A reader writes:
Jack Meserve says, "[B]ans on activities like drug use are seen as naive or old-fashioned, but legal vices like cigarette smoking are public-health or collective-action problems to be solved through brute government action." Bans and regulations are not the same thing. Most liberals who support the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, gambling and/or prostitution also expect and support major regulations for those same activities if legalized. No one’s calling for a free-for-all. (Well, except maybe libertarians.)
Another writes:
I get really pissed off when commentators, such as Meserve, lump in public smoking bans with other bans like trans fats, salt content, sugary drinks, etc. This is because public cigarette smoking affects those nearby in ways people's eating habits can't.
And it's not even hard to understand why this is! Apart from smelling terrible, tobacco smoke has this annoying way of impregnating itself into your clothes and hair, making it difficult to shake even when the smoker is long gone. And while we can probably go back and forth all day about the dangers of secondhand smoke, we certainly can agree it's not good for us, right? Meanwhile, some guy could be eating a Triple Whopper three feet away … and nothing happens to me! I'm certainly unaware of fine particulate mayonnaise flying off his sandwich, seeping into my skin and clogging my arteries.
Another piles on:
Meserve makes some truly horrible arguments in his piece when it comes to "the left's" desire to see pot legalized. He says "it’s hard to believe that reforming its legal status would be high on the priority list of someone solely concerned with public health." Actually, this isn't hard to believe. That's because legalization isn't being pursued as a public health issue. It's being pursued to make sure people don't face fines, criminal charges, arrest, or jail time for using a substance that is less harmful and addictive than other legal substances. Any public health aspects come into play when you discuss how pot would be regulated ONCE it is legal. But Meserve doesn't discuss or raise any public comments about what happens post legalization in the piece.
Another cites a specific case:
Why is the pot legalization initiative on the ballot in Washington when legalization has failed to qualify so many times before, despite our alleged libertinism? Well, this one contains a 25% excise tax dedicated to substance abuse prevention and healthcare in general, a state-run store regime was added, age limits put in, and specific concentrations of THC in the bloodstream for DUI were defined. These things were absent in prior initiatives, meaning that had they qualified and passed, anyone could have set up shop across from a kindergarten to sell. It’s almost instead of us being a bunch of stoned hippies just out for a good time, we wanted to make sure that this vice was legalized in the most thoughtful, responsible way possible, while also making provisions for ameliorating possible social harms caused by legalization. That’s left-wing social engineering at its best.
The Dish 