The debate "Original Four Loko should be legalized" was started by
February 11, 2018, 9:52 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 2 people are on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
lachlan2 posted 10 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments to the agreers part.
lachlan2, Slymcfly, Nemiroff and 4 visitors agree.
2 visitors disagree.
Historybuff do you think the drinking age should be lowered to 18?
why regulate it? why not let the parents enforce it themselves? wouldn't that be the min government approach?
what makes that regulation different?
I'm not sure rules that strict are necessary. but it is a good example. the tobacco industry spent decades burying evidence of how bad cigarettes are for you while simultaneously making them cool and fashionable. they made billions and killed alot of people doing it.
the forced warning labels are to make sure people understand that cigarettes are dangerous and to make them less trendy and fashionable. and it has worked. smoking isn't really something that is "cool" any more.
Historybuff I think that's over the top. The only thing that can help smokers is their own responsibility.
You make it like the government needs to put us in strait jackets and lock us in sponge beds because independent individuals are too stupid to make their own decisions. Unfortunatly you might have to suck it up and teach your kids about healthy living and peer pressure.
Nemiroff I think 4 loko should be legal and sold as a regulated alcoholic beverage like anything else.
Although I do believe the legal age should be 18 or 16 and not 21, but thats a different story.
in Canada cigarettes have to be kept in a secure and non visible location. basically in order to buy cigarettes you need to be of age and know what you are asking for. the labels for them also have to, by law, have warnings on them including photos of things like cancer.
in that scenario it is impossible to buy them without knowing there are risks and they can't be glamorized by the tobacco company. it is pretty hard to make it glamorous when it has a cancerous lung on the cover.
a scenario something like that could very well work for other dangerous consumer products.
it may be wrong to prevent it. honestly I am ambivalent about the illegality of hard drugs like heroin and meth. I don't think 4loco is as bad as those.
so long as we protect immature kids and give the adults adequate information, they should make their own choices.
however i don't believe choices made in avoidable ignorance is freedom. keeping their people ignorant is the tactic of tyrants.
how do you feel about my legal but regulated scenario?
depends on the level of danger. do I think drinks that contain arsenic should be banned, absolutely.it will definitely kill you.
do I think Pepsi should be banned because it causes long term health issues? no.
but at what level of harm is it permissible to ban something? that is a more open question.
Are you under the impression that unhealthy things should be banned?
Yes, don't police what other people want to do. That's separation of drink and state.
I'm not certain. I don't feel strongly about it either way. both chemicals, alcohol and caffeine, are dangerous on their own but certainly legal. when you mix the two they become considerably more dangerous. is it so wrong to try to prevent this?
I think it should be legalized. I don't believe in prohibition in 99% of cases. but I do think it should be highly regulated. limited advertisement, only in liqour stores, and various public health announcements paid for by the company.
I wonder what responses this suggestion will get
How tf can you police mixing two liquids? lol
Has four loko killed anyone?
Idk either way we can drink what we want, don't drink it if you don't want. I wouldnt.
mixing high doses of caffeine and alcohol kills people. why would you want that to legal?
yeah it is lol.
I had never heard of it until now. based on a quick search it sounds like it was very bad for the people who drank it.
lol someone did earlier and changed it. Because one can is equal to about 6 beers and 4 cups of coffee.
I don't see anyone who disagrees, but may I ask what you believe was the reasoning for it's ban?
Tell me why you disagree, to the statist that disagrees lol.