• pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Effectively banning something for a group of people who had no choice about being in that group. If you can’t ban something for yourself then it shouldn’t be banned for others.

    • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      All I’m reading is the government isn’t banning the sale is a market that has already been exploited.

      • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s a very weaseling way to describe it though. It may hold legal water, but you have to be willfully ignorant to not see how it’s banning a group of people buying something based on the group they were born into.

        • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          It should be banned for everyone. This exception is just allowing the businesses to wind down slowly.

          Did I get a choice being in the group that these people marketed their poison to? What about my rights to have safe products available?

          It’s not anti democratic to make laws against harmful things. Specifically harmful things that make you quickly chemically dependent on it.

          • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            It’s not anti democratic to make laws against harmful things. Specifically harmful things that make you quickly chemically dependent on it.

            I didn’t say it was. Banning only a specific group is what’s anti democratic.

            • bane_killgrind@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Listen we already have age restrictions on different drugs, this is just progressively raising the age limit on a specific one.

              The alternative is ban them outright, putting thousands of people immediately out of work, leave small businesses with thousands of dollars of garbage stock, and leave addicts without any supply.

              Do you think that or continuing unrestricted sales are better options? Go cry more, stop advocating to flip the table.

              • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                You’re pleasant. That’s very tortured logic to avoid the obvious that they’re banning other people from using something that they aren’t willing to ban for themselves.