6 ms·

You're putting words in my mouth. I don't suggest that America follow China or Singapore's example to the letter, only that the statement "making vices illegal

You're putting words in my mouth. I don't suggest that America follow China or Singapore's example to the letter, only that the statement "making vices illegal never stopped them" is wrong. There is a huge middle ground between the government hanging drug traffickers versus handing out heroin injection kits.

lapcat 4y ago
> You're putting words in my mouth. No, I'm just wishing that you never wrote your words. Your reply had the feel of pure pedantry. Yes, you can take my short statement totally out of context—which was a discussion of an American problem—and superficially nitpick it if you like, comparing to China or whatever, but what's the point? What have we gained thereby? You get to win some internet brownie points by saying, "Well actually..." In America, alcohol prohibition failed. I am aware that in some other countries around the world, the government does some nasty things to you if you drink, and thus there's a lot less drinking there. But we wouldn't stand for that here. Alcohol isn't against our religion, it is our religion.
- farmaway 4y ago
  The point is acknowledging sensible prohibitions on, for example, the sale of alcohol to minors can be measurably and beneficially effective, and abandoning all attempts to crack down on vice because "prohibition never works" is misguided.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Please explain then. How in the hell is: > The first sentence simply isn't true. Vigorous law enforcement can substantially curtail illegal drug trafficking, for example. Singapore does not have a fentanyl abuse problem. They also hang drug traffickers. An acknowledgment that “sensible prohibition” such as controlling the sale of alcohol to minors can be effective? Unless you consider hanging 18 years olds who have a few drinks “sensible prohibition”.
    - farmaway 4y ago
      I think I've explained very clearly. Sorry if my perceived pedantry made you or the OP upset.
      - the_only_law 4y ago
        Just say what you mean in the first place ffs.

lapcat 4y ago

> You're putting words in my mouth. No, I'm just wishing that you never wrote your words. Your reply had the feel of pure pedantry. Yes, you can take my short statement totally out of context—which was a discussion of an American problem—and superficially nitpick it if you like, comparing to China or whatever, but what's the point? What have we gained thereby? You get to win some internet brownie points by saying, "Well actually..." In America, alcohol prohibition failed. I am aware that in some other countries around the world, the government does some nasty things to you if you drink, and thus there's a lot less drinking there. But we wouldn't stand for that here. Alcohol isn't against our religion, it is our religion.

farmaway 4y ago
The point is acknowledging sensible prohibitions on, for example, the sale of alcohol to minors can be measurably and beneficially effective, and abandoning all attempts to crack down on vice because "prohibition never works" is misguided.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Please explain then. How in the hell is: > The first sentence simply isn't true. Vigorous law enforcement can substantially curtail illegal drug trafficking, for example. Singapore does not have a fentanyl abuse problem. They also hang drug traffickers. An acknowledgment that “sensible prohibition” such as controlling the sale of alcohol to minors can be effective? Unless you consider hanging 18 years olds who have a few drinks “sensible prohibition”.
  - farmaway 4y ago
    I think I've explained very clearly. Sorry if my perceived pedantry made you or the OP upset.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      Just say what you mean in the first place ffs.