People who do not want tobacco to be banned use the excuse that it would deny their basic right to freedom of choice. Yet Tobacco is far more lethal than drugs like heroin and cocaine—tobacco is guaranteed to kill you—and it is legal, so why should the other drugs be banned?
I smell the profit motive in the answer to this question.
2006-11-01 05:41:53 · 8 answers · asked by The Gadfly 5 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Yes, tobacco is more lethal than heroin. Heroin does not cause lung cancer and emphysema, and it does not harm others with second-hand smoke. Herion addicts occasionally die of overdose, yes, but not that many or catch HIV from shared needles.
What do you think is the proportion of teenage tobacco addicts to teenage herion addicts? I don't know, but probably in the range of 1000:1
2006-11-01 06:08:01 · update #1
"I" don't want to ban anything. I just want to point out what an *** the law is. There's nothing wrong with getting high or feeling good. There needs to be a sense of proportion about these things.
2006-11-01 06:11:56 · update #2
tobacco is more addictive than heroin, that is true. The difference is that it kills more slowly and has been commercialized with alot of heavy financial backing.
Profit is definetly a motivator.
2006-11-01 10:28:13 · answer #1 · answered by prettytiger23 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think its probably because unlike heroin and cocain when you smoke a cigarette, it does not incapacitate you. You can still walk, talk, think, and function normally afterwards. When you smoke marijuana, inhale cocaine, "shoot up" heroin, or do any other illegal drug, it is mainly to get you high. Cigarettes dont do get you "high". The same should be asked about alcohol. If tobacco should be illegal, then why not alcohol? Alcohol is also guaranteed to kill you if you drink it to often (liver failure...etc), which is the same for cigarettes. Alcohol also makes you not function correctly, which, like illegal drugs, can lead to the DUI/DWI stuff. You also have to ask how many people have been in a serious or fatal accident because they smoked a cigarette and how many were in a serious or fatal accident because they drank or did drugs. (And by accident I mean vehicular or not) Cigarettes are NOT the only cause of cancer and second hand smoke, if you want to ban cigarettes for these then why not ban all factory work, vehicles, and out door grilling because they too put out deadly gases and smoke which can cause people to get sick...?
2006-11-01 06:01:45 · answer #2 · answered by babyber514 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Alcohol is the thing that needs to be banned, I never smoked a cigarette and went out and cause a wreck, turned violent or did things I cannot remember.
Although I agree cigarettes are not good and very addictive, I started smoking very young with know clue of what I was doing. I have tried to stop many times and I will stop, it is just a matter of when.
2006-11-01 05:54:14 · answer #3 · answered by dancinintherain 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Tobacco is far more lethal than heroin??? By that rationale, so are Twinkies, so is driving your car, etc.
2006-11-01 05:50:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because professional politicians provide the best government that graft and greed can purchase.
We desperately need term limits.
2006-11-01 10:46:22 · answer #5 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because not all lethal, addictive drugs are equal.
2006-11-01 05:49:24 · answer #6 · answered by Sarah 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think of them as lethal
2006-11-02 00:20:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
because you want a cigarette you dont have to have one!! your not going too knock over a bank or liquor store to buy a pack of cigs use your common sense god gave you!!
2006-11-01 05:51:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋