4 ms·
I can see why some would be upset but, I just ain't seeing the problem here. The only reasons tobacco exploded in the late 19th and early 20th century were base
by sneakernets 8y ago
I can see why some would be upset but, I just ain't seeing the problem here. The only reasons tobacco exploded in the late 19th and early 20th century were based on junk science, lies, and deception. Some patent medicine hucksters targeted tobacco distributors in hopes of getting their poisons into the cigarettes themselves.
Now we're down to "habit" and "it's always been here", which isn't convincing enough for me.
- randyrand 8y agoCigarettes are actually enjoyable to a lot of folk. I socially smoke about 20 cigarettes a year and get enjoyment from it. It seems it should be one’s own choice to smoke in private.
- tinus_hn 8y agoAs much as it is to use prescription medication in private.
- antidesitter 8y agoDo you think the government should ban all harmful activities?
- sneakernets 8y agoOf course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols?
- antidesitter 8y ago> Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. What's the definition "the government uses"? And why is it different from the one in the comment you're replying to? > PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols? ?
- benj111 8y agoHarmful isn't really binary, it's a spectrum. So I suppose A. Should govt ban any harmful activities? Yes some activities impose a wider cost on society, and are best dealt with at a societal level. B. Should govt ban all harmful activities? Probably not no. Everything is harmful in some way, shape or form. So unless you ban everything.....
- sneakernets 8y agoThe issue with "harm" here is that there is an objective definition, but that question is being framed as a subjective definition being made objective in an attempt at a gotcha.
- benj111 8y ago(Assuming you're disagreeing with the parents framing rather than me) Perhaps, but as the guidelines state "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Fool me once, and all that, and at the end of the day I expect reasonable answers to my imperfect questions, its unfair not to offer the same to others.
- sneakernets 8y agoUnfortunately some people argue in bad faith without even knowing they do it.
- antidesitter 8y agoLike you did when you replied to my question.
- antidesitter 8y agoWhat's the "objective definition" you're referring to? And why do you claim my question is "being framed as a subjective definition being made objective"?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- _Schizotypy 8y agoSounds like vitamins in ecig juice