This is a headline you may expect to see in the near future, if today's social/political actions are any indication.

After all the discussion about sweeping smoking bans and food substance bans, both pro and con, the crux of the matter is this: it's the personal/business freedom to use or allow a legal product as they see fit VS. the personal freedom to go to a public place without being physically harmed by another person's actions.  It's a tough call; otherwise the debate wouldn't be so heated.

There have been many different analogies used throughout he years, from the Steve Martin joke --  "Hey, mind if I smoke?"  "No, mind if I fart?" -- to analogies about spitting on the floor in restaurants or putting cyanide in food.  I think I've finally found an analogy that comes the closest to the real thing -- banning smoking in all bars is like legally changing traditional, organized contact football into flag football. 

A person could say, "I have the right to enjoy playing the game of football without being permanently injured."  "OK, fine," we'd all say.  "If that's what you want, then play non-contact flag football.  It would be ridiculous to even think about changing." 

HOWEVER, here's a scenario I could actually see happening in today's world:  A boy, age 18, was a good high school running back and is offered a scholarship to the University of ____, in his home state.  But he and his mother have decided, after enduring all the physical contact and risking injury in high school, that it's not fair for him to risk permanent injury just to play a game that he loves.  So, they call their lawyer, the university athletic director, the NCAA, and their state senator, and threaten to sue the NCAA if they don't change the rules to make regular football into flag football, nationwide. 

Sounds absurd, doesn't it?  In all likelihood, a lawsuit like this would be deemed "frivolous" and "impossible", and would never see a courtroom or the floor of a legislature.  Intense physical contact, and therefore possible permanent injury, is just "a part of the game", right?  And adults over the age of 18 have the right to decide whether or not to engage in this activity, right?  Nobody's taking them by the ear and making them play football.  If they don't want to risk physical injury, and still play the game of football, then they can engage in a non-harmful form of the game by playing flag football.  There are organized leagues, and they can enjoy the game without risking a broken neck, concussions, or permanent organ damage.

However, a person could argue that organized contact football is "infringing on their rights" to choose their own lifestyle, and means of making a living, by allowing the possibility of real physical harm.  Adults have the right to choose their own lifestyle without the risk of personal injury.  They have the right to go where and do what they want, in a public arena, without the actions of others causing them possible permanent disability.  What kind of country do we live in, where the harmful and dangerous acts of others can keep another person from choosing their own lifestyle and recreational activities?  It's simply unfair, it's not right, and changing the rules would be in the best interest of all players.  Wearing protective gear and having rules against unnecessary roughness is not enough.  Even with the rules and protection, players incur permanent, disabling physical injures all the time.  It should be mandatory that the NCAA, and subsequently the NFL, ban traditional contact football rules, and change to the rules of flag football.

If High School Player X's family has enough money, good enough lawyers, and enough political contacts, this lawsuit could actually be brought against the NCAA.  And if the enactment of smoking bans in bars is any precedent, this lawsuit could actually be won.  They're virtually the same argument.