Why doesn't the gov. spend money to make cigarettes safe rather than all the no smoking adds??

Question

Nicotine gum is supposedly safe. So why cant money be spent to create a cig with no carcinogens.

So its the burning that causes the carcinigens?? So then any thing that burns causes cancer?? Most of the technology we use today was once thought to be impossible. Most of you have not understood the question. The reason the no smoking adds are produces by the tobacco companies are because of the lawsuits by the smoking nazies. If the insects that plague the tobacco farms are resistant to the "poisions" in tobacco then why dont we study the resistance and come up with a pill.

Answer 1

There is no such thing as a safe cigarette.
Tobacco itself has the carcinogens - no matter whether it is labeled "organic" or "natural" or any other name they come up with to sell poison.

Advertisements are aimed at stopping people from smoking in the first place, or quitting. If we can just achieve that goal, why do we even need to work on (the impossible) "safe" cigarette?

Answer 2

Man, you haven't been paying attention, have you? Nicotine gum isn't safe! It's just better for you than smoking because it doesn't have tar and burning additives. Burning creates carcinogens. So how do you propose to make a cigarette that burns but is safe? Nicotine is a biological pesticide (only a couple of insects can stand tobacco) and it'll kill you at a not-very-high dose.

Dude, you need to pay more attention to the non-smoking ads! Read up on smoking--the TRUTH about tobacco. You're clueless!

Answer 3

It is impossible to create a cigarette with no carcinogins. First of all the carcinogens come from both the tobacco itself as well as the burning. Scientists know of ways to make burning cleaner, but there is no perfect burn (for example burning propane is much cleaner than burning wood but both produce pollutants). Secondly, the no smoking adds are, for the most part, produced by tobacco companies themselves. I don't know if there is some government initiative involved or not, but I haven't seen any government anti-smoking commercials.

Answer 4

The placebo sffect of the adds makes people sick.

40% of people who smoke are affected by the placebo effect or in this case the "anti" placebo effect.

also 40 % of non smokers are also made sicker from cigarette smoke because of the again "anti placebo" effect of negative advertizing.

This way only 20% are unaffected at all and there is profit in making 80% of the people sick.

To my knowledge the tobacco plant does not get cancer.

The tobacco plant grows roots and cannot escape from the carcinogens sprayed on it in the forms of insecticides, herbicides, pesticides, funguscides which may be required from farmers by legistlation and federal laws or to oblige financial criteria and the carcinogens accumulate in the soil combining with others breaking down and forming new ones.

The greatest threat to humans of cancer from this plant comes from it's ability to clean the air with its wide leaves while it breathes it filters and absorbs all of the carcinogens accumulating them from the automobile fumes from the highways that surround the fields and the jet fuel that rains down upon them from being close to airports and under the skies where jets fly.

Most of the carcinogens found in tobacco are the same as the ones found in the exhaust pipes . I smoke for medicinal purposes because i'm allergic to auto fumes and the tar and smoke from cigarettes prevents with a membrane coating made of similar components much of the carcinogens from entering the blood stream.

The oil company profits from sickness.
JD Rockerfeller sold "rock oil" as a cure for cancer at two dollars a bottle a huge profit for a couple of ounces when it only costs 2 dollars a barrel. He would be truely amazed that its made into pills these days or used in making others and can sell for more than 2 dollars a drop. The government even collects the money from the people for the oil company these days and say its for war, roads, and medicare. (the greatest consumers of oil)

Cigarettes are not as bad if they are used to keep the oil fumes out they can stop the fumes from penetrating the aveoli and entering the blood, if the tar gets too thick some medical cannabis may help as an expectorant. By drinking strong tea then smoking a fattie, then having a hot shower, the theophylin from the tea and the expectorant benefits of the cannabis will adhere to the tar membrane from the cigarettes which is similar to the carcinogens of the auto fumes and fuses with them preventing them from entering the blood will accumulate clump and be hacked out by a good cough in the steamy shower thereby making cigarettes a treatment a medical prevention to the cancerous and inescapeable breathing of burned fossil fuels.

If you think about it oil is really the essence of past life.

Oil is our ancestors, we should get royalties for letting them sell our ancestors to burn and disintegrate our ancestors essence to cause cancer and mutate future generations.

We will all be oil one day perhaps used to enslave our future generations as it is today. Where does the oil company get off on blaming the plant that has found a way to live in the carcinogenic environment itself without getting cancer itself? The plant only collects the carcinogens by cleaning its environment. mostly by breathing the air and accumulating the carcinogens as it cleans them out of the air.

Answer 5

Nicotine gum isn't safe, it's just less deadly. And besides, you're assuming the government has something to *gain* by spending money to keep people smoking.

Oh, wait....

Answer 6

Why should the gov spend money on making ciggaretes better. They should make them illegal . Plus there are many other ingredients in the ciggaretes that are bad for you.

Answer 7

Good question. Ever think maybe they want to kill some of us off?

Answer 8

I don’t want to pay for it....And you're asking me to when you ask the "Government" to pay for anything.

So please, stop expecting the government to wipe every ones asses.