Government Legislation, Big Brother and My Brother’s Keeper


From our childhood we have explained to us that the “rules are there for our protection” whether it’s calling penalty for a high stick in Hockey or elaborate set of traffic laws to ensure driving safety. To co-exist as a society we are largely dependent on this rules, or, what I will call “the big rules” (i.e. killing, stealing = very bad) so that, for the most part, that co-existence will be harmonious.

The question that I would like to throw out there, however, is to ask whether these rules, as they become more individually specific in emphasis, with only a minimal affect on society as a whole, are ‘just’ or an infringement upon that individual’s freedom? Ultimately there are two roads a society can take: “the freedom to” which opens things up for the individual, or “freedom from” which leads to mass regulation. Ultimately, with these things, we are considering choices and things that may be harmful or dangerous, but not necessarily morally or ethically wrong.

Take something as basic as driving a motorcycle without a helmet. The sole social consideration of this issue is the cost of supporting that particular individual if he/she receives a head injury. One might argue that a person who received a head injury while wearing a helmet might have otherwise been killed, thus costing the Healthcare system less. Further to that, what about medical attention required for broken limbs, skin grafts or back problems? In the end, therefore, who should be left with the decision as to whether motorcyclists should wear helmets – the biker or the state?

Smoking is another wonderful example of legislation and taxes gone mad. It’s amazing the focus given to a non-illicit organic (though chemically treated for that extra addictive power) leaf. Smoking bans in public places have been making their way around the world and even into our prisons. Medical evidence shows that regular smoking is hazardous to your health and that second hand smoke is harmful to others. Billions are spent annually to fight smoking related illnesses and promote anti-smoking campaigns. What it boils down to is that an individual has the right to smoke up until the point where that smoke affects another person, and then it becomes a privilege that that other person (in theory) has the right to take away. So where does that leave us on this issue? Smoker’s will argue that they pay more in taxes through purchasing their product and, typically, die earlier and thus not leaving a strain on the system that healthier folks do…

…So being the total devil’s advocate, let’s look at that last point. I am a non-smoker and largely athletic individual. Much of my sporting life has been made up of contact sports such as Hockey, Football, Rugby and Martial Arts. I’ve also done lots of distance running, hiking, etc. At 37 I’ve had one surgery to repair a broken jaw, one knee and on shoulder scoped, physio on both knees, back, wrist, foot, ankle, hamstring, shoulder. I’ve had stitches more times than I can count, plus four concussions (hospitalised once as a result). I’ve separated both shoulders and dislocated one ankle. Now, re-visiting the smoker’s argument, what’s a society to do? How much have I cost the state and taxpayers for medical treatment to pursue my personal pleasures? You can throw in extreme sports here too – the danger and cost of manhunts in backcountry avalanche sites, those who have fallen off rock faces while climbing, surfers drowned, etc.

Next we look at alcohol and drugs, both of which have been illegal at some point and time. Largely, the proceeds that crime reaps from the present drug trade have to do with the issues of legality. One can not argue quite so strongly about people’s attempts to obtain illegal drugs as police stats paint an uglier picture. So, again, being devil’s advocate, wouldn’t it make sense to legalise and make all drugs affordable, thus wiping out all the organised crime and crime fighting measures designed to deal with such things? I am speaking more or less of organic drugs here such as opium or pot. The frame of reference from which this question is posed stems from the fact that alcohol is legal and perhaps responsible for more crimes and death than compared to pot smokers or opium users. All these things, combined with coffee and tobacco products, are used because of a perceived “buzz”, so where do we draw the line on what buzz you can feel and what buzz you can’t?

In my life I have seen a lot of lives messed up by drugs and that’s largely why I’ve never tried them myself, in spite of growing up in an inner city neighbourhood. When I was 13, an Uncle of mine, on Christmas Day, was drunk and held a loaded shot gun to my head. I didn’t have my first drink until I was 19, and never been one to go on a rip with alcohol, though I do love a pint of Guinness or a nice single malt scotch. My wife and I also enjoy the odd cigar together and I even have a pipe that I pull out once in a blue moon which I smoke by the fire while delving into a really good book (and glass of scotch). This is completely organic pleasurability, BUT THIS IS ALSO ALL BY MY CHOICE.

So there we have it! Are we our brother’s/sister’s keeper? What is the extent of our personal freedom as individuals? What will it be: freedom to or freedom from? Is Big Brother watching/controlling us beyond his authority?

Art: "Death & Life" by Gustav Klimt