Why are the cigarette companies still in business?

StrongInTheArm · 07-03-2008, 12:08 PM

Smoking kills, right!?!

So why have cigarette companies been allowed to continue to trade?

The number of smokers in the developed world may be dropping but they are increasing in third world countries; among those least able to afford it at that. Why do you think that is?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the right to choose and taking responsibility for one's self. But isn't allowing these companies to trade tantamount to endorsing murder. If Western governments want to set the right example why not ban these companies from manufacturing cigarettes?

Please someone get these stupid ideas out of my head!

pgzn · 07-03-2008, 12:46 PM

It's easy, as soon as you start to contemplate what to ban next, just say no.

The desire to ban things for other people is a mental illness IMO. Most often found in Marxist ideals.

Natural Elements · 07-03-2008, 12:56 PM

Why not banning people that pollute with big SUV?
Why not banning Pick-ups on freeway because of flying objects may get you an accident?
Why not banning fastfood restaurants because of unhealthy food?

I hate the word banning, we have the privilege to live in democratic countries and I love my FREEDOM !

Jacob34 · 07-03-2008, 01:09 PM

If you look at it from my way, If you ban smoking for killing people then you would need to ban Cars/Trucks Etc. Because they kill more then smoking ever will. Its all about if you wanna take the risk.

You have a chance of dieing everyday from anything. Smoking is just one of the things that may kill you. Unless we ban (Life its self) and live in a bubble then we may die

wicca · 07-03-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob34

If you look at it from my way, If you ban smoking for killing people then you would need to ban Cars/Trucks Etc. Because they kill more then smoking ever will. Its all about if you wanna take the risk.

You have a chance of dieing everyday from anything. Smoking is just one of the things that may kill you. Unless we ban (Life its self) and live in a bubble then we may die

maybe these are the reason why those companies is still in business.

**G10** · 07-03-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Smoking kills, right!?!

So why have cigarette companies been allowed to continue to trade?

The number of smokers in the developed world may be dropping but they are increasing in third world countries; among those least able to afford it at that. Why do you think that is?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the right to choose and taking responsibility for one's self. But isn't allowing these companies to trade tantamount to endorsing murder. If Western governments want to set the right example why not ban these companies from manufacturing cigarettes?

Please someone get these stupid ideas out of my head!

SITA dude, it gets worse than that.

Countries like ours is heavily involved in selling them to third world countries and promoting it...

I guess if everyone in the UK stopped smoking, the government would pull taxes from elsewhere.... Though that said, my guess is that there is more spent on trying to treat people with smoking relating diseases in hospital.

Bob Barr · 07-03-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Smoking kills, right!?!

So why have cigarette companies been allowed to continue to trade?

The number of smokers in the developed world may be dropping but they are increasing in third world countries; among those least able to afford it at that. Why do you think that is?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the right to choose and taking responsibility for one's self. But isn't allowing these companies to trade tantamount to endorsing murder. If Western governments want to set the right example why not ban these companies from manufacturing cigarettes?

Please someone get these stupid ideas out of my head!

Just look at how successful alcohol prohibition was from 1920 to 1933. Do you really expect that a tobacco prohibition would be any more successful? Organized crime made many millions of dollars on a product that was presumably "banned".

thegamerslink · 07-03-2008, 02:22 PM

That just sounds wrong from the get go. I mean "illegal to have Trans Fat in food" "Illegal to smoke" "Illegal to drink beer" "Illegal to eat desert" Illegal to drive because walking or riding a bike is better for you" "You're 68 years old you should expect back problems, breathing problems, heart problems so we're not going to treat you at the moment. It's just part of age."

I mean that just opens up a flood gate of the most absurd and scary things imaginable.....even to the point, this television show is not allowed to be broadcast because we don't think it's something you should see." Give one and the rest will follow for sure....

corneo · 07-03-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Smoking kills, right!?!

Nope it doesn't. If it did, we would have never made it out of the caveman days. (think about it) fire pits, smoke, being close to stay warm. If you read the surgeon General warning it says "MAY cause cancer" Then again it MAY not. Latest report: cancer is a gene pass from generation to generation, you my have it you may not.

Quote:

So why have cigarette companies been allowed to continue to trade?

Simple economics. The government tax the hell out of a pack of cigs. Stop smoking then they have to tax something else. Like: food. Everybody eats, great way to have income.

Third world countries smoking. I think it's great. These countries can't feed their own people now. Kill them off. Don't sit there and think I'm mean. This type of tacit has been around since the Roman days. If the King of one country had problems with his people and the King of another did too. They got together and came up with a B.S. reason to fight and kill people. Look at history, it happen all the time. France, Spain and the UK are famous for doing this. Can't feed the people, have a war. Kill them off and feed the survivors.

Do you want to live forever? It sucks here. Google beats us down, the government taxes the hell out of us and you think this is great? LOL

**G10** · 07-03-2008, 04:04 PM

I actually agree with most you say except this as government statistics show that there is more money in the pot if folk didn't end up being treated by smoking related diseases than there is if we all smoked and paid the tax on a pack and this is in the UK where the tax on a pack is beyond stupid..

They have realised this and is why they offer free NHS service towards helping folk stop..

Quote:

Originally Posted by corneo

Simple economics. The government tax the hell out of a pack of cigs. Stop smoking then they have to tax something else. Like: food. Everybody eats, great way to have income.

thegamerslink · 07-03-2008, 04:43 PM

The system in force here in the states is Medicare for the elderly or disabled. It's a system that you pay into the entire time that you work. So in my opinion, even though it may be a system like insurance companies who's goal is to pay as little as possible in order to either 1 make a profit or 2 not lose money, as medicare isn't suppose to be in business to make money. At any rate, I paid into the system so for them to turn around and try to tell me what I can or cannot do I don't agree with, especially since I was forced to pay into the system to begin with.

Now, on the other hand, if they want to educate me, or help me see the error of my ways I have no problem with that, the dictating to me is a problem. And medicare, or the state funded low income medicaid system, neither help with stopping smoking, or do they at this point although that is starting to change encourage preventive medicine.

That's why I have such a problem when folks say Trans Fat, or Smoking, or the like has to be banned because it costs them the taxpayer so much, 1, I also am/was one of those tax payers, and 2 I also pay into the medicare system that pays the medical expenses if I get sick after a certain age or if I become disabled. And seeing as that is a system you are forced to pay into they don't have the right to dictate. In my humble opinion...

**G10** · 07-03-2008, 04:49 PM

^ I agree dude, you pay into it and nobody should be able to dictate as once we go down that road.....

* Saying that though, I would advise staying away from trans-fats as those buggers will just fur your arteries and clog you..

pgzn · 07-03-2008, 11:08 PM

Cost to treat smoking related disease shouldn't be a factor. But as soon as the country converts to the pure Marxism that 60% of the US wants it to be, it will be a factor. Then the government will feel it has the right to dictate what you can and can't do because society is footing the bill for the consequences. Society will be more important than the individual, and what it all comes down to is either you believe the individual is more important, or society is more important.

I'll quote someone else who hit the nail on the head:

Quote:

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Ban universal health care instead of smoking. I'd rather not be robbed at gunpoint to pay for someone elses heath care than rob anyone of the right to do as they please to themself.

homebizseo · 07-03-2008, 11:22 PM

WHy not. People do alot of things that are bad for them. Just look at Britney Spears.

StrongInTheArm · 07-04-2008, 01:59 AM

This freedom argument bothers me! Sure I agree everybody is free to smoke themselves to death if they want to. (There is the passive smoking angle to this but we'll ignore that for now). The question in my mind is should somebody or some company be allowed to manufacture the method of suicide and profit from its sale?

Think of this way; there are a lot of people in the world wanting to kill themselves, what if I invented a machine that would do it for them. All they do is step into my little chamber and painlessly, quickly and efficiently they are dispatched. Of course they have to pay for the privilege, nothing in life is free after all!

Would you condone my freedom to make my little Death Chamber? Would you be comfortable with my machine's existence?

If the answer is no, then what is the difference between my Death Chamber and cigarettes, apart from my machine being more efficient?

jabo · 07-04-2008, 02:21 AM

dude we already have those sort of death chambers such as guns... and if you can't afford it, you can end your life another way... People aren't stupid to know whats good or bad for them, they wanted it so suffer the consequences... and by closing this cigarrete companies, do you actually know how many people you are going to starve? people who grow grass, people who works for cigarrete factories..

I know I wouldn't be comfortable with your machine's existence but so is other people with smokers. The common factor between the death chamber and the cigarettes is that some people want them, and some people don't.

kimsonsolutions · 07-04-2008, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

This freedom argument bothers me! Sure I agree everybody is free to smoke themselves to death if they want to. (There is the passive smoking angle to this but we'll ignore that for now). The question in my mind is should somebody or some company be allowed to manufacture the method of suicide and profit from its sale?

Think of this way; there are a lot of people in the world wanting to kill themselves, what if I invented a machine that would do it for them. All they do is step into my little chamber and painlessly, quickly and efficiently they are dispatched. Of course they have to pay for the privilege, nothing in life is free after all!

Would you condone my freedom to make my little Death Chamber? Would you be comfortable with my machine's existence?

If the answer is no, then what is the difference between my Death Chamber and cigarettes, apart from my machine being more efficient?

the difference is that when you smoke , you don't INTEND TO die , its'a long term side effect that smokers try to forget

thegamerslink · 07-04-2008, 07:47 AM

Actually that comparison is not any where close to fair. I mean please, a machine like on Star Trek that you walk into and disappear versus smoking cigarettes. I've smoked since I was 14. I quit for 2 years, and just recently started smoking cigars, why? I have no clue but I did and it's my right to do so. Do I smoke them like I did my cigarettes? Not even close. At any rate no one is holding a gun up to my head saying "SMOKE" just as 24 years of steady smoking haven't caused any major permanent medical conditions. I used to get bronchitis on occasion and once I stopped so did the bronchitis so that is saying something but it didn't kill me. Didn't help me but didn't kill me :-) As for cancer, it's more likely for people smoking to get it, I mean yeah it's a gene you either have or you don't but a great many people have it so it's like playing russian roullete if you don't know whether you do or not. But the companies don't hold a gun to your head and make you do it, they provide something, and even if the candy coat it in commercials, it's offset with a warning label and all kinds of t.v. ads and literature talking about the dangers of it....one must be allowed free choice whether the choices he/she makes are in their better interest or not.

StrongInTheArm · 07-04-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimsonsolutions

the difference is that when you smoke , you don't INTEND TO die , its'a long term side effect that smokers try to forget

So they know it may kill them in one way or another but the craving is so strong that they can't put good sense above the addiction, is that what you are saying?

BTW a number of you are still getting this discussion arse over tit! I have nothing against people having the freedom to smoke or not. What the thread asked was, is it OK for cigarette manufacturers to profiteer from making and selling a substance that kills so many each year?

Many of you seem to have gone off on 'freedom of the individual'. Well do companies have the same level of freedom? And what about responsibility, where does that come in? Does responsibility not go hand in hand with freedom?

StrongInTheArm · 07-04-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G10

SITA dude, it gets worse than that.

Countries like ours is heavily involved in selling them to third world countries and promoting it...

I am only too aware that British companies do not have clean hands in this. I guess in a strange way I'm asking whether we the public should hold these companies via the government to a higher standard.