2011-10-02, 06:29 PM
Far too many people take one of two (or both...) erroneous viewpoints:
A) You can't ban anything effectively because of what happened in Prohibition
B) Wanting one thing banned logically requires you to ban everything that shares any characteristic
Prohibition didn't work because alcohol has been a huge part of human culture since the dawn of civilization. I can't think of one culture that was dry by choice rather than by technological or agricultural limitations. You can make it by leaving stuff in a container for a while. Obviously, a federal ban on alcohol was impractical if not impossible. Can we ban the smoking of one type of plant without comparable social effects? Of course. They aren't anywhere near analogous cases for that point to stand.
If I think that it's fair for society to ban certain substances or behaviors, then I am subject to those same means, if a majority decides something I don't want banned should be banned. That's sort of how the US Constitution was written. It's up to you to convince others that choosing to ban X is a bad idea, not scream that some nonexistent right is being violated. All I argue is that it's (legally) a choice between banning and not banning, not a million little legally dubious regulations of doom, which is what they've been doing to tobacco.
A) You can't ban anything effectively because of what happened in Prohibition
B) Wanting one thing banned logically requires you to ban everything that shares any characteristic
Prohibition didn't work because alcohol has been a huge part of human culture since the dawn of civilization. I can't think of one culture that was dry by choice rather than by technological or agricultural limitations. You can make it by leaving stuff in a container for a while. Obviously, a federal ban on alcohol was impractical if not impossible. Can we ban the smoking of one type of plant without comparable social effects? Of course. They aren't anywhere near analogous cases for that point to stand.
If I think that it's fair for society to ban certain substances or behaviors, then I am subject to those same means, if a majority decides something I don't want banned should be banned. That's sort of how the US Constitution was written. It's up to you to convince others that choosing to ban X is a bad idea, not scream that some nonexistent right is being violated. All I argue is that it's (legally) a choice between banning and not banning, not a million little legally dubious regulations of doom, which is what they've been doing to tobacco.
Flonne Wrote:Sure will be fun watching that domino effect on the economy. Tobacco is a pretty big seller, you know.Sure, banning anything where there was once economic activity will eliminate or drive underground that economic activity. But that's the point of saying "more harm than good:" there are other costs to its use (and legality) that are harming the economy more than leaving it legal. Or so the argument goes. I personally don't think that's the case with smoking unless we're responsible as a society for paying other people's long term medical costs. Which in the US we aren't, yet anyway.