helmets on bikes, settling for a law only for children.
- oska 7y ago> Singapore banned the ads, not the actual consumption. I think it's a very important distinction, and well made by you.