• theragu40@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue is they’re not just leaving them in place, they’re adding more regulations, while ignoring alcohol. More people are alcoholics now than ever, and everyone is completely fine with it, but smoking is taboo and “omg think of the children”.

      • theragu40@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          How do you figure? Those of us who enjoy cigars/pipe tobacco/snuff are basically seeing our vices disappear because “think of the children”. Small makers are being forced to close because of the regulations on cigs. All while alcohol is completely allowed to do what it wants.

          • theragu40@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think that’s what you are missing here. I’m not arguing for more regulation on alcohol. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. How alcohol is completely overlooked by society but tobacco is this taboo thing now.