Comment by filoleg
12 days ago
Fundamentally flawed analogy.
If we go further along with your analogy, then the government would make Jack Daniels (picked a random liquor brand, nothing against JD specifically) illegal, while still allowing consumption of all other liquors.
In reality, instead, the government didn’t make Jack Daniels illegal at all, but instead made drunk driving illegal.
Also, I am not sure how your argument about the scale or collectiveness of security threats makes any sense. You can swap “drunk driving” in your argument with literally any other crime (like “murder”), and it would make the same (little) amount of sense.
> the government would make Jack Daniels (picked a random liquor brand, nothing against JD specifically) illegal, while still allowing consumption of all other liquors
…alcohol is licensed and regulated. Jack Daniels can be sold in a way moonshine cannot.
There are general alcohol regulations, but there are no laws that regulate Jack Daniels (as a manufacturer) specifically. Which is kind of the point I was originally making with that analogy.
JD is regulated using the same laws that regulate Jim Beam or Suntory whiskey or any other alcohol manufacturer (without going into the details of how different types of alcohol are regulated, e.g., beer vs wine vs whatever else, because it is orthogonal to the point). There is no dedicated “JD cannot do xyz, but all other whiskey manufacturers can” regulation.