Most likely because cigarettes don't serve a positive purpose and harm not just the user, but those around the user.
Yes, cars can kill. However, if used correctly, they serve a purpose - they get you from point A to point B and it is not physically addictive.
Yes, red meat can kill - But, if used in moderation, it provides nutrition and it is not physically addictive..
Yes, food can kill - but if used in moderation, it's what makes us survive.
Yes, alcohol can kill - but if used in moderation, it's pleasureable and only directly hurts the one consuming the alcohol. For some, it can be addictive.
Yes, the sun can kill - but if exposed in in moderation, there is no risk but rather the benefits of Vitamin D and it is not physically addictive.
Cigarettes and Guns are the only 2 legal items that if used correctly kill. But, cigarettes, unlike guns, are physically addictive. Nicotine is much more addictive than alcohol. And, cigarette smoke impacts those who are not consuming the cigarette (unlike cocaine or alcohol, which only impact the user).
All said and done, you are right that we shouldn't just be bashing cigarettes. There are other deadly products whose health consquences are ignored, and money does have a lot to do with it. That is why cigarettes weren't bashed until the 80's. The tobacco industry and the government knew about the consequences of cigarette smoke, but once it became such common knowledge, money could no longer buy silence. This, I am sure, is not yet true for some pharmeceuticals that are likely deadly and addicting. Yes, money does buy FDA silence.
But, cigarettes are not viewed to have any positive social purpose anymore... so, they are the scapegoat to keep the public attention away from all the other things that likely kill, such as fuel emissions from vehicles (the automotive lobby is as powerful as the tobacco lobby once was), negative environmental impacts of the meat industry (cow poop - with all the methand gases that it produces - is helping destroy the enviroment), etc.
2006-07-11 05:44:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by ★ Estelle ★ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
you go guy/girl! you're right on the money. i'd like to know why anything isn't done about over-drinking alcohol or beer? why aren't booze & beer commercials banned since they cause sickness, bot bellies, dui/dwi charges, misshapen bodies (from over usage)? too much beef or red meat products can cause blockage in the large & small intestines & can cause intestinal cancer . why hasn't that been made public in a wide forum? well, that and all other questions on this nature can be summed up in one word - MONEY. too much is generated by commercials & washington lobby interest groups. tobacco industry is the target group of the last 15 years. that & the insurance companies are tired of forking out all that big $$$ for medical treatment. if any of the hospital & doctor money can be traced to food, tea, beer, alcohol, et cetera, you can bet your sweet bippy that washington & insurance lobby groups would be all over them like white on rice. also by suing tobacco companies, states & insurance companies can re-coup their losses, see? keep in mind that for years, the smokers of the country & world held sway over where & when to smoke & we weren't always careful or considerate. well, the pendulum has swung the other direction and now the smokers & tobacco industry are suffering. but all's not lost! you want to smoke? find over-the-countr smokes too high? you can get your butts & help a worthy cause at the same time: buy native american tobacco products (online & across america). if your state forbids the mailing of smokes to your area, you can get around that if you think about it & it's legal. hold tight! live long enough & you too will see another industry attacked by the johnny-do-gooders. why only 76 years ago, we in america had the volsted(sp?) act of 1930 where all sale & use of alcohol -aka 'prohibition'-was considered illegal. that was a roaring success (NOT!). look what that did to america. more people drank when it was illegal than when it was not and the rise of gansters & crime/murder. governments don't always use the brains given but then it wouldn't be government, would it?
2006-07-09 23:45:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by blackjack432001 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tobacco supported Dole instead of the Clintons. Alcohol, on the other hand, which costs the American taxpayer 10 times what smoking does, backed Mr and Mrs "BJ". Everyone kind of jumped on the band wagon without really giving much thought to what is the greater public health hazard.
2006-07-09 23:29:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I totally agree with you. They are always picking on cigarettes but nothing else. If they are so worried about cigs then look at alcohol. There are more problems with that than cigs.
Dui,DWi, under age drinking ,liver damage,memory loss, and taking advantage of people when they are drunk.
If they can do National Smoke outs why don't they do National alcohol drink out and no drinking within 15 feet of business's.
Why don't people think of this instead of bashing cigs!!!
2006-07-10 00:41:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by nasusnna20032000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is because they need a scapegoat to blame everything on personally I think alcohol is worse after seeing my dad drink himself to death. I wish they put warnings on booze labels like "can cause impotence" or "causes cirrhosis of the liver" or "can cause violent behavior" or "can cause brain damage" or "can cause you to seriously scar your family emotionally". I personally also think that they are blaming all cancer on cigarrettes to take attention off of the pollution that industries are pumping into the air that we cant even get away from at least if someone smokes you dont have to stay around them if you dont want to and they are only hurting themselves on the other hand you cant escape the toxic pollution being pumped into the air all over the world.
2006-07-09 23:37:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kelly + Eternal Universal Energy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tobacco companies have deep pockets and are an easy industry to bash because of their bad reputation.
2006-07-09 23:29:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by hpisfun 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can talk about tobacco, because I use to smoke 2 packs a day and was MILITANT anti-nonsmoking fool. I say fool because I was wrong. A fool. I now have emphasema, a fatal lung disease. Caused by my smoking. I am now going to die. I reap what I have sown. I have nothing to blame but my own stupidity Pray for me, please.
2006-07-09 23:45:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by hillbilly 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because people bash anything that gives you a high. Thats why there are antidrug campaigns. You only live once have fun while your doing it!!!
2006-07-09 23:40:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by jenny_sweet_pea 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
You will bash smokes too once you quit !
2006-07-09 23:32:26
·
answer #9
·
answered by bconehead 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
ok i can i go home now
2006-07-09 23:27:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋