Moral Instinct: Government's Infringement And Absurd Laws

Submitted By SPDF
Words: 888
Pages: 4

Moral Instinct: Government's Infringement and Absurd Laws
As Americans, we all have the rights to live life and pursue happiness as long as it has no bearing against the laws already made out. Unfortunately, the government has sometimes taken it upon themselves to govern some subjects that should not be under their jurisdiction. If such subjects would not be harmful to anyone else, or against the law, the government should not have reason to control it. For instance, to name a few, the government should have no regulation on smokers, same-sex marriages, and for age limitations on drinking. The fact that government feels the need to govern these parts of Americans’ lives is immoral. Not only do the laws cause Americans trouble, but it causes law enforcers and government officials more harm than good. The argument is not if there is government infringement on society, but that government infringement is immoral no matter what subject is in the hot seat.
Anything can be seen as harmful to your health if consumed too often. If a smoker is not infringing on anyone else's rights, then why should they not be allowed to smoke. In Lino Graglia’s essay, he states that in order to make a set of rules or regulations based off of “harming” one another, we must pose the “highly debatable question of what constitutes harm to others”. It has been proven that second hand smoking is harmful to one’s health. Having smoking sections taken out of restaurants is immoral because now without those stationed areas smokers had before, they are forced to exile and smoke outside, or thirty feet away from doors leading into restaurant or other public areas and leaving the remains on the clean public ground - in turn littering. If there were more designated smoking areas publicly, smokers would be able to smoke without feeling as though they are being told what to do. While many argue that having smoking sections is still an infringement, it is still a step up from now being told that cigarettes and smoking should be banned completely. By taking away their right to smoke at all, it is going against their rights. “Government should prohibit conduct only to produce beneficial consequences sufficient to overcome the resulting loss of liberty” (Graglia). Now, smoking a cigarette is very different from taking or being susceptible to hard drugs such as cocaine, meth or heroine. The last time anyone checked, smoking a cigarette never caused hallucinations or prompted anyone to commit a crime due to a warped psyche. Though some argue that cigarettes are a "gateway" to harder substances, the same could be said about any scenario if that is valid. Speeding on the highway can be a gateway to getting into the grand theft auto business, or taking a shooting class will mean that one may turn into a sniper! If that's the case, no one should have the opportunity to ever do anything. The government should not be allowed to control that.
Same-sex marriages, though the touchy subject it is, is one that should be talked about. It's not my cup of tea, but do I believe everyone in America should have equal rights? YES! If all of Americans are deemed as "created equal" then why is it that some treat those who are gay or lesbian, as though they are from a separate planet? At some point, it was socially