The slippery slope argument never gets the respect that it deserves. The reason people dismiss it is could be due to the inability of decent people to link disparate behaviors into a chain of escalating oppression. Perhaps it is just too abstract for busy people to spend much time fretting over as they busy themselves with the business of living. Of course the crack down on various politically incorrect activities really isn’t so much about behaviors as it is about controlling individuals as an end itself.
Eliminating smoking, for instance, will not change the aggregate health of our society in the least. More people, including smokers, live longer now than during any time in the past. Those who concocted the anti-tobacco agenda know that their efforts, even if 100 percent successful, won’t improve health, as indeed their own "scientific" research confirms. Why then are highly placed components of society so vested in attacking one rather innocuous activity? Obviously there is money to be made off the anti-smoking rackets but overall the primary purpose behind the drive to alter behavior is to soften up people into taking orders from "those who know best."
Ted Byfield takes a look at the latest smoking ban proposal and finds much to worry himself. He doesn’t smoke but he does enjoy an adult beverage from time to time and he knows that that behavior will soon be as demonized as is smoking. He expresses his fears, with tongue somewhat in cheek, by noting that the crackdown, when it comes, will be directed against the elderly rather than just against the behavior. He is right. The ever-growing list of behaviors attracting the attention of the social engineers will soon encompass everyone. When everything enjoyable is forbidden the target group becomes everyone. That is the goal and the slippery slope became a cliff decades ago.