Here is the down low. I value my freedoms of making decisions more than whatever is the current ban buzz. If I think that something is bad I have the ability myself to avoid the bad situation/product. The problem is that some people works everybody up on some pseudo-science and then they gets the public support for their pet ban. This is not a good idea. Take the following examples.
The "in" thing right now is for cities to ban smoking in public places. This is because "innocent" people (who choose to go to the restaurant or work at the restaurant) have to breathe the second hand smoke. People have been told that second hand smoke is very dangerous, when in fact if you look at the sighted studies most find that there is no statistical (real) effect on health with second hand smoke. If we really want to save lives let's ban alcohol. Alchol kills more innocent people than second hand smoke does. But since everyone drinks and not everyone smokes it is easier to ban smoking. And everyone has warm fuzzies inside because they are doing "the right thing".
The next hot topic is banning incandescent light bulbs. The reasoning is that light bulbs is a one cause in the release of green house gases that possibly leads to the ill-named "global warming." (It is a different post about why global warming is a bad label for what the scientists mean -global climate change.) But I have have a better solution, instead of banning cheap lighting for people lets ban bottled water. So much energy goes into making something that already comes out of the tap (which you can put your own filter on). It is really insane that people that are "champions for the environment" also drink bottled water. But I guess they only want to ban things that will not inconvenience them, just other people.
The real problem is that these bans will not stop, once something is banned they will move on the the next hot topic. I can see that we want to protect people in the workplace, so they don't want smoking, but it will not end there. What about high fat diets (already working on those bans), what about high sugar diets (started there too). What if Jenette finds that sound-making toys do reduce dramatic play, should we ban toys that make sound? It sounds stupid now but what if a movement gets going and starts to rally for that ban?
And that is what this all comes down to. I don't want to inhale second hand smoke, so I tent to go to restaurants that do not allow smoking, in fact I don't go to Bobby T's anymore becasue of the smoking there. But it was the restaurants choice to not allow smoking. I had hallogen bulbs in my home, but that is because of my choice. (I stoped getting them besuace the lamp that I put them in burned through them much quicker than normal light bulbs.) I avoid unnecessary fat and sugar in my diet. So if I want an extra large soda, or fries I can have it. The goverment should not be our babysitter. And with every ban that is passed we have one less freedom, and that is not the way America should be.
So go ahead and post why I am wrong. I know that for some contrary people out there that just the fact that I posted that bans are wrong will now make you believe that bans are the best thing ever, and that is ok. Just keep in mind that I think that people can think for themselves and that I value freedom. Try to form your rebuttal within that framework. If you can't that is fine, but realize that I already know that some people think that the government need to protect people at all costs, so I don't need to hear that one.