2006-07-07 04:45:08 · 7 answers · asked by PØstapØc 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes
Something like 20% of the ppl who suffer from lung cancer have never smoked cigarettes and were inflicted by the disease due to air pollution; so, I'm sure getting rid of gasoline operated automobiles would lower air pollution = lower the rate of lung cancer.
But, we know that is not a feasible idea. I'd suggest our society begin moving to other forms of transportation.... hybrids, etc...
2006-07-07 05:25:42 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Are cigarettes and automobiles both equally usefull? Do the benefits of smoking to the smoker really weigh against the harms to the smoker and others the way the benefits of car ownership weigh against its harms? Does smoking have ANY benefit to the nonsmoker? Do cars have the same lack of benefits to non-drivers?
Your analogy is faulty and deserves no further attention.
2006-07-07 04:52:26 · answer #2 · answered by Loss Leader 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well considering how the economy would go to hell, unemployment, no farmers could work their field, no truckers could get the goods to market, most couldn't get to market to buy the goods anyway. Nah.....the stress would cause heavier smoking so you'd be in the same boat. I say lets work on the Smoking issue and let me do my grocery shopping.
2006-07-07 04:52:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Cancer is when the cells go into overdrive on regenerating and get out of control.
2006-07-07 05:09:24 · answer #4 · answered by midnightdealer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps, but it would definitely cut down on people being able to get to work, school, and anywhere else they need to be.
2006-07-07 05:14:00 · answer #5 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doubt it...try to pass that and see how it works out! That will get a rise out of everybody!!
2006-07-07 04:48:03 · answer #6 · answered by rockinout 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!
2006-07-07 04:48:57 · answer #7 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋