Different subject but, smoking is also legal but plenty of companies are now not only banning smoking in their buildings but forbidding their employees from smoking at all.
Back on Subject;
We have a conflict between two sets of rights. The right of individuals to do whatever legal activity they choose to do, and the right of a company, that pays the medical bills of said individuals, to choose what liabilities they want to assume. This can also extend to the government since they (we) are the medical bill payer of last resort. As free and responsible individuals what responsibilities do we assume and what do we expect employers and taxpayers to assume on our behalf?
As employers and governments assume greater responsibility in bearing the cost of individuals decisions, I think it is only natural they should also seek to have more input into those decisions. How many of us are willing to actually assume total responsibility for our decisions? Riding without a helmet (heck, riding a motorcycle at all), smoking, unprotected sex (especially of the male homosexual variety,) scuba diving, parachuting and all manner of other activities involve inherent dangers that elevate the risks to practitioners of those activities above those faced by people who do not engage in those activities.
Is it fair to expect others to financially assume the greater risks we voluntarily take because we choose to engage in an activity that places us at statistically greater risk than those who do not engage in the activity?
Should a biker who rides without a helmet, a smoker, a para-sailor, a sexually active male homosexual or a scuba diver be assumed to have voluntarily assumed additional personal risks because of their chosen activity and thus no longer be able to avail themselves of the cocoon of the social safety net? Or, must those who do not engage in inherently risky behavior be required to accept the financial and social costs incurred by those who do?
Just a question, but one at the heart of a LOT of social policy.
