2 ms·
> Look at tobacco usage. It hasn't plummeted because it was outlawed. Disagree to some extent. Outlawing of most indoor smoking has decreased usage significant
by kodablah 8y ago
> Look at tobacco usage. It hasn't plummeted because it was outlawed.
Disagree to some extent. Outlawing of most indoor smoking has decreased usage significantly. Also disagree with reasons for smoking vs not since many do smoke recreationally to feel good as opposed to fear of withdrawal. Sure, most of the addicted are the latter, but the laws are there to target everyone.
- jerf 8y agoIt was regulated. It was not outlawed. Nobody seems to be saying they want unregulated marijuana usage, so it seems comparable. (If nothing else, everyone agrees it should be taxed, and that is already a form of regulation.)
- kodablah 8y ago> Nobody seems to be saying they want unregulated marijuana usage, so it seems comparable Comparing outlawed, regulated, or unregulated without nuance is unfair. Things can be effectively outlawed, overly regulated, unenforced thereby unregulated, etc. Instead of focusing on the words, we should focus on the effect. To restate my previous claims in terms that hopefully won't be misinterpreted, "Increased regulation/restrictions on smoking has decreased usage significantly." I'd say the reason it is not comparable is it is adding restrictions instead of removing them. To go from 0 to a set of regulations is one thing, but since that is not the case, the direction matters as much as the result.