Constraining Laws

A law that has faced criticism recently is that which constricts the places where people can smoke in public. As a non-smoker, I appreciate this law, but can understand the backlash that it faces. On one hand, scientific research has shown shocking negative effects of second-hand smoke, and the law has served to the public by preventing exposure in restaurants and bars, a reason for restriction that would be supported by Mill. However, the argument has also been posed that non-smokers are not forced to stay in establishments where smoking is allowed. Personally, I feel the benefit to the public outweighs the inconvenience posed by this law. It's also important to note the possible benefit this law serves in influencing smokers to give up their habit.

The restrictions placed on timed parking spots seem unjustifiable. It's not the law's place to tell a person how long he or she may remain parked in one place. For the most part, people aren't looking to stay in one place longer than a few hours anyway. It strikes me as a lazy way for law enforcement to collect money from the public rather than enforce any policy to protect the public. These laws neither prevent harm to a person, nor benefit another, and are unjustifiable by almost any definition we have learned.