You look lost to me because you equate law and morality at a deep level.

Selling drugs vs. selling alcohol, this is beyond morality matter but a matter regulated by law, sorry.

There was no equation there actually. Let me unwrap it for you, probably this way it will be clear: first line was a satire of the parent comment along the line of depicting deadly but permitted matters; second line was the unpacking the satire higlighting that the fella hopelessly confused (now, this was more like the equation you sought) a socially permitted activity with an illegal one.

Look maybe I’m just stupid, but I still can’t tell what you’re trying to say. If you’re not saying what I think you’re saying, I apologize.

>Selling drugs vs. selling alcohol, this is beyond morality matter but a matter regulated by law, sorry.

There's nothing beyond morality. Laws are an application based on morality.

And as we know with the 18th and 21st amendments, even the law can have shakey morality based on more factors than "what is good for the populace". That's more or less why I'm against most drug laws. They were not made with "the good health of the people in mind", they were a scapegoat to oppress minorities. It's all publicly declassified, so no one can call me a conspirator anymore.

Nobody cares.

Also alcohol = drug = substance = molecule. IT all depends on how you morally frame it.

Law is based on a common consensus of morality (at least in theory) so they are, in fact deeply intertwined.

I don’t think that’s true. Maybe in its infancy law really looks like that, but as societies grow their law books get more complex and can very easily become separated from majority perception of morality. Does morality explain zoning laws, or is it more about the equilibrium point of a pluralist conflict, everyone looking out for their interests, etc.

Roughly. But always read between the lines and follow the money. We didn't selectively ban Tiktok because government finally woke up to the dangers of social media.

You understand that incarcerating liquor store owners was the absurdity part of the argument, yes?

Doctors can be arrested for malpractice. I sure do wish we could arrest some of these car makers for telling staff to skimp on details and taking "recalls" as a cost of doing business, but that's an issue for another time.

> unable to comprehend the concept of illegal activity.

There's illegal activity on popular forums all the time. How much should Facebook/X/Reddit be accountable for those?

Yeah, that also seems plausibly consistent with zanek's simplistic argument.