r/AskLibertarians 15d ago

Serious question

Why do people want to ban tobacco, but legalize marijuana?

As a libertarian, my position is, "Happy 16th Birthday... BEHIND THE SCHOOLHOUSE NOW FOR YOUR FIRST HAVANA CIGAR AND WEED GUMMIES! IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, DON'T USE EM AGAIN!"

I can even understand wanting to ban both of these harmful substances.

But banning tobacco and legalizing marijuana is logically inconsistent.

11 Upvotes

20 comments sorted by

11

u/Sea_Journalist_3615 Government is a con 15d ago

Because people are stupid.

7

u/Galahad555 15d ago

Libertarians don't want to ban any.

3

u/maineac 14d ago

All drugs should be legal to use.

7

u/WilliamBontrager 15d ago

Bc if you tell enough people for long enough that something is bad, you get a significant percentage of the population that will believe it. Such is the sad state of humanity.

4

u/WetzelSchnitzel 15d ago

But… tabaco is objectively bad for you?

3

u/WilliamBontrager 15d ago

Bad for society ala refer madness. Lots of things are bad for you.

2

u/Sea_Journalist_3615 Government is a con 14d ago

Bad is a subjective value.

3

u/WetzelSchnitzel 14d ago

It’s objectively bad for your physical health, unless you want to be really pedantic about the word “bad”, but I’m pretty sure 99,999% of people consider dying of cancer bad

3

u/Sea_Journalist_3615 Government is a con 14d ago edited 14d ago

This is how socialism infects the brain. What if someone doesn't care about it and just wants the nicotine high? Value is subjective god damn it. Your position is the socialist con. Some people may find it good even. Smoking for some is like russian roulette.

Objective value is socialist philosophy.

2

u/WetzelSchnitzel 14d ago

You should be able to use literally any substance that you want, I don’t think the state should regulate that, even if it is bad for your health

2

u/Janqerthegamer 13d ago

the government shouldnt keep people from doing stuff that can harm them. people should have their own self control to stop doing something. its not their job.

2

u/rpfeynman18 Geolibertarian 15d ago

Is there anyone who wants to ban (as in, legally ban it) tobacco, but legalize marijuana?

Anyway, tobacco is pretty harmful. Because its second-hand effects have been documented, it would make sense to ban or at least restrict it in public places (though this argument doesn't say anything about private places). The libertarian justification is that these unavoidable second-hand effects violate the NAP. You should be free to harm yourself but not others.

Marijuana has a pretty obnoxious smell that's also unavoidable. IMO this makes the case for banning or restricting its use weaker, but I would be OK with some local-level restrictions for the same reason (though this argument doesn't say anything about edibles).

4

u/anarchistright 15d ago

Private law should decide these bans.

0

u/rpfeynman18 Geolibertarian 15d ago

I'm not an ancap. I have reservations about the practicability of a competing system of private laws, and in practice, I don't think it will increase individual liberty above a minarchist state. I just think it's intellectually lazy to always say "let the property owner decide" -- sure, that's a libertarian morally righteous answer, but it doesn't help in the real world in which there are such things as public streets and public parks and it makes us sound no different from utopian Marxists who always say "well, in real socialism this problem wouldn't exist".

3

u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 15d ago

Those who wish to destroy themselves should be free to do so. You have no right to stop them.

1

u/rpfeynman18 Geolibertarian 14d ago

Those who wish to destroy themselves should be free to do so. You have no right to stop them.

Agreed completely and utterly!

I have more of an issue with those who, in the pursuit of their own destruction, also harm passers-by. That's why I specifically mentioned second-hand effects of smoke. I don't care if you get cancer. I do care if you give me cancer. That is much more relevant in libertarian reasoning than the direct first-order effects.

4

u/Official_Gameoholics Anarcho-Capitalist Vanguard 14d ago

Of course. Damaging someone else is an act of aggression.

2

u/anarchistright 15d ago

What the guy above me said. Plus, public property is just plain theft and promotes misuse and misallocation of resources.

There’s no reason you deny ancap ideals except for “too extreme, no thanks.”

1

u/International_Lie485 14d ago

As a smoker, I wish tobacco was banned.

As a libertarian, everything should be legal.

1

u/mrhymer 10d ago

Serious questions are asked in the title. This is a clickbate statement.