The limits of the nanny state

Tolerance is liberal code for advancing the causes of the Left; they have no use for it when it becomes an inconvenience. Case in point; the Illinois State legislature is considering a bill to make smoking in an automobile with a child under 8 years of age a class C misdemeanor.

Once again, liberals are politicizing science to trample the rights of citizens and parents to act and raise their children as they see fit. Much like the Global Warming scare, liberals hated tobacco long before their pet scientists "discovered" a grave danger in second-hand smoke (
here`s why), one that nobody happened to notice for hundreds of years. Based on this dubious politicized science they have gone on the offensive against smokers, making it acceptable to insult and abuse people solely based on a bad habit. They claim the right to overrule parents based on what they see as an overriding health issue.

But many of us have unhealthy habits, with some groups more prone to some of them than others. For instance, some acts of some homosexuals are very
unhealthy, on both a physical and emotional level (in fact there are gay men who actively seek to contract HIV), and the State has as much interest (or more) in discouraging certain sex practices (not all of them limited to gays, by the way) as in smoking.

Is the Left consistent here? Of course not; a D.C. area school board is
imposing "gay tolerance" as part of a required sex education class. The students are forced to roll play, pretending to be gay lovers and the like. Does this indicate a callous disregard for the welfare of homosexuals? Can it not be equally argued that those parents who smoke while driving their children are trying to teach them the value of tolerance? And what is one to make of a campaign to stamp out smoking among homosexuals?

Perhaps schools should have smoking education courses where students pretend to smoke and can learn a lesson about intolerance and bigotry towards smokers? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Why does one sort of unhealthy act merit condemnation while another elicits sympathy and nurturing?
Tolerance is liberal code for advancing the causes of the Left; they have no use for it when it becomes an inconvenience. Case in point; the Illinois State legislature is considering a bill to make smoking in an automobile with a child under 8 years of age a class C misdemeanor.

Once again, liberals are politicizing science to trample the rights of citizens and parents to act and raise their children as they see fit. Much like the Global Warming scare, liberals hated tobacco long before their pet scientists "discovered" a grave danger in second-hand smoke (
here`s why), one that nobody happened to notice for hundreds of years. Based on this dubious politicized science they have gone on the offensive against smokers, making it acceptable to insult and abuse people solely based on a bad habit. They claim the right to overrule parents based on what they see as an overriding health issue.

But many of us have unhealthy habits, with some groups more prone to some of them than others. For instance, some acts of some homosexuals are very
unhealthy, on both a physical and emotional level (in fact there are gay men who actively seek to contract HIV), and the State has as much interest (or more) in discouraging certain sex practices (not all of them limited to gays, by the way) as in smoking.

Is the Left consistent here? Of course not; a D.C. area school board is
imposing "gay tolerance" as part of a required sex education class. The students are forced to roll play, pretending to be gay lovers and the like. Does this indicate a callous disregard for the welfare of homosexuals? Can it not be equally argued that those parents who smoke while driving their children are trying to teach them the value of tolerance? And what is one to make of a campaign to stamp out smoking among homosexuals?

Perhaps schools should have smoking education courses where students pretend to smoke and can learn a lesson about intolerance and bigotry towards smokers? Sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Why does one sort of unhealthy act merit condemnation while another elicits sympathy and nurturing?