[no2pencil]

If I could go back in time, I wouldn't do either of those stupid things, I'd make much more selfish decisions (like inappropriate relations with my mother).

[ConciselyVerbose]

Yeah, a few tips to myself on how to bet on certain events would go a long way.

[Witchking]

BenignDesign, on 26 July 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

So, you would NOT go back and save MILLIONS of lives... because then things might be different.

But you WOULD go back and outlaw one of the major crops that built this country... because obviously that wouldn't change anything today.

WTF???


EDIT: "This country" being the US. Yes, I realize we don't ALL live here. I just like to PRETEND we do.

No, i wouldn't go back in time to outlaw anything, i would however outlaw it today, and mostly i mean in my own country. Like you say we are not all American.

ConciselyVerbose, on 26 July 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

Why does it make sense to outlaw smoking?

Why does any law make sense? To keep people from harming or exploiting others.


People can always get addictive substances if they really want to, but that's no argument for making them legal. The viability of the drug trade is a result of other societal problems such as poverty and a lack of education.

[lordofduct]

Quote

To keep people from harming or exploiting others.

That personally is the key part of a law for me.

Outlawing smoking, just like outlawing drugs, isn't to keep people from harming or exploiting others. It's to keep people from harming themselves.

Outlawing it actually makes it easier to harm and exploit others with drugs and tobacco.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 26 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

[supersloth]

Witchking, on 26 July 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

No, i wouldn't go back in time to outlaw anything, i would however outlaw it today, and mostly i mean in my own country. Like you say we are not all American.

the witchking wants a witch hunt, huh?

[ConciselyVerbose]

Smoking doesn't harm others. You can make some small argument for second hand smoke but it's nowhere near enough to ban smoking.

[Witchking]

Yes it's true that laws on substance abuse are in large part to prevent people from harming themselves, but don't say it doesn't also harm others around them.

Smoking might not harm others around the smoker as much, but i feel that the production and distribution is very much exploiting now and future addicts. Now you can make the argument that people are free to do as they like, and no government has the right to interfere, and call me fascist or whatever absurdities you like, but i disagree. Of course you have the right to your own opinion and i respect that.

[supersloth]

stay out of my uterus.

[ConciselyVerbose]

Driving it underground just removes the protections the government can offer. If crack was legal and regulated there would be far less people dying because they got bad crack.

It doesn't significantly limit use.

[BenignDesign]

We need to outlaw coffee and carbohydrates. And meat. And salt. Food, really. If you can eat it, drink it, smoke it, or inject it, it should be outlawed. We don't want the special snowflakes ingesting anything that might cause an allergy or obesity or result in high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or diabetes. Can't let the people hurt themselves!!

[dorknexus]

let's see here...worst calamity in human history or an unhealthy habit. let me get back to you.

[CTphpnwb]

ConciselyVerbose, on 26 July 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Smoking doesn't harm others. You can make some small argument for second hand smoke but it's nowhere near enough to ban smoking.

Small argument??? I don't think you can say small.

I wouldn't prohibit smoking because prohibition doesn't work. I'd tax the hell out of it ($20 to $30 a pack, to start) and then make it a federal crime to smoke in public, just so we could add a stiff financial penalty for that. The government needs revenue so why not take it from people who are dumb enough to waste money on poison?

dorknexus, on 26 July 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

let's see here...worst calamity in human history or an unhealthy habit. let me get back to you.

Aren't you being repetitive? Smoking isn't just the worst calamity in history.

[ConciselyVerbose]

All the references that page cite that involve actual studies specifically state that the data they provided wasn't enough to draw conclusions on how severe the actual impact is.

[CTphpnwb]

ConciselyVerbose, on 26 July 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

All the references that page cite that involve actual studies specifically state that the data they provided wasn't enough to draw conclusions on how severe the actual impact is.

Riiight. So we're supposed to believe the old "It isn't true until proven beyond all (including the most unreasonable) doubts." saw that the tobacco industry used for years before finally admitting that smoking caused cancer?

[ConciselyVerbose]

Did I say that? There is an impact, but to assume it's massive enough to ban smoking with minimal actual demonstrable evidence to do so?

That's on par with making weed illegal because of a study which only actually showed that oxygen deprivation for 10 minutes isn't good for your brain.