Opposites examined.

Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein was a very astute observer of the human condition. I've been aware of this quote for something like 35 years, and I've seen countless examples to prove it virtually unchallengeable. It reflects itself in so many, many different areas...

Gun Control
The gun grabbers (just to show up front where I stand on the issue) are determined that, not only do they want nothing to do with guns (for a variety of sometimes very good reasons), but they want no one else to have anything to do with guns either. Many of them feel that all firearms should be made to disappear tomorrow. In short, they're determined that everybody is going to do things their way. Frequently having self-discipline problems, they want to be controlled and they want everyone else controlled the same way. That gives them a "level playing field".

On the pro-gun side, it's very difficult to find anyone who insists that everyone be armed. The overwhelming majority are quite happy with the idea of allowing anyone who wishes to arm themselves to do so, and have little or no argument with those who wish to have nothing to do with firearms. As far as they're concerned, it's a personal choice that needs to be left to the person(s) involved. They're quite happily in control of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. (It's simply the adult thing to do, you see.)

Alcohol

I've noticed a new crop of billboards around my town. Each one shows the picture of a cute kid around 7 to 10 years old with a major caption saying, "Start talking to your kids before they start drinking". In small letters next to the child's picture, it says something like, "Sarah. First drink, age 14."

I'm confused. The implication seems to be that little Sarah grew up to be a poor, lost sheep. Demon Rum done got her! On the other hand, it's a known in certain circles that the Italians start their kids off on watered wine around age 10 or 11, and general drunkenness throughout the population doesn't seem to have occurred. The French no doubt have similar customs. Both countries enjoy a far lower rate of cardiovascular disease than we do. Personally, I had my "first drink" at the age of eight and currently drink alcohol on a daily basis, budget permitting. I enjoy my wine and the Reverend Jack Daniels and I are good friends. OTOH, it's been so long since the last time I was drunk (by any meaningful use of the term) that my wife can't accurately count the years.

There are those who spend their entire weekends full of beer, hazed out and blearily content with their Sunday afternoon hangover. There are others who consider that allowing alcohol to pass their lips is a sin and the very measure of bad character.
A study out last year stated that the alcohol problem in America was far more widespread and serious than most of us realized and was frequently very hard to spot because it involved people who had as few as two or three drinks a week. Personally, I figure that if there's an alcohol problem with someone who's only having two or three drinks a week, they're not the ones with the problem.

The vast majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. Again, the issue seems to come back to self-discipline. Morally and socially, most of us don't like drunks, and don't like being drunk. Drunkenness is a measure of "bad character". It shows a disturbing lack of self control.

Once again, the "anti-" side is determined that everybody will do things their way...or else! We tried it their way for awhile. "Prohibition" lasted for 13 years and gave us organized crime, non-existent in our country until that time. It also gave us massive corruption at all levels of government, major intrusions into private affairs where the government arguably has no business whatsoever, and a general level of drinking and drunkenness that were unequalled before or since. Once the law was repealed in 1933, things went more-or-less back to normal, much to the disgust of the prohibition crowd.

And once again, the "pro-" side sees it as matter of personal choice, and expects the individual to exercise proper restraint. For the most part, we succeed.

Tobacco

Tobacco currently holds a position similar to that of marijuana back in the 1950's. It's the "demon weed", causing all sorts of havoc throughout the community, and it's time its evil influence was ended once and for all.

Smokers make up about a quarter of the population...and are now considered second class citizens at best by a large portion of the other three quarters of the community.

"Second-hand smoke" is considered a dangerous carcinogen and general health threat, to the point that some people think that deliberately exposing them to such filth is equivalent to an assault. All this springs from a 1993 EPA report that was such a blatant example of sagecraft that a federal judge, examining the report as part of a lawsuit, stated that even without formal scientific training it was painfully obvious to him that the authors had first decided what the report was going to say and then gone out to do the study confirming it.

Virtually no one has heard of the studies showing that smoking seems to delay the onset and/or severity of Alzheimers disease and Parkinsons's disease, helps to prevent breast cancer, helps to prevent and relieve coronary occlusions (the main cause of heart attacks), and even helps prevent gum disease. (Try Googling "benefits of smoking", it'll blow your mind!)

Massachusetts is considering banning smoking in all public places statewide. Another state is banning smoking even in private homes if it bothers the neighbors!! In England, a man has been denied therapeutic surgery for a broken foot bone that will not knit; the doctors claim smoking will interfere with his recovery so why bother...unless he proves he's quit smoking before hand.

Many argue that smokers deserve whatever limits government or society choose to place on them because of the medical costs they impose on the community at large. Come again? The primary impression is that smokers die younger than the rest of us. If so, how are they consuming medical resources? They're dead!

Granted, smoking is a filthy habit. The ashes get everywhere, coals burn holes in clothing and furniture, the smoke is frequently noxious and may trigger asthma attacks, and some smokers are deliberately rude about the effects of their smoking on others.

Nonetheless, is this really a subject for major legal action? Once again, the "anti's" are determined that everyone will do things their way, or else! The other side is for personal choice/discipline/control/responsibility. Which would you rather have for a neighbor?