Is this hypocritical? (Read description)

Posted by: Texas14

Is it hypocritical to be for drug legalization and also a smoking ban?

  • Yes

  • No

79% 11 votes
21% 3 votes
  • They say it's about which is worse for you. I agree. Tobacco is worse for you, but it's about personal liberty, not which is better for you. By their same logic, we should make meat illegal because vegetables are better for you, but it doesn't work that way. People should have individual rights to their personal habits.

  • Yes it's hypocritical. If you're standing for equality or personal liberty, that is. Progressives aren't truly about either. It's all a guise to impress law on one and not another.

  • Both cause horrible negative externalities.

  • I think so because if you believe in personal responsibility enough for drugs, why not give people the option to smoke if they want. My last poll on big tobacco was obviously sarcastic.

  • Absolutely. However i do think that for example smoking tobacco is far more dangerous than say marajuana, so there should me more education campaigns against tobacco and more tax on it and warning labels and the like. But dont ban it.

    Posted by: Stefy
  • Unlike tobacco, marijuana is relatively harmless. The other drugs largely get by on their "forbidden fruit" appeal. Remove that, and they effectively disappear, or at least, most drug-related violence disappears, funneled into more easily tracked-down violent crime. Tobacco is often smoked in public, where secondhand smoke is spread to other people. Contraband drugs as they are now are often consumed in the privacy of one's home. Therefore, a smoking ban can go hand-in-hand with drug legalization.

  • Your freedom to do drugs ends when your drug use is affecting other people. You are free to smoke in your house. You do not need to smoke on the streets where unconsenting pedestrians will inhale it.

    Posted by: Sharku
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
TBR says2015-06-30T08:57:05.1455336-05:00
I could answer either way on this one. Most smoking bans are about smoking around others where second-hand smoke is a issue. I am not aware of any current push to criminalize cigarettes.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T09:15:21.5304512-05:00
Investing money on the governments part towards ad campaigns against a business might as well be the same. The government is backing damages toward that market in particular. It's not their place to do so.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-06-30T09:19:56.3099375-05:00
The second hand smoke variable is the only viable argument. For that I think restricting area for smoking and allowing for edibles should be fine.
Kreakin says2015-06-30T12:05:33.9337836-05:00
@Forthelulz -"marijuana is relatively harmless". Used in the same quantity as tobacco it is much more harmful. Far more tar, aromatic hydrocarbons and carcinogens. Cannabis causes COPD quite quickly compared to tobacco because of this.
Thegreatdebate98 says2015-07-01T11:58:45.6526973-05:00
That's like comparing salvia and heroin... Oh one is a beneficial plant that has saved countless lives and the other contains thousands of toxic chemicals, not only harming you, but others around you (secondhand smoke). Yeah, freedom of choice, until it actually harms someone. Freedom should be justified.
Kreakin says2015-07-01T12:29:02.6508389-05:00
"one is a beneficial plant" Talking about substances of abuse which is the beneficial plant you speak of?
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T09:24:25.8897585-05:00
Hello, weed has not saved lives. Its used entirely as a pain killer.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-07-02T09:54:32.2640958-05:00
I dont know where people got this idea that just because cancer patients were getting prescribed it that it was actually the thing curing them.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.