In the case of tobacco use, there can really be no argument from a moral standpoint.
No. There really can be an argument. Just a matter of how open one side is to hearing the other side.
the role of government in this case should be perfectly clear in that its 'moral duty' is to protect not just minors, but everyone from the harmful effects of tobacco.
Completely, and undeniably, appears as if this moral duty is arbitrarily applied to one product that is questionably harmful. Again, CVS will continue to sell alcohol and candy, which are both arguably more harmful to its users and in healthcare costs.
The case for harm is clear and has been proven explicitly.
Disagree with this. I find it a huge stretch to say proven explicitly as anecdotal evidence suggests not all users are harmed, nor are all secondhand participants, and very challenging to believe that 3rd and 4th hand persons are actually harmed, even a little bit.
Second-hand smoke is harmful to those exposed, and the smoker is directly harmed in the development of cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, asthma and cancer.
And yet, not all smokers are harmed in these ways that you've named, nor are all secondhand persons harmed. As one who smokes moderately now, I feel quite prepared to enter into a debate on this matter and argue about harm I am causing to my own self, as an actual user. Seems 'moderate smoking' hasn't been allowed into the discussion. If we were to apply 'heavy use' to any other product that I'm currently aware of, I believe we would find, scientifically, strong case for enormous harm being caused to the user. Not so much, if at all, if we step back to moderate use.
And don't think that these effects on the smoker are 'private' effects without effect on others in society; they effect every one of us in the huge financial burdens imposed by the medical care of these diseases; I and my fellow citizens all pay for the cost of your lung cancer, in higher private insurance rates, in higher Medicare taxes, and in delays in obtaining medical care because of the overburdening of emergency rooms and hospitals with patients with COPD, cancer, asthma and other preventable diseases.
Same goes for heavy use of any substance, especially those that CVS has a substantial revenue stream from.
And don't make the mistake of assuming that I'm a flack for ANTZ or trolling here; I am a former smoker of 40 years, and I credit this forum and vaping with saving my life.
I'll try not to make this mistake, but it is challenging when you and other vapers who suddenly become ex-smokers, then preach anti-smoking messages with a bit of zealotry. Can we discuss cigarette smoking and the moderate user, and see if all of your current beliefs/findings match up with that type of user? I am also curious how anyone who thinks there is grave danger in secondhand smoke reasons with the fact that it used to be done everywhere, and that people survived that era?
So if you believe that personal freedom should have some limits in the interest of preventing harm, then the only conclusion you can reach is that tobacco products have no place in our society, and the government should stop playing footsie with big tobacco and big pharma, ban tobacco use altogether, and help all of us get rid of this deadly addiction.
As I consider bans of most, if not all kinds, an unreasonable and/or irrational regulation, then I would say it is not about preventing harm. Bans don't get rid of the substance from existence, and if anything, make it more sought out with further costs, not only to users, but most certainly, and substantially to society (via blood and treasure). Would seem that education and honest care is the way to go, but both are rendered corruptible if there are ANTZ involved who make arguments that 'there can be no argument' for what we say. And who then influence what honest education and care appear like. As a moderate smoker may have arguably less issues with the substance in question than a person who has gone the route of cessation, it behooves some of us to consider the many options that are available to the user and/or ex-user. There are many ways to taper down or cut out, as may be desired. But for those who wish to ramp up, it is those who present an impossible scenario to the objectives of ANTZ if banning is disallowed. And yet reality is, even if bans were allowed, that desire to ramp up will always be with us. That is, if we are being honest with ourselves about what is really going on here.
If you don't believe in limitations to freedom and personal liberty, then I invite you to research and move to the anarchy of your choice. I applaud CVS, whatever their motivation is.
Interesting. I see desire to strictly control and favor bans as form of thinly veiled anarchy. Less thin of a veil if one opens their own darn eyes and look directly at what such policies actually do rather than continuously entertain propaganda that wishes to believe bans are working well. As CVS decision isn't isolated to own business, though it appears that way on the surface, methinks they are now prone to be on side of banning the product from society, and moreover to do so in favor of other substances they, and many others, deem the 'great solution' to the perceived problem.
Call us who dare to question your poor reasoning, anarchists and deny that in your own position.
I'm just curious how the badge of prohibitionist works for you, if fascist seems too over-the-top for your tastes?
