Nothing nanny in legal control
AS CITIZENS we should take every opportunity to celebrate freedom of expression within the ambit of our constitution (Section 16), taking into account other rights enshrined in our constitution, such as “the right to an environment that is not harmful to (our) health or wellbeing” (Section 24 (a)).
Chris Attingh (“Comment” on behalf of the Free Market Foundation – “Educate us, don’t regulate us and control our basic rights”, November 21) is therefore welcome to express its view that, “we must have our choices respected, so long as they do not violate the legal provisions and the rights of others”. He, however, seems to lose complete sight of this “c o nditi o nal provision” in the rest of his “comment”.
He proceeds to argue that “laws that will tell us where we can smoke… even under the guise of protecting (our) health” are an infringement of our basic rights and turn us “into a nanny state”. Having lumped “tobacco, alcohol, sugar, salt and fast foods” in the same category as “alternative medicines”, he concludes that all we need as “adult citizens” is “good information and useful advice, not regulations”.
When I enter or exit a public building, including shopping centres, where the smokers are huddled outside the entrance, I have to hold my breath and cover my nose while running the gauntlet of the pall of acrid smoke which is harmful to my health.
Is that not a violation of my “basic right” to “an environ- ment that is not harmful to my health or well-being”?
When medical scheme contributions increase substantially above CPI year after year, the main culprit is identified as the increasing “burden of disease”, including lung cancer and other “lifestyle”-related diseases.
Awareness and education may well affect the choices made by the new generations, but the unhealthy lifestyle of “adult citizens” is unlikely to be modified without “regulations”. If sensible regulations were to contribute to a reduction in the “burden of lifestyle diseases”, if they reduced the number of injuries and deaths on our roads – many caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol; if they reduced the number of cases of type II diabetes – linked to sugary drinks; if they reduce the number of heart-attacks or other health risks linked to high-blood pressure or obesity – whether aggravated by too much salt or too much fat, we should be demanding such regulations from our health minister. As an aside, why should “smoking in front of children”, especially in confined spaces such as in a vehicle, not be a criminal offence?
The reduction in medical costs for medical aid members, and in taxpayer money allocated to public health costs, will be welcome outcomes, in addition to healthier “adult citizens” and enhanced wellbeing in general. Nothing “nanny” about that. Mario Compagnoni