"I'm not in favour of banning alcohol, but I've also seen how easily minors acquire it".
So? That's an argument for enforcing current law, not implementing a complete ban.
When I said "I'm not in favor of this kind of law", I literally meant that. I'm not in favor of a complete ban: full stop. You're arguing as if I have the opposite position.
I'm saying the environmental costs are real. That doesn't mean that I therefore think that there should be a complete ban, simply that there are real costs that we need to be mindful of. Socioeconomic costs outweigh the environment here, IMO.
I think if you read my comments again with this in mind you'll find you're not actually disagreeing with my real position.
Imagine if you had written:
> I've seen shade-tree mechanics show a complete disregard for the environment, but I'm not in favor of this kind of law.
It seems like you think that's the same sentence as before but to me, and I suspect other readers, they say different things.