>>A few flaws with the logic here. If there was a vaccine for the cancer caused by cigarettes then sure I'd be for that.
The logical flaw is that it's apparently OK to force treatment on somebody, but not OK to prevent access to known poisons.
>>Do you know anything about the Christian Science religion? They say that a person should have no medicine or medical care of any kind. Every few years there is something in the news about how some followers of this religion has let their child die simply because they wouldn't get them some very simple medical care. I think it's less invasive to give a kid a shot than to let them die.
Agreed. It's less invasive again to prevent access to poisons that kill a large proportion of society. Why wouldn't you start with that?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
