5 ms·
No, I think it should be banned. This is not draconian, that is a faulty argument. The ‘Vaping’ to which a ban would refer is not a human right, it is a commerc
by Gatsky 7y ago
No, I think it should be banned. This is not draconian, that is a faulty argument. The ‘Vaping’ to which a ban would refer is not a human right, it is a commercial activity which is demonstrably harmful. The details and qualifications and counterfactuals and slippery slope arguments don’t matter. If you want to make your own inhaler and your own juice then be my guest. But making money off of it? That should be banned.
- donatj 7y agoMutually beneficial exchange, e.g. Making money through selling people things they want, is the foundation of society. If I want to give my money to someone else, in exchange for something I want and enjoy, that doesn’t hurt you - why should you care? You are not an injured party. You don’t like it, you don’t need to buy it. But outlawing something because you don’t like it is just vicious. All that said, I don’t vape, but I do enjoy the occasional cigar which has faced similar restrictions on flavors and sales of late. If you have never had a nicotine buzz, you really don’t know what you are missing. Stress disappears, focus is intensely magnified. It’s great. If you’re not prone to addiction I recommend trying it sometime. There’s a number of good articles I could list, but despite demonization, it has some fantastic upsides and without the additives isn’t nearly the Faustian bargain it’s made out to be. http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix
- Gatsky 7y agoMutually beneficial exchange? You fail to really ask who benefits, and the answer is Juul and company. Anyway, the ‘it’s my money’ argument is untenable, society doesn’t run that way. We should never indulge any interest merely because it exists.
- donatj 7y ago> We should never indulge any interest merely because it exists. We absolutely should. Blocking someone from something they desire, from their "pursuit of happiness" is patently imoral. Prohibitions don't work because people want what they want. > You fail to really ask who benefits The customer benefits from getting what they want in nicotine, and the company benefits from getting what they want in money. Benefit is entirely in personal perception. Just because you don't believe the person is better off for getting nicotine products, doesn't mean they don't.
- cwkoss 7y agoShould candy be banned? Demonstrably harmful commercial activity.
- Gatsky 7y agoThis is a bad faith argument.
- donatj 7y agoI disagree. I'd say the argument of sugar versus Tobacco as the bigger killer is a close one.
- forgottenpass 7y agoCalling the Socratic method a bad faith argument, is itself a bad faith argument. It's obviously an attempt to get you to clarify your position by showing if/how you differentiate a case that fits within your previously-stated criteria but we assume is actually excluded from your judgement.
- thewileyone 7y agoHow about all alcohol, except for your backyard moonshine?