4 ms·

One could make that exact argument of cigarettes too. And see why it doesn't work in the real world.

by steeve 2y ago

kevingadd 2y ago
Cigarettes aren't speech. I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise.
- boxed 2y ago
  No, but there the issue is bodily autonomy. Which arguably is much more important a right than free speech.
  - suslik 2y ago
    Is bodily autonomy a recognized right in any sense? Is there a society that actually respects the right to bodily autonomy legally or in practice - meaning, using any drugs at will, the right to suicide, to agree to being eaten by a friendly cannibal, and so on? I don't think there is, and nobody is pushing for it.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The Okapa District, pre missionary, pre kiaps .. you were good to go until the mid 1950s at least .. and then colonizers spread their values. > to agree to being eaten by a friendly cannibal They had standards though, you'd have to work to gain the respect for anyone to want to eat you as a mortuary ritual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people
    - boxed 2y ago
      There's two parts though: 1. the right to not have someone else do stuff to your body 2. your right to do anything to it Number 1 is pretty well established. Number 2 less so, and I think that comes down to us as a society noticing that many people can't be trusted with full access here. Ask any clean addict and they will tell you what a colossal mistake it was to start using the drug in the first place. The regulation of what you can do with your own body is, in my opinion, a regulation to protect future you from present you. Because we all know what the present you has worse impulse control and judgement than future you would like.
throwaway2037 2y ago
Are you making the argument that restricting cigarette sales by age does not work?
- steeve 2y ago
  Quite the opposite
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Thank you to clarify. I agree with your point. The reduction in underage people smoking in rich countries has plumetted in the last 30 years. Much of that is due to stricter enforcement of retail and advertising rules.
mcmoor 2y ago
Tobacco regulation is actually something I don't see people talked often. Some seem to have restricted it and succeed, or failed. Some seems to let it go and succeed, or failed. It's seemingly less sexy than either alcohol or marijuana, maybe because USA is one example where they just let cigarettes go and succeed anyway. My country is an example where it failed anyway. Whether we are considered to have tried regulating it or not is a bit complicated.

One could make that exact argument of cigarettes too. And see why it doesn't work in the real world.

by steeve 2y ago

One could make that exact argument of cigarettes too. And see why it doesn't work in the real world.

kevingadd 2y ago

Cigarettes aren't speech. I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise.

boxed 2y ago
No, but there the issue is bodily autonomy. Which arguably is much more important a right than free speech.
- suslik 2y ago
  Is bodily autonomy a recognized right in any sense? Is there a society that actually respects the right to bodily autonomy legally or in practice - meaning, using any drugs at will, the right to suicide, to agree to being eaten by a friendly cannibal, and so on? I don't think there is, and nobody is pushing for it.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The Okapa District, pre missionary, pre kiaps .. you were good to go until the mid 1950s at least .. and then colonizers spread their values. > to agree to being eaten by a friendly cannibal They had standards though, you'd have to work to gain the respect for anyone to want to eat you as a mortuary ritual. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FK5N_ObFeQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fore_people
  - boxed 2y ago
    There's two parts though: 1. the right to not have someone else do stuff to your body 2. your right to do anything to it Number 1 is pretty well established. Number 2 less so, and I think that comes down to us as a society noticing that many people can't be trusted with full access here. Ask any clean addict and they will tell you what a colossal mistake it was to start using the drug in the first place. The regulation of what you can do with your own body is, in my opinion, a regulation to protect future you from present you. Because we all know what the present you has worse impulse control and judgement than future you would like.

throwaway2037 2y ago

Are you making the argument that restricting cigarette sales by age does not work?

steeve 2y ago
Quite the opposite
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Thank you to clarify. I agree with your point. The reduction in underage people smoking in rich countries has plumetted in the last 30 years. Much of that is due to stricter enforcement of retail and advertising rules.

mcmoor 2y ago

Tobacco regulation is actually something I don't see people talked often. Some seem to have restricted it and succeed, or failed. Some seems to let it go and succeed, or failed. It's seemingly less sexy than either alcohol or marijuana, maybe because USA is one example where they just let cigarettes go and succeed anyway. My country is an example where it failed anyway. Whether we are considered to have tried regulating it or not is a bit complicated.