> Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drug laws. In particular, this is an argument against all laws, which is reductio ad absurdum, and the type of faux intellectualism we've come to expect from the right.
Friedersdorf has expressed his thoughts on drug laws elsewhere, and they are consistent with his other beliefs, in that he thinks drug laws as a form of regulation do not really work. This is hardly an uncommon stance - the general public views the war on drugs as having failed. This is a false application of a reductio ad absurdum, and the insult adds nothing.
> Addressed: not an equal protection concern as it applies to vendors, not buyers, and "birth date" isn't a protected class. This is the kind of lazy "dunk" the right loves ("oh I thought you haaaaaated discrimination, what hypocrites!"), albeit in cozy-writer-sweater Atlantic form. Friedersdorf is the one lowering our discourse here, not I.
Addressed earlier in my posts, this argument is fallacious. A law that forces the general public to discriminate against a specific group is still discriminatory to a specific group. Protected classes do not exist in Europe, and yet where specific characteristics are enumerated, 'age' is one of them. The insult is again unnecessary and adds nothing.
> Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drugs, requiring seat belt laws, etc. In this case, it would be "the state has a vested interest in its people being healthy", which the UK discovered when they had practically no healthy men in the wake of WW2 and birthed the NHS. This is the kind of historical ignorance we've learned to expect from the right.
This is the same point as your first one. For the third time, the insults add nothing.
> Addressed: there is no dignity in suffering/dying from what tobacco and vapes do to you.
Agreed (for my part). I suspect CF sees dignity in letting others decide in what confers meaning in their lives.
> Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drugs. In this case, all drugs aren't created equal, i.e. tobacco isn't comparable to alcohol. Alcohol contributes to ~178k deaths/yr in the US. Tobacco contributes to over 490k/yr, 2.75x. Secondhand smoke exposure causes 1.2 million premature deaths annually worldwide. In 2021 alone, exposure to second-hand smoke was linked to nearly 8.45m years of healthy life lost in children worldwide due to respiratory infections and tuberculosis. Why should children suffer the consequences of their parents' decisions here?
Isn't this again the same point as your first one? Drugs are significantly more destructive than tobacco and CF favours their legalisation too (along with a focus away from legislating and towards treatment).
> Addressed: Friedersdorf fails to address similar arguments against drug laws. In this case, it's a slippery slope fallacy. Actually, this article is something of a menagerie of fallacies.
The menagerie of fallacies appears to all be the same one point you repeat over and over again, together with schoolboy-level insults.
You're claiming a lot of world-weary familiarity with libertarian talking points, and yet you seem unaware that libertarians do generally support drug legalisation, or any of their arguments in favour of that stance (they tend to believe people will consume drugs no matter what, and it doesn't help anything to also put them in prison).
> Maybe you think I'm rude, dismissive, arrogant, privileged even. Maybe I am. But that's nothing against a guy wielding his vast influence to try and addict, sicken, and kill untold numbers of people. I am 1000% over conservatives/MAGA/libertarians fucking literally everything up with their idiotic takes and hot trash ideologies. Take my example. Save your ire for people doing actual bad things.
I think you've decided that CF has bad intent, and this utterly blinds you to the possibility that he actually genuinely wants what's best, and he thinks over-regulation does more harm than good. I don't necessarily agree with him on tobacco, but it's a perfectly valid stance for someone to take without wanting to murder puppies.
I think you take this worst-case, worst-intentioned version of CF and then give yourself license to just absolutely spit venom back. The problem is, this is a style of politics that absolutely does not work, and in fact really turns people away from what you're arguing for. There is not a person on Earth who's ever been convinced to turn their politics around by being called a moron over and over again.
I think overall this is indicative of the fact that you treat politics as a game, as a little fun sport to win or lose at, which - yes - smacks of privilege. As someone in a vulnerable minority group I do not have the luxury of spitting venom at the other side and just being sort of fine no matter who wins. It is much more significant to me that political argumentation is effective, because I want to turn moderates towards my politics and build a lasting coalition to secure my rights. Nothing repels moderates more than this kind of partisan bombast. From my perspective, you're the person doing the 'actual bad things', because the more of you there are, the more repellent left of centre politics becomes, and the less secure my rights get. You're actively working against my existential political interests, so by your logic, shouldn't I be absolutely spitting venom back at you? Would you find this persuasive? (And if not, why do you do it then?)
TLDR: An effective politics requires a willingness to understand other viewpoints. Spitting bile at everyone else may feel very cathartic for you - so if personal catharsis is the goal of your politics, well done! - but it's politically ineffective. It convinces no-one and achieves nothing. I respectfully suggest that you consider the possibility that others actually mean well, even when their actions seem inexplicable to you, and that if you try to understand them, you may actually be able to reach them. A much bigger win than some petty online sniping, no?