The government sure loves trying to keep people safe from themselves. What’s next, limiting the alcohol content of liquor? Putting governors on cars to prohibit driving over 70? I’m sorry, I thought this was America.
Is this sarcasm? They DO limit the amount of alcohol in liquor (try buying pure grain alcohol in a store) and all cars DO have governors on them to restrict their speed (obviously not below 70mph, but I bet you can’t make your car go 140mph even if you had enough straight-line road)
It baffles me that they’re focused on limiting nicotine content while simultaneously having virtually zero controls on the stuff they allow to be put in our food. How about you just let people make their own poor decisions. The solution has always been education not regulation.
1) Cutting nicotine levels in cigarettes will only cause more to be sold.
2) A “Nanny State” prohibition on Juul will cause several things:
a) Annoyance at current administration (people don’t differentiate between FDA and whoever is “in charge” in the White House,
b) A thriving black market. It didn’t work for prohibition and hard drugs. Not going to work for Juul prohibition.
‘nough said.
The government sure loves trying to keep people safe from themselves. What’s next, limiting the alcohol content of liquor? Putting governors on cars to prohibit driving over 70? I’m sorry, I thought this was America.
Is this sarcasm? They DO limit the amount of alcohol in liquor (try buying pure grain alcohol in a store) and all cars DO have governors on them to restrict their speed (obviously not below 70mph, but I bet you can’t make your car go 140mph even if you had enough straight-line road)
I’m just going to go back to smoking Marlboros. How’s that for a perverse incentive?
It baffles me that they’re focused on limiting nicotine content while simultaneously having virtually zero controls on the stuff they allow to be put in our food. How about you just let people make their own poor decisions. The solution has always been education not regulation.