Last week the Chicago Park District voted unanimously to ban smoking at beaches and outdoor playgrounds. The ban takes effect immediately; scofflaws face a $500 fine.

The bill passed easily, because it plays into a few key biases. Smokers are presently one of the easiest groups to target for open discrimination. The recent State Children’s Health Insurance Program blunder, in which smokers were expected to pick up the tab on children’s health care as a penance for their vice, is a prime example. Smoking is seen as low-class, unintelligent and unattractive, and because smokers willingly pick their poison, people find it easy to punish them collectively for inflicting themselves upon the rest of society.

And just like the ill-conceived SCHIP policy, this bill was passed because, in the words of Parks Superintendent Tim Mitchell, “It’s about the children.” Oh really? Please. Let’s not pretend that we can stop children from smoking by this misconstrued out-of-sight, out-of-mind theory. It’s one thing to curtail aggressive advertising toward children, but to banish real-life smokers — most of whom, let’s face it, are no more glamorous than the checkout lady at Wal-Mart – from playgrounds in the hopes of curbing youth smoking is either unrealistic or unfair. Probably both.

Proponents of the ban also claim it will help the environment – which is so hot right now it gets more press coverage than Brangelina – because it will cut down on littering from cigarette butts. This is a solid claim, although if littering is really a concern, perhaps there should be a ban on that, given that this law doesn’t cover newspapers, candy bar wrappers, or beer cans. Oh, there already are laws against littering?

Maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe this ban is well intentioned, a good thing. Taken altogether, the above reasons might make up enough rationale to justify this ban. Maybe.

But one motive struck me as possibly dangerous. Joel Africk, president of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, said, “As more locations become smoke-free, it’s easier for smokers to quit, because they don’t see smoking all around them.” Ah, I see. This is designed to help not just children, not just the environment, but smokers themselves. That makes sense. Yes.

No. No, no, no. It is not the government’s job or right to legislate in this manner, with this intent, to save us from ourselves. This is not a path citizens should be so willing in which to acquiesce, but this trend is growing with alarming alacrity. The booming numbers of smoking bans are just one example. An obesity epidemic? Just ban trans fats! Motorcycles are dangerous; we’d best be compelled to wear helmets. Children don’t have time for personal reflection? Thank goodness the Illinois Legislature saved them just last week by mandating a moment of silence every day in school. The doubled-edged sword of negative implications present here is that the governing elites have the right to mother us and that we are not intelligent enough to make decisions for ourselves.

Part of being free is having the freedom to act stupidly. To be able to choose the bad route as well as the good. As college students, I think we understand this all too well. The freedom to stay up all night drinking before a midterm, or the freedom to hit Grainger until midnight and get a responsible eight hours of sleep. You can choose wisely or foolishly, but either way it’s your call and you have to live with the consequences.

All the examples of legislation cited above are well intentioned, but that doesn’t mean they’re necessary. People need to seriously ask themselves whether the government has a legitimate hand in these matters, take personal responsibility for their own foolish behaviors and stop begging Uncle Sam for intervention at every problem society faces.