and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?
and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?
You first have to ask yourself this question:and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?
well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.
well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.
could America survive without the revenue from tobacco?
well, i guess everyone gets to point and laugh at me today. LOL.
drinking, is ok in moderation.... im not against someone having a beer or whatever. but if the person beside me drinks, do i get drunk? no. if the person beside me lights up a cigarette i could still get cancer. the tobacco industry makes billions of dollars, or more, and it has no benefit. all it causes is death. but i guess, as according to the constitution, everyone has the freedom to make the choice.
In principle, banning smoking would be a good thing. Not only do both first hand and second hand smoking cause a variety of health problems, but the costs of treating both these health causes and the addictive qualities of smoking are high.
In practice, banning smoking would be a terrible thing. Firstly, it eliminates personal responsibility, and can lead to the dictatorial decisions to ban other things that could be considered dangerous. Secondly, the economic costs would be high. It would mean every store that sells any type of tobacco would need to eliminate this product from their inventory, every tobacco farm would be closed, and all tobacco companies would be forced out of business. I may hate smoking, but to me, the economic costs seem to high. Very similar to the possible banning of alcohol.
If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?
If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?
That's the broken window fallacy. The money would simply be spent on something else. Cigarettes don't cause economic activity, just different economic activity.
Nothin' sells like cigs bud.
You're right, but if there weren't cigarettes on the market people would have money to spend on other things. banning cigarettes wouldn't stop economic activity, it would cause different economic activity.
and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?
If you care at all about preserving liberty and freedom in this country, the onus is on your side to provide the why, not for us to provide the why not.and why not?food is addictive as well, and certainly can cause cancer if it has certain additives, sex is addictive, and certain viruses have been linked to cancer as well as lethal diseases, should we ban those as well?if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualitieshold it there bud, certain studies have shown that tobacco, coffee, and alcohol consumers tend to have lower incidences of parkinsons and alzheimers disease, both of which are much worse than dying.and no useful or helpful properties,They are legal because this is America, banning them would be exactly the opposite of what this country stands for, what the founding fathers intended, AND what many generations have bled for to protect, that is why.why are they still legal? why not just ban them?
If people are getting enough secondhand smoke in their system to die from it, and tobacco is one of the most addictive substances on the planet, then; Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?
Why is no one addicted to second hand smoke?
and why not? if they are known to be addictive, with cancer causing qualities and no useful or helpful properties, why are they still legal? why not just ban them?
True, there is a lot of junk science there.Because the myth of second hand smoke has is filled with even more junk science than the myth of man made global warming.