[ SECRET POST #5875 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5875 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #841.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I would argue that alcohol does a lot more harm overall than nicotine.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure. The farm laborers harvesting the grain that's going into that can of Bud Light aren't getting alcohol poisoning.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd say it depends. Alcohol can definitely kill the consumer much faster than nicotine. But on the other hand, alcohol is dangerous to the bystanders only if the consumer turns into a violent drunk, which isn't always given. Meanwhile, nicotine 100% harms everyone in the general vicinity.

[(Anonymous)]

Idk, there's no such thing as Driving While Chewing Tobacco leading to tons of deaths every year or anything.

[(Anonymous)]

It's hard to figure what proportion of the blame for drunk driving should be laid at the feet of alcohol as a substance.

Because the thing is that drunk driving is mostly pretty avoidable. Drinking alcohol doesn't necessarily require you to then get in your car and drive. There are other alternatives available.

[(Anonymous)]

Smoking cigarettes also doesn't require you to do it in the presence of other people, though. Lots of people smoke alone.

If we're counting "all the effects that occur in practice" then we have to count "all the effects that occur in practice" for both substances.

[(Anonymous)]

True!

[(Anonymous)]

"Smoking cigarettes also doesn't require you to do it in the presence of other people, though. Lots of people smoke alone."

Ehhhh. Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, you really aren't smoking alone. Smoke blows and drifts and gets into air vents. Where I live, it's illegal to smoke within 50 feet of a building entrance for that exact reason.

[(Anonymous)]

Yay! It's only 3 metres where I live.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I would venture to say that the majority of people who drink alcohol manage to go their entire lives without driving drunk.

[(Anonymous)]

I would venture to say the majority of people who chew tobacco manage to go their entire lives without killing people too. The point wasn't about percentages, it was that if we're counting "harms others beyond the user" as a factor then alcohol is also not devoid of them. Alcohol abuse causes, or at least amplifies, tons of domestic violence, child abuse, family abuse, and other things in a way that someone smoking a cigarette doesn't. It's not reasonable to be like "that's the abuser's individual responsibility and alcohol had nothing to do with it" in a society that let's be real, normalizes drinking in a way that it doesn't normalize smoking any more

("Alcohol has nothing to do with alcohol-related violence" has real "it's not guns that shoot people, it's people that shoot people" vibes tbh)

[(Anonymous)]

Alcohol abuse causes, or at least amplifies, tons of domestic violence, child abuse, family abuse

It doesn't, though. That's exactly what the people who do that shit want you to believe: "Oh, it wasn't MY fault, it was the alcohol." And I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Alcohol doesn't make a nice person into an abusive asshole. If someone is an abusive asshole while they're drunk, it's not because of the alcohol, it's because they're an abusive asshole to begin with and they're just using the alcohol as a cover.

[(Anonymous)]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people, the guns being widely available and around and encouraged by society had noooothing whatsoever to do with it"

Proving my point here.

Nobody is arguing that the people are not abusers. Nowhere did I say that. Just like nobody is arguing that murderers who shoot people are not murderers. They still are. This isn't an excuse, just like driving while drunk has no excuse. But are you going to argue that drinking and driving has nothing whatsoever to do with alcohol?

Why doesn't adding chronic smoking into the picture make, for example, child abuse worse, like adding alcohol or drinking problems into the picture statistically does on a broad scale?

Don't be intentionally obtuse

[(Anonymous)]

SA

And before you start off with "oooooh so you want to bannn alcohollll prohibitionnn just like you want to ban all gunsss", I never said that, nor did I say I'm pro banning guns. Just to get that inevitable strawman out of the way.

You can acknowledge something is generally a bad thing, perhaps worse than another thing that is also bad, and prone to abuse that leads to even more harm without wanting to take away the ability of reasonable adults to access the thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah. It's possible to consume safe quantities of alcohol, but there's no such thing as a "safe" quantity of nicotine.

That plus the fact that nicotine can harm anyone else who is around someone while they're smoking. If someone at the table across from me in a restaurant is having a glass of wine, that has exactly zero effect on me. If someone at the table across from me is smoking, though, the smoke is going to get into my lungs as well as theirs.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes! Exactly
I am not going to excuse alcoholics (I have a long history of alcoholics in my family and it sucks) or violent drunks. But one cocktail around people isn't the same as one cigarette around people.

[(Anonymous)]

ironically it has been observed/proven that alcohol plays a much larger role in the development of various cancers than previously assumed.
some countries have also significantly lowered their "safe drinks per day" numbers

[(Anonymous)]

Tell me you smoke without telling me you are a smoker.

[(Anonymous)]

They just did, I think!

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with this. I think Nicotine is more immediately toxic to an individual and their surroundings, but on a societal level, yeah, definitely alcohol, because it's so common. Both because society is much more accepting of it and because everyone can (in theory) make alcohol at home.

[(Anonymous)]

We're about fifteen years out from doing prohibition again, aren't we. Puritanical little Gen Zers, fuck 'em, man.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Damn you're a natural extremist, aren't you? Most people can say something is bad, or that something is worse than other thing, without wanting to ban it. Why does your mind jump to the latter conclusion?

[(Anonymous)]

Younger generations are just going to stop drinking alcohol. This is already happening. They don't need to ban it.

[(Anonymous)]

I wish they hadn't legalized pot because now stoners smoke it EVERYWHERE. They can smoke it in their rooms in homeless shelters and the strong smell travels through the vents and makes YOU smell like a stoner. They smoke it in the street and you walk through a cloud of it on the way to a job interview... >:(

[(Anonymous)]

can't we just agree that they're both shit and have done with it

(and let's throw in weed too)