First let me say that the government was (believe it or not) the ones that brought drugs into this country. Also, there is ABSOLUTLEY no scientific proof that smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer or anything like that. The only reason the government is making the Tobacco Companies put Surgeon General's Warnings on the packs of cigarettes is because if they don't, the government can sue them and get millions maybe even billions of dollars off of the Tobacco Co.'s
The cigarette companies would not put that "hazardous lable" on their products unless they were forced to. It's not as though they are doing it just doing it "just to be nice". Some people think "Well they sell it so it can't be too bad". Afterall, why in their right mind would they even contemplate the possibility of someone SELLING packaged CANCER? Surely that would be illegal.
My point's just that. The government is responsible for the saftey of its citizens. Allowing usage of tobacco, and at such ease and availability, is just the same as watching people die and doing nothing to stop or correct it.
I don't want 2 offense you or anything but your last post was kind of... let's say unconventional. I've never heard this opinion anywhere and I think there's a (good) reason for that. I think tobacco should be totally illegal, but the government can't do that because the industry is too lucratic. Besides, people who are accro just can't stop. I agree with you on the point that people should be bright enough not to start smoking. But apparently (statistics show it clearly), they aren't. More and more young people start smoking, despite all the efforts put into dissuasion.
But letting tobacco companies advertise their products and specifically target young people because they are the future is the most disgusting thing ever. It seems so obvious to me! Young people are so easily influenced and letting them being pressured into starting to smoke would be a crime against humanity (and I mean it).
The government should not touch the tobacco industry. Everyone keeps claiming that tobacco products lead to death; and perhaps they do...but it isnt the goal tobacco company CEO's to purposely kill people but rather market a product.
First, my philosophy on this issue is: if people buy it, you can sell it (within the legal restraints of the system). Even though tobacco product usage may lead to disease, people still buy the product! No matter how big the surgeon's general warning is on the pack of cigarette's, people will still buy the product. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED AND REGULATED BECAUSE OF THE STUPIDITY OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
Secondly, do not claim that the industry uses strictly 'sex appeal' to "lure" new customers in to buy cigarettes. The companies also put that nice little note on all of their ads and cigarette packs that state the possibility of harmful effects from usage of their products.
Once again, the ignorance and stupidity of the general public (perhaps illiterate public) has gotten in the way of the business world.
If it were for me I would have made cigarrettes ilegal, why? because they dont help anyone, I just dont see why something that causes cancer and is bad for everyone has to be legal. Yes yes, i know that the only ppl that buy cigs, and use them do it with their own will, but when I see ppl of my family smoking theyre not only hurting themselves but theyre hurting everyone, not just because we inhale the smoke they choose to not inhale, but because when they increase their chances to get a disease we all get sad. I think tobacco companies should stop existing. Because when i visualize in my mind all the things that would help the world and people to be better and to increase their life level they're not in my list.
I have no respect for "big tobacco". They make their money off muredering and torturing people. (Especially Teens ) The goverment needs to close them down. Who cares about all the jobs that have the job discripition of "accesory to murder". I think everyone involved in this burtal torture and murders of innocents should be held crimanly responsible.
Tobbaco is not different from other drugs. The government has no right to regulate personal choice as far as whether or not YOU can use them, but they do. Government hypocrisy based on money and nothing else is embodied by the fact that alcohol and tobbaco, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths a year are legal and yet benign substances with zero deaths a year, such as marijuana are not.
My view on this is not that tobbaco should be illegalized, but that other drugs should be legalized, as your body belongs to you, and not a top-heavy, tax-mad, freedom grubbing reationary government.
you want to smoke? go ahead. You could die from it. Yeah, "could". "Could" means a lot in that sentence. I could smoke and have the chance of dying, but I value my life more than that. I don't want to risk my life on cigarettes, because thats just stupid.
"The 1st cigarette to significantly reduce carcinogens... The only cigarette to significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer."
too bad marine16 does not realize that if he educated himself about statistics, he would find no correlation between his current statements and the truth :P
smoking HAS been banned from certain areas- restaurants, malls, schools, hospitals. this has occurred because people get sick and die from cigarettes. now, we are at a crossroads as whether or not to allow smoking to continue--it's not black and white. you cannot simply go in and shut down a multibillion dollar industry overnight, as marine16 would have us believe. there must be steps put into place for a transition to occur.
so marine16, whether you like it or not, the antismoking revolution is happening. sure, people may smoke and do as they like, but i'll give you an interesting example from Winnepeg, MB:
a family physician has posted a sign on his door that reads: "If you refuse to quit smoking, find another doctor. If you want to quit smoking, I will help you as much as I can".
people are sick of an industry that is destructive and harmful. sure, smokers out there can have their fun now. however, when your arteries start to harden, your lungs start to decay, and your skin starts to look like sandpaper, you have no one to blame for yourself. so marine16- i doubt you smoke now- because really, you probably are a troll out for attention, why don't you go and buy yourself a package of cigarettes, then see what happens. you can then get your own 100% proof that smoking causes disease! be your own scientist!
as for those who claim that they live in households that smoke, but have no cancer, i'd like to know whether their relatives suffered from any other smoking related diseases: atherosclerosis, emphysema, hypertension etc.
i did not make up the number 99.5%. you do not understand statistics. as i correctly stated, a sizeable percentage of smokers will suffer from cancer. the number you put, 30%, is a rough approximation.
the issue in question is: are smokers more likely to suffer from lung cancer than non-smokers? the answer is yes: look at how much higher the percentage of lung cancer patients are smokers. the earliest studies of smoking looked at people born between 1910 and 1920 - of all these people that had lung cancer, 85% of them were smokers!* the likelihood that such an overwhelming majority was strictly due to chance is less than 0.05% (ask your math teacher about chi-squares and t-tests if you're interested in statistics). therefore, the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is >99.5%. it does not mean that 99.5% of smokers will get lung cancer.
lastly, show me where me statements lack sense or reason, don't just throw out blanket statements.
* - taken from Abeloff: Clinical Oncology, 2nd ed. which is considered one of the best medical references for oncology (cancer) information.
30% of smokers will probably get lung cancer. 70% of smaokers will probably not get lung cancer.
That is a correlation that backs my arguement. 999.5% is a number you made up. Ift he government was that sure, they would close them down. You arguement, KG, lacks sense and reason.
quote:It is sad that you liberals feel the need to attack Big Tobacco by making the radical assumption that tobacco kills.
i assume from your posts, marine16, that you like to troll around and post ridiculous statements like this on purpose. the link between smoking cigarettes and lung disease is only a correlation. however, seeing how it's a 99.5% correlation, it's enough for most of us to see as truth. what you're saying, then, is that 99.5% is not proof enough for you. fine. you're entitled to be extremist if you want to. just know that you are holding the radical assumption here, not the "liberals" that you are always complaining about (incidentally, do you believe in atoms, germs, dinosaurs, or the planet pluto? seeing how you've never seen them yourself, and there's only "correlative" proof of their existence, i'd imagine that the answer is no).
the word "may" in the statement "smoking may cause cancer" - this is your "proof" that smoking really doesn't cause cancer? did you spend all night working out this "proof"? i also love how you clamor about needing 100% proof; then when pressed you say that "1000 people, tops" have died from 2nd hand smoke. funny how all the actual studies and conducted research are now inferior to your ability to imagine numbers.
i love how you say that "if tobacco killed people then the government would shut it down," and then go on about how alcohol kills so many more people than tobacco. the hypocrisy in your "reasoning" is staggering.
lastly, your opinion on whether tobacco companies should be held accountable for people getting sick off of their product - this is actually a good point because you can actually make strong arguements for this both ways: are people or tobacco ultimately respobsible for smoking and thus lung disease? congratulations, you've stumbled across an opinion that actually enters the realm of rationality. of course then you follow it up with another hypocritical point about how america is a free country and people can choose what they want to do and that the government should back off -- while at the same time you write in the drug threads how the government has every right to regulate what goes into your body and how it is the goverment's responsibility to keep harmful things away from us. make up your mind about an issue before getting into a hissy-fit about it.
Sure, a couple million people might lose their jobs, but that's the way a capitalistic society progresses. Marine16, since you seem to be so anti-communist, let's talk about capitalism.
Tobacco companies currently milk billions and billions of dollars from people in a very sneaky, cold-hearted way. They get people addicted to their products using snazzy campaigns, so that they cannot help but continue to keep on buying their product. So this is my first beef with the tobacco companies: they are creating a non-natural need which people are helpless against once they are addicted.
You may argue that people have the responsibility to make their own decisions, or that they could easily quit if they really wanted to, but the truth is that the tobacco companies falsely create the NEED to smoke. It's not like chocolate or potato chips where it's a small indulgence--smoking becomes a NEED.
Secondly, your point about Tylenol, is irrelevant. Tobacco is not a pharmaceutical, therefore does not apply to the same rules as other drugs. Tobacco and alcohol fall under different categories because the government has realized it can make a HUGE profit from taxing on these two drugs. Think about how ****ed off sick people would be if they got taxed so heavily on medicines--it would be IMMORAL for the government to tax on life-saving medications. So WHY are you saying it is a good thing that the government profits from something that HARMS people?? It does not MAKE tobacco industries respectable JUST because they make money---they KILL.
So then you might ask, why is everyone getting all antsy about tobacco now--why not 20 years ago? It's because the government is now realizing how much MORE it has to pay in health care costs than it gets in tobacco revenue. So NOW the government is putting all this anti-smoking stuff (labels, ads) because they're realizing the tobacco industries aren't super great, even though they give a lot of cash, because they suck the govt's cash in healthcare.
Thirdly, now that people are more aware of the health risks, the government hopes that people will make the right decisions without having to close down such a big industry. Of course the government doesn't want millions of jobless people--but DOES THAT MEAN THEY SHOULD CONTINUE PRODUCING STUFF THAT CAUSES DISEASE AND DEATH? NO.
Here's the part about capitalism: in order to progress, people need to keep acquiring new skills. Did everyone cry when all the type-writter makers got fired? Did everyone make a big fuss when Atari employees got laid off? Sure, the industry is huge, but the point of capitalism is to PROGRESS. Get those employees to move to new industries--that DO NOT HARM people. Just like smokers had the choice to smoke, tobacco employees had the choice to work for a company that profits off of the blood of others. That's the part about capitalism most capitalists do not like to remember: with rights come responsibility. Just because you CAN make it, doesn't mean you should.
Tobacco harms. It is a FACT. Not only does it harm, but it kills--do not start with your "loopholes" about may or may not.Tobacco related deaths(ie.from diseases caused by tobacco kill eg. emphysema, cancer, atherosclerosis) are 400,000 in the States alone. Tobacco workers might lose their jobs temporarily, but they will find work again. TO progress, we must sacrifice.
NOTE: Tobacco companies saw this antismoking campaign coming. That is WHY PhillipMorris owns Kraft, and other diversifications. So hey--why don't those tobacco workers go and work for another arm of the company and make Kraft singles.
Close down the industry. Like you said Marine16- if it kills people, it should be shut down. There are no questions- smoking is the number one cause of preventable death- ask the American Medical Association. If we can prevent it, we should. Down with tobacco.
I grew up in a household of smokers...none of which ever developed lung cancer. My niece and 3 nephews also grew up in a house of smokers...only 1 nephew ever took up the habit of smoking. In this world there are things people do that other people don't agree with...smoking, suicide, sex, other drugs (herbal remedies), driving without seatbelts, guns...etc... All of which I would do if I felt that I needed to. I smoke, my decision, if you don't like it screw you, I'll do it even if they make it illegal,(remember Prohibition?). I also don't think it's right to force people to wear seatbelts, or revoke someones rights to bear arms. I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to commit suicide, their life, leave them alone. Legalize pot and other types of drugs that might have medicinal value. So, in conclusion...It is my right to suck on a would be cancer stick, not wear a seatbelt and carry a gun...
Woo hoo! I just read a great story. A judge ruled that a woman has to stop smoking or lose visitations with her son. He complains of the second hand smoke and a judge ruled that she is not to put him into any more danger from it. YES!
Topics 
) The goverment needs to close them 
down. Who cares about all the jobs that have the job discripition of "accesory to murder". I think everyone involved in this burtal torture and murders of innocents should be held crimanly responsible. 
