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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.