#OutofContextReally?
#OutofContextReally?
#TerribleComparison.#OutofContext
#It's okay to admit you didn't follow the conversation, or possibly read the entire post.#TerribleComparison.
#Ididfollowtheentireconversation#It's okay to admit you didn't follow the conversation, or possibly read the entire post.
#Ididfollowtheentireconversation
#putdowntheshovelandstopdigging
The reason I assume you can't have followed the conversation was because my original post was this:Also, again, you're missing the point that I don't care about moderate alcohol use. That wasn't what my post was about. It was about the slippery slope argument that because the government does this, it then follows that it will do that.
The statement you quoted was never meant to be something I was advocating for, nor was it meant to be a one-to-one comparison. It was deliberately ever so slightly absurd. It was deliberately arbitrary. Obviously I don't think drinking two pints is the same as using your phone while you're driving. I figured that was clear from the context of the conversation, and if not that then from the final paragraph.Unless you're an actual anarchist (or much worse: a libertarian), this such a lazy argument. The government also decided that it "isn't good for us" to drive without seatbelts, or while on the phone, or with young kids not safely strapped into seats. Or that "it isn't good for us" to have guns (in most countries), or own a rocket launcher or a fighter jet. Or that it "isn't good for us" to not have clear information about what is in food or drugs. The government does stuff, that's sort of what it's there for.
It's a slippery slope argument.
Do you just buy a pack and carry it around for 6 months?I wouldn’t be for banning smoking - it wouldn’t work and people would still smoke anyway. Just continued education about the negatives of it will continue to see smoking fall I think. I enjoy an occasional smoke, I maybe smoke 40 a year.
Thing is it's the manufacturers calling for a ban. Why is that?I wouldn’t be for banning smoking - it wouldn’t work and people would still smoke anyway. Just continued education about the negatives of it will continue to see smoking fall I think. I enjoy an occasional smoke, I maybe smoke 40 a year.
No they tend to get chucked in a drawer and forgotten about. I used to buy ten packs but they don’t do those anymore!Do you just buy a pack and carry it around for 6 months?
I’m not clever enough to answer this.Thing is it's the manufacturers calling for a ban. Why is that?
From my perspective they want out of this business and due to its currently profitable state it would be hard to convince their boards and shareholders to divest.
Seems so but let's call it what it is, nicotine.They are calling for a ban on cigarettes, not Tobacco, right?
I bet if you dig through your drawers you could buy some serious contraband in prison.No they tend to get chucked in a drawer and forgotten about. I used to buy ten packs but they don’t do those anymore!
In that case, I think you will still be able to keep buying tobacco, but lose in bags. Just like you buy cannabis. Ideally, to consume it in a healthy way (vaporizer or edibles), but some people will still prefer to buy rolling papers and make their own ciggies (just like many prefer to roll a joint instead of vaping).Seems so but let's call it what it is, nicotine.
That said they want to be in position to push smoke free alternatives, which would likely rule out tobacco as well. Though I'm sure one could still grow it and some places like the Americas would require exemptions for traditional uses.
not commenting on the health aspects because we simply don't know at this time but nicotine is astronomically more addictive than cannabis. Indeed, in some circles it's considered to be more addictive than cocaine and heroin.Smoking weed is just as addictive and bad as smoking tobacco.
Okay, I'll try another tactic. The reason I assume you can't have read my post is because at the end I said this:
The reason I assume you can't have followed the conversation was because my original post was this:
The statement you quoted was never meant to be something I was advocating for, nor was it meant to be a one-to-one comparison. It was deliberately ever so slightly absurd. It was deliberately arbitrary. Obviously I don't think drinking two pints is the same as using your phone while you're driving. I figured that was clear from the context of the conversation, and if not that then from the final paragraph.
The point was that laws are arbitrary and sometimes impossible to compare, but that it doesn't mean that there's a slippery slope of "government overreach". Clearly @Regulus Arcturus Black disagreed, which is fine, but I assumed he knew I wasn't advoctating for making alcohol illegal. Why is it so difficult for you?'
Edit: Sorry, forgot the #hashtag.
Edit Edit: you know what? I don't care. It's going wildly off topic and it's not even fun. Feel free to reply to my redacted post, but don't expect me to engage further.
And in response to that you use driving slowly while on the phone as an example of something potentially dangerous to others that you can moderate the danger from? You must know how absolutely ridiculous that is, and how it clearly doesn't challenge the pretty simple concept RAB puts forward.Drinking alcohol moderately doesn’t kill people, in fact it’s almost to be argued the opposite, it has many many benefits for society. None of your examples have any benefits for society.