3 ms·
I would argue that nicotine is not a controlled substance, so it doesn't fall under this definition anyway. But, that said, it is totally valid to argue that a
by NoSorryCannot 5y ago
I would argue that nicotine is not a controlled substance, so it doesn't fall under this definition anyway.
But, that said, it is totally valid to argue that a definition is wrong, misleading, or incomplete. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, but thanks for saying that.
- dredmorbius 5y agoYou'd be arguing that on a discussion concerning its regulation. Does this dissonance not register at all with you?
- NoSorryCannot 5y agoIt would be a tautological argument for its addition to the list of controlled substances. Like so, "It's a narcotic because it's a controlled substance and it's a controlled substance because it's a narcotic." Calling it a narcotic is not helpful. I do wish you would stop taking jabs at me personally.
- lostmsu 5y agoNobody made that argument. The cause it for being on the list is "deadly addictive". See above.
- NoSorryCannot 5y agoSee above indeed.
- lostmsu 5y agoI gave you a direct quote. What are you referring to?
- NoSorryCannot 5y agoI'm not being taken for a ride where we pretend that nothing was intended nor implied by calling it a narcotic.
- lostmsu 5y agoYou are being taken for a ride for this statement: > Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.