> This is locking down for the sake of locking down, not an evidence-first safety driven approach. That is something I cannot support.
"Support" is a bit of an overloaded word. I do agree with you that I do not support a government policy that isn't evidence-driven. But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence.
As a simple analogy, perhaps the speed limits for highways in my state are capped at 60 mph, but there's evidence that the roads can safely accommodate drivers at 70 mph, they're well-maintained, they are built to appropriate safety standards, etc. I wouldn't support the government keeping the speed limit at 60 mph based on flimsy evidence. But I also wouldn't object to the government enforcing the speed limit as it is - because the end result of saying that every driver has the right to make their own private judgment of whether the speed limit laws are validly reasoned is that there is no speed limit anymore.
"Support" is a bit of an overloaded word. I do agree with you that I do not support a government policy that isn't evidence-driven. But I do support the ability of the government to set policy without convincing every one of its constituents of the validity of its evidence.
As a simple analogy, perhaps the speed limits for highways in my state are capped at 60 mph, but there's evidence that the roads can safely accommodate drivers at 70 mph, they're well-maintained, they are built to appropriate safety standards, etc. I wouldn't support the government keeping the speed limit at 60 mph based on flimsy evidence. But I also wouldn't object to the government enforcing the speed limit as it is - because the end result of saying that every driver has the right to make their own private judgment of whether the speed limit laws are validly reasoned is that there is no speed limit anymore.