Let's say that Tom, who is 25 years old, wants to smoke a cigarette. Consider the following two situations.
a. Tom is smoking. Suddenly, the government comes along and tells Tom that he cannot do this. The government claims that Tom is inflicting an "external cost" on other human beings. Is this a good policy or bad policy?
b. Tom is smoking a cigarette at home with no one else around. Suddenly, the government comes along and tells Tom that he cannot do this. The government claims that Tom is inflicting an "external cost" on another human being. Tom asks who this might be?
The government says that the 65-year-old Tom will be harmed by the smoking today-Tom.
The government claims that today-Tom isn't doing enough to look out for the well-being of future-Tom. Does this argument make any sense? Is it ethically correct? If so, can and should we trust our government to make these decisions for our future selves?