The government holds a responsibility to the public in providing safety and protection from unhealthy environments. A key aspect of the government in response to public health is the promotion of free and open information. The government requires warning labels in anything that might be unhealthy and should be used with caution. An example would be the warning labels found on cigarette boxes and on alcohol bottles. Calorie labeling in restaurants is another example of the governments’ efforts to inform and educate the public on what we choose to consume. Another government key aspect is to protect and prevent people from being harmed by other individuals. An example would be the DUI laws placed to discourage people from driving under the influence.
…show more content…
Some people believe that the government is over-reaching and there is a lot of mistrust. I agree to some extent. Why should we be forced to wear a seat belt? The logical thing to do is to wear a seatbelt, but we should have the freedom to make that choice. Laws should be there to protect people from other’s actions not to protect an individual from one’s own actions. The state should not have a say. On the other hand, I agree with the no-smoking in public places policy and the no-texting and driving laws. These are choices that affect everyone. Second-hand smoke is a huge issue that many still don’t consider to be serious. Children, in particular, are affected by the choices adults around them make. I agree with making public places a little safer. Texting while driving is a huge distraction, you can clearly tell when someone is distracted by their phone. They drive slow, they miss stop signs and they swerve into lanes. Distracting driving can quickly turn deadly, not only for the driver texting but also for the other drivers. I think that our society is filled with selfish and self-absorbed individuals. I don’t think that we should give up our freedoms for safety and comfort but a nanny state approach is somewhat needed concerning some issues. We cannot have a complete freedom approach because too many lives would be continuously and recklessly put at
Some people believe that the government is over-reaching and there is a lot of mistrust. I agree to some extent. Why should we be forced to wear a seat belt? The logical thing to do is to wear a seatbelt, but we should have the freedom to make that choice. Laws should be there to protect people from other’s actions not to protect an individual from one’s own actions. The state should not have a say. On the other hand, I agree with the no-smoking in public places policy and the no-texting and driving laws. These are choices that affect everyone. Second-hand smoke is a huge issue that many still don’t consider to be serious. Children, in particular, are affected by the choices adults around them make. I agree with making public places a little safer. Texting while driving is a huge distraction, you can clearly tell when someone is distracted by their phone. They drive slow, they miss stop signs and they swerve into lanes. Distracting driving can quickly turn deadly, not only for the driver texting but also for the other drivers. I think that our society is filled with selfish and self-absorbed individuals. I don’t think that we should give up our freedoms for safety and comfort but a nanny state approach is somewhat needed concerning some issues. We cannot have a complete freedom approach because too many lives would be continuously and recklessly put at