The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good, But The Good Is The Enemy Of Bureaucrats, Those Who Hate Personal Freedom (For Other People), The Nanny State, And Grant Money For Tax-Leeching Scientists Claiming To Work For The Public While Sucking From The Giant Tit That Is YOUR Money, Which Is Stolen From You Every Time You Buy A Cup Of Coffee Or Rent A Video, And Redistributed To People Who Honestly Could Give A Shit Whether You Live Or Die. You're Just A Meal Ticket And A Statistic To Those LYING ASSHOLES.

Politics & Current Events

How else to explain the movement to keep people like me from buying Snus?

Last 5 posts by Patrick

12 Comments

11 Comments

  1. Oskar  •  Jul 21, 2010 @3:13 pm

    As a Swede, I always find it hilarious when Americans start discussing snus. It's such a deeply ingrained part of our culture that we take completely for granted, and it's kind of strange to hear you foreigners trying to come to terms with it. Non-swedes using snus is like a pasty white dude wearing a dashiki. What's next, you gonna start celebrating midsummer, eating herring and drinking aquavit?

    (all of which I highly recommend, btw. There is nothing better than eating some herring with some snaps on a cool midsummers eve.)

  2. SPQR  •  Jul 21, 2010 @3:32 pm

    I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the regulatory bureacratic mindset.

    And frankly, I suspect that that is good. Because it seems to involve equal measures of paternalistic arrogance, stupidity and an insanity that makes the film Brazil look like a documentary.

  3. Patrick  •  Jul 21, 2010 @3:37 pm

    It's available here Oskar, though a lot of nannies want to ban it, because it's DANGEROUS. Since nitro-glycerine causes fires, we should ban kerosene as well. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

    As for cultural imperialism, you and your people have a lot to answer for with Stieg Larsson, pal.

  4. Imaginary Lawyer  •  Jul 21, 2010 @4:08 pm

    Okay, but you have to promise that if there's ever a lawsuit alleging somebody was harmed by snus, and the defendant snus manufacturer says "But you can't sue us, if our product was dangerous the government would have regulated it!" you will hit them with a plank.

  5. Ken  •  Jul 21, 2010 @4:23 pm

    No snus is good snus?

  6. Patrick  •  Jul 21, 2010 @4:27 pm

    Don't be silly. There have been lawsuits alleging that people were harmed by Froot Loops and Crunchberries.

    I know Snus is harmful to its users. So are law degrees, but you won't find me demanding those be banned.

  7. Imaginary Lawyer  •  Jul 21, 2010 @5:56 pm

    Patrick, I think you misread. I'm not arguing snus should be banned (quite the opposite); I'm noting that the alternative to regulation is to resolve disputes about products in the civil courts. And that a lack of nanny-stating is something used to argue that it can't possibly be dangerous because "they" would have banned it if it were, right? Sadly, people do fall for this.

  8. Ken  •  Jul 21, 2010 @6:04 pm

    If the alternative to regulation were civil litigation, wouldn't more regulation of things have led to less litigation over them? Are there things as to which that is true?

  9. SPQR  •  Jul 22, 2010 @10:45 am

    Not a one.

  10. Imaginary Lawyer  •  Jul 26, 2010 @12:22 pm

    Ken, regulation is supposed to limit harms that would otherwise lead to litigation to redress those harms and reallocate their costs to wrongdoers. In a perfect regulatory scheme, lawsuits would be few and far between because the regulations would eliminate all harm. (Yes, I am well aware that this is the theory rather than the reality.)

    In the case of snus, the government would be telling snus sellers and snus buyers "We're not going to tell you all what to do. If you, buyer, have a problem with the seller, take it up in court. You, buyer, are on your own in determining whether you can sell snus without getting your pants sued off." I would assume this is the path favored by libertarians.

    The problem I'm griping about comes in when, in a buyer-seller dispute, the seller argues the lack of regulation itself is evidence in their favor.

  11. Patrick  •  Jul 26, 2010 @12:36 pm

    Status quo would be fine with me. Keep it illegal for minors, and restrict its advertising as we do with cigarettes.

    The problem is that there are a number of public health types who'd like to ban Snus entirely (as they've already done in the EU), when from a utilitarian standpoint it's a good thing. The product is safer than inhaled tobacco smoke, and it is more successful as a path to quitting smoking than gum, patches, or drugs. It's also new, at least here. I can't imagine many Americans have made Snus their gateway to nicotine. It's primarily used by addicts who want a safer (not safe) product, and a way to make quitting the nicotine habit entirely less agony.

    Banning the product might be logical if tobacco itself were a new invention. But it isn't.

1 Trackback