4 ms·
your argument is "if smoking should be allowed, then everything should be allowed", so yes
by ClumsyPilot 4y ago
your argument is "if smoking should be allowed, then everything should be allowed", so yes
- nisegami 4y agoA charitable reading of GP comment sounds like it'd be more like "we shouldn't ban things where the only reason is protecting people from themselves".
- jodrellblank 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom - there's no clear separation between protecting people from themselves and protecting people from others: "To expand the number of women smokers Hill decided to hire Edward Bernays, who today is known as the father of public relations, to help him recruit women smokers. [...] In 1929 Bernays decided to pay women to smoke their "torches of freedom" as they walked in the Easter Sunday Parade in New York." "Philip Morris even sponsored a lecture series that taught women the "art of smoking"" The association of smoking with coolness, James Dean, Hollywood stars, it's clear that a lot of people wouldn't smoke "for themselves" if it wasn't for other people manipulating them to do it, for profit.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoI would accept that, if we lived in a world where people were buying big jars labelled 'Trans fat' at the supermarket, the way they buy tabacco. But I have never met anyone that has knowingly bought trans fats, and I doubt such a person exists. It's more analogous to food poisoning