THE nationwide “smoking ban”, made law by a presidential executive order rather than by Congress, will soon go into effect. In addition to reaffirming and strengthening the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003, there are specific designations of “No-Smoking Areas”.
It probably makes some sense, as smoking is an obnoxious habit to the vast majority who do not like tobacco smoke. There are, of course, health risks associated with smoking. But one can wonder where the line should be drawn on whether the government should allow the use of tobacco products at all.
The idea of an outright ban starts the argument of personal rights and, of course, how much the government would lose in tax revenue. Maybe the tax-revenue issue is more important than the personal freedom idea.
We expect and believe that the government has an obligation to protect the public from certain hazards. Meat should be inspected, as well as fruits and vegetables, to ensure that these are free from harmful substances. The government should close companies that produce substandard and dangerous products. We, the people, have a right to demand that the government guard us from the misdeeds of others.
The government probably also has the responsibility to change general patterns of behavior that we have come to accept, such as banning plastic bags. Most people, when talked to like adults, will come to understand that certain things considered acceptable in the past were not necessarily a good idea.
But how far should the government be allowed to go?
The Department of Health is onboard with proposed legislation banning the sale of sugary drinks and candies in schools. Again, that probably makes sense. But some legislators are raising the tax on those drinks to help reduce consumption. There seems to be a strange logic. It is almost as if they are saying, “Sugary drinks are OK as long as you pay more taxes to the government.” The reality is that for the majority of the Philippine population, to pay a few pesos more is not going to reduce consumption.
The argument that a higher tax on cigarette products has reduced consumption may be true, but what economic groups have cut back on cigarette purchases—the “rich” or the “poor”?
The worrisome trend is the government moving farther and farther into protecting people from themselves. Is that the job of a government? And why does that “protection” always lead to more revenue for the government?
In Sydney, Australia, all bicycles must be equipped with a bell. Failure to do so results in a A$400 fine, higher than almost all traffic tickets. Riding without a helmet has a fine of A$300, and that law is probably more in the public interest.
In the US state of Tennessee, a law fines you if your pants are hanging too low in an “indecent manner”. Violators pay $250. In San Juan Capistrano, California, it is against the law to have a Bible study in your house without first obtaining a “conditional use permit”. You also need to pay for a city permit to hold a wedding at any venue other than a church.
Some people are always going to push the boundary of their “personal freedom” to extremes by society’s standards of what is acceptable. But what do we do about the government when it pushes its authority just as far?