4 ms·

Then I would say you're not looking closely enough. The impetus is there, but so far there is enough resistance to it to prevent it. That wasn't the point anywa

Then I would say you're not looking closely enough. The impetus is there, but so far there is enough resistance to it to prevent it. That wasn't the point anyway, the point is the contradiction in the antipathy towards tobacco on the basis of health vs the libertine attitude towards drugs. The kinds of people who tend to be pro drugs, pro prostitution, etc are the same people who will scold others for smoking.

bsimpson 3y ago
A lot of people believe in the freedom to do what you like if you don't harm others. People doing MDMA or LSD generally don't harm others. People smoking do. Bartenders, card dealers, etc have their workplaces polluted by cigarettes. I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians who are against social restrictions on smoking. There are others who tolerate the restrictions because they personally find it to be a nicer experience to not have ambient smoke out in the world. Nevertheless, nobody thinks you should be thrown in jail for carrying cigarettes. Taxing cigarettes and decriminalizing psychedelics are not the same conversation. Your attempt to conflate them is a fallacy. ----- Moreover, that aspect of the conversation is just about the "should"s - should someone be free to alter their minds/bodies in the privacy of their own homes/if they aren't causing undue harm to others? The strongest argument for legalization is to defund the cartels. Countless dollars are being funneled to violent mobs because of the remnants of Richard Nixon's paranoia. The world would be a better place if the cartels were less powerful, and the drug problem would be much less of a problem if drugs weren't adulterated. The cartels and fentanyl poisoning are causing trauma for way too many families. There aren't enough pros to Nixon's line of thinking to justify that.
- alienicecream 3y ago
  The solution to second hand smoke is simple, if you don't want to be around it, then don't put yourself near it. That goes for most things. Nobody is forcing people to become waiters in restaurants where there is smoking. It is the converse, they want to ban the possibility. Nobody is going to jail for smoking...yet. But they have been pushed out of every public place where they used to be accommodated and punitively taxed. The intention is clear. The argument is not important, the motivation is what matters, because that tells you where things are going to go. People that want drug legalization want to do drugs, not defund their supply, that is just a convenient argument.

bsimpson 3y ago

A lot of people believe in the freedom to do what you like if you don't harm others. People doing MDMA or LSD generally don't harm others. People smoking do. Bartenders, card dealers, etc have their workplaces polluted by cigarettes. I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians who are against social restrictions on smoking. There are others who tolerate the restrictions because they personally find it to be a nicer experience to not have ambient smoke out in the world. Nevertheless, nobody thinks you should be thrown in jail for carrying cigarettes. Taxing cigarettes and decriminalizing psychedelics are not the same conversation. Your attempt to conflate them is a fallacy. ----- Moreover, that aspect of the conversation is just about the "should"s - should someone be free to alter their minds/bodies in the privacy of their own homes/if they aren't causing undue harm to others? The strongest argument for legalization is to defund the cartels. Countless dollars are being funneled to violent mobs because of the remnants of Richard Nixon's paranoia. The world would be a better place if the cartels were less powerful, and the drug problem would be much less of a problem if drugs weren't adulterated. The cartels and fentanyl poisoning are causing trauma for way too many families. There aren't enough pros to Nixon's line of thinking to justify that.

alienicecream 3y ago
The solution to second hand smoke is simple, if you don't want to be around it, then don't put yourself near it. That goes for most things. Nobody is forcing people to become waiters in restaurants where there is smoking. It is the converse, they want to ban the possibility. Nobody is going to jail for smoking...yet. But they have been pushed out of every public place where they used to be accommodated and punitively taxed. The intention is clear. The argument is not important, the motivation is what matters, because that tells you where things are going to go. People that want drug legalization want to do drugs, not defund their supply, that is just a convenient argument.