This is not about wrong or right. This is about being consistent. If you are pro regulation then you should support all kind of regulation. If you are against regulation, even for one thing then you stop being intellectually honest.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree that we should aim for consistency in situations that are in analogous. My point is that, when it comes to things we might regulate, not all things are identical in effect or moral import, therefore there is no inconsistency with regulating some things and not others.
I could say: "If you are anti-regulation, then you should be against all kinds of regulation, and that if you support any regulation then you stop being intellectually honest". If you stop and think, this potentially has some pretty extreme implications.
I think that weed shouldn't be regulated, but you know what, I'm OK with the fact that it's actually pretty hard to purchase hydrogen-bombs or VX gas. If that makes me intellectually dishonest, then so be it.