Author Topic: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol  (Read 8207 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2012, 10:40:41 AM »
In countries with civilized health care systems, smokers cause massive costs for the general public.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20753
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2012, 11:40:21 AM »
In countries with civilized health care systems, smokers cause massive costs for the general public.
Not according to the Dutch.  Living on average 7 years longer costs more than dying of lung cancer.  Similar results with obesity.  Once a person leaves the workforce, the sooner they die the better.  Since even lifelong smokers usually live to see retirement, lung cancer is actually somewhat beneficial. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberals' Triple Standard: Marijuana vs. Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2012, 07:59:54 PM »
As to your second point, it's probably true that his views do dovetail with those of libertarians on many occasions, but supporting states' rights is guaranteed to set up a wedge between himself and libertarianism at some point.
Why is it guaranteed? Even many people in the libertarian party support states' rights. Like everything else, it's not an all-or-nothing. I've known Catholics who don't believe in the dogma that children who die before baptism don't go to heaven and it hasn't set up a giant wedge between them and their priest.

Well I don't mean that state governments will completely oppose libertarian principles if they had more power, but neither will they completely favor them. States could end up imposing legislation on issues like gun control, marijuana etc. that's just as restrictive or even moreso than the federal government which would leave libertarians pretty disappointed. I don't see state governments acting much differently from the federal government if they were to be given more power. But then again, it really depends on what the majority in each state votes for and who's in power in each state. As to my example, the marijuana prop in California could be seen as an assertion of states' rights given the fact that federal law probably doesn't allow the state to even put it on the ballot in the first place, but it failed anyways because the majority opposed it.
I've been busy with interviews and forgot all about this, so here's my belated response:
1) It is better to have some states have laws removing the ban than to have the entire country issuing a ban.
2) Asserting states rights removes the federal government's power in regulating this. That is definitely within the realm of libertarian thought: removing a strong power that a big government has used as a fist.

And keeping the notion of states rights also tends to support the very foundation of our constitution that each state is its own sovereign region with self-determination; our nation started out as a loose affiliation which has repeatedly become less so arguably because of the federal government jumping in.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2012, 08:12:03 PM »
In countries with civilized health care systems, smokers cause massive costs for the general public.

Pretty sure they cause massive costs for the general public, anyways.

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #39 on: June 19, 2012, 10:57:49 PM »
Tobacco only harms yourself (excluding cases of pregnancies and extreme exposure to second hand smoke ). Alcohol can easily harm others. Isn't that a strike against alcohol and not tobacco?

Tobacco can also harm your family paying for your hospital stay when you come down with cancer.  Not to mention their grieving, funeral costs, etc.  I'm pretty sure there are environmental concerns with its use as well.  So no, no drug just harms yourself only, but Marijuana is probably the only drug that doesn't really harm others (plus, less harmful  and addictive than nicotine, not consumed nearly as often, etc.).  As for alcohol harming others, that's in the case of people who are not responsible, and those bad eggs shouldn't be a reason for more legislation on the majority of Americans who have their stuff in order.  Plus there are health benefits if certain kinds of alcohol are consumed moderately (pale ales and red wines have been focused) and culinary benefits (tell me you've had a good pecan pie without bourbon in it and I'll laugh in your face).
lol, assuming tobacco automatically gives you cancer.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16166
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2012, 05:02:43 AM »
Exactly, it can just give you a heart attack instead. :biggrin:
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline slycordinator

  • Posts: 1303
  • Gender: Male
Re: Liberals' Double Standard: Tobacco vs. Alcohol
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2012, 11:59:36 AM »
Or emphysema if you don't get the heart disease or cancer.