No, but they do tacitly agree that the economic exchange of currency in exchange for a liquid which will cause a changed chemical state in the imbiber and may (due to various factors and differing chances per person) lead to poor decisions, health issues, and addiction in said imbiber is a completely OK system.

Those who refuse to sell and/or consume alcohol don't believe it's an OK system.

Therefore, actions indicate belief and agreement of a system, in this case exchange of money for alcohol. Or, tacit agreement with the system.

> Those who refuse to sell and/or consume alcohol don't believe it's an OK system.

And? That is their belief. Which is fine. There is a middle ground of accepting that some people can live their whole lives having no problem with it while other people can't.

> Therefore, actions indicate belief and agreement of a system, in this case exchange of money for alcohol. Or, tacit agreement with the system.

No they don't because you are stretching the definition to the point where it doesn't really make sense.

The proper meaning of a tacit agreement is something like "They put a playstation in the break room, but everyone knows they shouldn't be seen playing it when the boss is in the office".

Not this "By not taking action against a system you are agreeing with the existing system". This is completely ridiculous because using your logic you can always define being almost completely passive as support for whatever you aren't acting against.

It is a ridiculous usage of the term. I shouldn't be surprised tbh as you completely engage in newspeak. I won't be replying to you again as you are quite clearly dishonest.