That is threadbare justification for deregulation of something we know has basically entirely negative effects and absolutely is something that kids have historically done.
Kids’ habits are fickle and unpredictable. Removing barriers to destructive behavior simply because they don’t do that behavior as often anymore (the current regulations seem to work??) makes no sense.
But… It’s still not bad that those smoking regulations are being put in place.
It weakens the argument for additional alcohol regulation when you keep insisting that the regulations being put on another similar vice are pointless.
The argument works exactly the same the other way. Your rationale is based on your own preferences.
In a vacuum both tobacco and alcohol are destructive vices with no real discernible objective “benefits” to larger society. The argument against alcohol is exactly the same as the one against tobacco products. They harm the user and potentially those around them.
I’m not saying that tobacco should be further regulated while alcohol is not. But I am saying that the rationale for alcohol regulation is ultimately based on a desire to limit destructive behavior, which is the same rationale for limits on tobacco. You cannot effectively argue for deregulation of tobacco while arguing for increased regulation of alcohol. They are two sides of the same coin.
That is threadbare justification for deregulation of something we know has basically entirely negative effects and absolutely is something that kids have historically done.
Kids’ habits are fickle and unpredictable. Removing barriers to destructive behavior simply because they don’t do that behavior as often anymore (the current regulations seem to work??) makes no sense.
Removed by mod
But… It’s still not bad that those smoking regulations are being put in place.
It weakens the argument for additional alcohol regulation when you keep insisting that the regulations being put on another similar vice are pointless.
Removed by mod
The argument works exactly the same the other way. Your rationale is based on your own preferences.
In a vacuum both tobacco and alcohol are destructive vices with no real discernible objective “benefits” to larger society. The argument against alcohol is exactly the same as the one against tobacco products. They harm the user and potentially those around them.
I’m not saying that tobacco should be further regulated while alcohol is not. But I am saying that the rationale for alcohol regulation is ultimately based on a desire to limit destructive behavior, which is the same rationale for limits on tobacco. You cannot effectively argue for deregulation of tobacco while arguing for increased regulation of alcohol. They are two sides of the same coin.
Removed by mod