Originally Posted by
MarkB
One thing I can't wrap my head around is these comparisons:
1) The government allows people to be drug addicts, and burdens the tax payers by putting up "safe" drug injection tents to feed the habit, apparently "safely".
2) The government allows us to smoke, drink alcohol and consume marijauna, despite the burden this places on our health system.
yet,
3) The government does not allow people to operate their business, and give consumers the freedom to choose whether they feel safe or not to go into those merchant shops, because ?? it will burden our ICUs??
The key here, is nobody is forcing anyone to go outside and go to these shops. If people want to "risk" exposure, does government have a right to take that decision away from them, while we still allow the above two to happen?
These are all scenarios where people can freely choose what they want to do. If you are forcefully exposing others to the virus ... I get it. But that should a different set of rules, like physical assault ...
Anyhow, we live in a world of hypocrisy ... in the end we just go with what we like, not what is right, or fair, or consistent. I believe the government is mostly reacting because they fear the criticism they will face from the opposition and nut jobs who complain all day long ... and then in the same breath the complain their rights are being violated.