Question Author
naomi24
Ask analogy isn't a comparison between two ideas. It's an expression of ONE idea to throw light on the subject being discussed.
My point is this - you may have the 'freedom' to drive without a seatbelt, or commit murder, or set fire to a school - in that there is no physical measures preventing you from engaging in these acts, you're not actually free to do these acts because there are societal and legal consequences.
But this isn't the main thrust of the discussion - you believe that people should be free to smoke if they wish. But do you agree that as a society we should discourage it?
Isn't that what we do already, with restrictions on purchase, advertising, and exorbitant taxes? Wouldn't this step simply be taking it to its natural conclusion?
Imagine a society in 50 years where 99% of the population never smoked? Just like now when the idea of smoking in an office, club, pub, aeroplane, tube station seems completely alien.
Wouldn't that be brilliant?