45 replies to this topic

[Byakuya Togami]

How about proposing to axe cigarettes altogether. Cancer in a tube shouldn't be sold.

That's a terrible idea. We've tried banning stuff like this, it only made everything worse. Remember the prohibition era? Yeah, that really stopped everyone from drinking. Banning cigarettes would only increase the crime rate, and it would put all the tobacco farmers out of business. So not only will you increase the crime rate, but you'll also put hardworking people out on their asses. It won't work.

And as Zinix already said, the government makes a lot of money off of them.

Edited by Kaka Karrot Cake, 23 April 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[Alex Wolfers]

What's the difference? Marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes.

Also, it should be 18+ for everything. You're an adult, you can go and fight and die for your country yet you can't purchase alcohol and other vices?

That's very true. I never thought about it that way.

[Jasper]

You're right!  And people still commit theft, murder, and every other crime, so obviously we shouldn't have any laws at all!  It makes perfect sense!

 

 

 

[Kokirii]

 

 

 

 

Are you facepalming because you don't get my sarcasm or because you actually think "laws don't keep people from doing illegal things" is a good argument for not raising the smoking age?  

[Alex Wolfers]

 

 

 

That was also my reaction.

***UPDATE I JSUT SAW THE POST ABOVE. DERP.

Edited by Alex Apathy, 23 April 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[Byakuya Togami]

Are you facepalming because you don't get my sarcasm or because you actually think "laws don't keep people from doing illegal things" is a good argument for not raising the smoking age?

Kids would still smoke under aged no matter how many laws you make against it. It's just what kids do. Also, 18 is a perfectly reasonable age, as that is the age of adulthood in america.

[Kokirii]

Kids would still smoke under aged no matter how many laws you make against it. It's just what kids do. Also, 18 is a perfectly reasonable age, as that is the age of adulthood in america.

 

 

You have also missed the point.  Anyone could make your exact argument against ANY law because people continue to do ALL THE THINGS that are illegal.  So it's a bad argument for not having any particular law.  I'm presenting what in logic is called a reductio ad absurdum, look it up.  

Edited by kokirii, 23 April 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Byakuya Togami]

You have also missed the point.  Anyone could make your exact argument against ANY law because people continue to do ALL THE THINGS that are illegal.  So it's a bad argument for not having any particular law.  I'm presenting what in logic is called a reductio ad absurdum, look it up.

Except that adding some laws only makes things worse. Prohibition, look it up.

[Alex Wolfers]

You have also missed the point.  Anyone could make your exact argument against ANY law because people continue to do ALL THE THINGS that are illegal.  So it's a bad argument for not having any particular law.  I'm presenting what in logic is called a reductio ad absurdum, look it up.  

Then what the heck is the point of banning them? BTW nice Latin.

[Byakuya Togami]

You have also missed the point.  Anyone could make your exact argument against ANY law because people continue to do ALL THE THINGS that are illegal.  So it's a bad argument for not having any particular law.  I'm presenting what in logic is called a reductio ad absurdum, look it up.

Please, tell me exactly how raising the age ceiling to 21 will do any good.

[routerbad]

You have also missed the point.  Anyone could make your exact argument against ANY law because people continue to do ALL THE THINGS that are illegal.  So it's a bad argument for not having any particular law.  I'm presenting what in logic is called a reductio ad absurdum, look it up.  

You have missed the point.  There is little benefit to enacting additional laws when the government has problems enforcing the laws currently enacted.  It does absolutely nothing to curb the actual issue, which could be helped with more education, rather than stricter laws.  

[Kokirii]

Please, tell me exactly how raising the age ceiling to 21 will do any good.

 

If we can't agree that the question is about the usefulness of this particular law then there is no point in discussing any further.  I was concerned about what seemed to me to be the advancement of an argument against all law.   It's the same argument that is keeping anything useful from being down about the major gun problem in America (e.g. recently the law that would require background checks on individuals purchasing guns at gun shows failed to pass in the Senate.  I mean give me a break). 

 

As for the benefits of the age ceiling, have you read the article?  Do you think all the given reasons are bad reasons?

You have missed the point.  There is little benefit to enacting additional laws when the government has problems enforcing the laws currently enacted.  It does absolutely nothing to curb the actual issue, which could be helped with more education, rather than stricter laws.  

 

On what basis are you saying it does nothing?  Do you think that drunk driving accidents would go down, or even merely stay the same, if the drinking age were lowered to 16?  Having it at 21 vs. 16 is no different?

 

Also, I have no problem with the discussion about education vs. laws but I just get really concerned when people seem to be implying that the only purpose of a law is to make particular incidents of crime go down and that if they don't go down the law has no purpose.  

Edited by kokirii, 23 April 2013 - 09:12 AM.

[Byakuya Togami]

If we can't agree that the question is about the usefulness of this particular law then there is no point in discussing any further.  I was concerned about what seemed to me to be the advancement of an argument against all law.   It's the same argument that is keeping anything useful from being down about the major gun problem in America (e.g. recently the law that would require background checks on individuals purchasing guns at gun shows failed to pass in the Senate.  I mean give me a break). 
 
As for the benefits of the age ceiling, have you read the article?  Do you think all the given reasons are bad reasons?

Background checks have proven to be ineffective. James Holmes showed no previous signs of mental illness, had no crime record. Basically, the kind of person you'd have no qualms handing a gun to.

No one was making an argument against ALL law, it's just that adding these kinds of rules do nothing but make the problem worse, like it did with the prohibition. You're missing the point.

[routerbad]

You're right!  And people still commit theft, murder, and every other crime, so obviously we shouldn't have any laws at all!  It makes perfect sense!

Strawman, those crimes are crimes against another person, smoking is not a crime in and of itself because it falls within self determination.  Also, there is no age restriction on crimes against another, because by their very nature those acts take away or restrict the rights of others, which is why it is illegal.

 

I can understand why you think the way you do, people who don't understand the implications of the abuse of the legislature can't grasp the idea of restricting laws to those necessary to protect people's rights, without venturing into the government attempting to protect people from themselves, which is unconstitutional and unethical.

What's the difference? Marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes.

Also, it should be 18+ for everything. You're an adult, you can go and fight and die for your country yet you can't purchase alcohol and other vices?

Not true at all, Marijuana burns hotter, and has far more carcinogenic chemicals, and also causes mental and physical impairment in the short term, which limits the ability to operate machinery (drive) and perform complex tasks requiring full control of motor functions.

[Alex Wolfers]

If we can't agree that the question is about the usefulness of this particular law then there is no point in discussing any further.  I was concerned about what seemed to me to be the advancement of an argument against all law.   It's the same argument that is keeping anything useful from being down about the major gun problem in America (e.g. recently the law that would require background checks on individuals purchasing guns at gun shows failed to pass in the Senate.  I mean give me a break). 

 

As for the benefits of the age ceiling, have you read the article?  Do you think all the given reasons are bad reasons?

 

On what basis are you saying it does nothing?  Do you think that drunk driving accidents would go down, or even merely stay the same, if the drinking age were lowered to 16?  Having it at 21 vs. 16 is no different?

 

Also, I have no problem with the discussion about education vs. laws but I just get really concerned when people seem to be implying that the only purpose of a law is to make particular incidents of crime go down and that if they don't go down the law has no purpose.  

Believe me crime wouldn't go down. What part of that don't you understand?

Strawman, those crimes are crimes against another person, smoking is not a crime in and of itself because it falls within self determination.  Also, there is no age restriction on crimes against another, because by their very nature those acts take away or restrict the rights of others, which is why it is illegal.

 

I can understand why you think the way you do, people who don't understand the implications of the abuse of the legislature can't grasp the idea of restricting laws to those necessary to protect people's rights, without venturing into the government attempting to protect people from themselves, which is unconstitutional and unethical.

Not true at all, Marijuana burns hotter, and has far more carcinogenic chemicals, and also causes mental and physical impairment in the short term, which limits the ability to operate machinery (drive) and perform complex tasks requiring full control of motor functions.

Still not as bad as alchohol.

[Byakuya Togami]

Strawman, those crimes are crimes against another person, smoking is not a crime in and of itself because it falls within self determination.  Also, there is no age restriction on crimes against another, because by their very nature those acts take away or restrict the rights of others, which is why it is illegal.
 
I can understand why you think the way you do, people who don't understand the implications of the abuse of the legislature can't grasp the idea of restricting laws to those necessary to protect people's rights, without venturing into the government attempting to protect people from themselves, which is unconstitutional and unethical.


Not true at all, Marijuana burns hotter, and has far more carcinogenic chemicals, and also causes mental and physical impairment in the short term, which limits the ability to operate machinery (drive) and perform complex tasks requiring full control of motor functions.

There has never been any death directly caused by marijuana, while the deaths caused by cigarettes is significantly higher.

[routerbad]

Are you facepalming because you don't get my sarcasm or because you actually think "laws don't keep people from doing illegal things" is a good argument for not raising the smoking age?  

Because you missed the point of the argument entirely, and used flawed logic yourself to jump to an incorrect conclusion, ignoratio elenchi.

[Alex Wolfers]

There has never been any death directly caused by marijuana, while the deaths caused by cigarettes is significantly higher.

True. Pot smokers don't smoke a pack a day worth of joints so yeah. They are complteley biased on this issue.

[routerbad]

There has never been any death directly caused by marijuana, while the deaths caused by cigarettes is significantly higher.

A. Negative, marijuana causes the same illnesses that cigarettes do, and faster.  Anyone with emphysema is going to be assumed to be a smoker, not necessarily a cigarette smoker, because what they smoked makes no difference in diagnosis.  I don't think it should be illegal personally, again to each his own, however there is no reason to be in denial about the effects it has on the body.  There have also been vehicular deaths related to marijuana, and there was a story here in SoCal just last week, someone who was baked went off the side of the highway.

 

Also remember, correlation does not confirm causation.

Edited by routerbad, 23 April 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Jasper]

There has never been any death directly caused by marijuana, while the deaths caused by cigarettes is significantly higher.

Because pot is arguably less addictive, and a lot less people smoke pot. Also, yes, people can get cancer from the carcinogenic chemicals used in pot... but these cases will probably be attributed to 'smoking' because it isn't directly linked to the 'high' part of smoking marijuana.

 

Also, that something does not kill you does not make it harmless.