English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Smoking and Drinking is just as bad, teens and adults both get in many drunk accidents a day more than smokers or second hand smokers it seems. Why is it that cig. companies have to pay more? Well...maybe because they lied about their product? Or is it that America just jumps from blames to blames, cigs than mcdonalds...

2007-01-26 09:43:09 · 6 answers · asked by firehatsizzle 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

6 answers

Alcohol is not far down the list of future bans.
Fats, fast foods, internal combustion engines, skydiving, trick or treating, campfires, weiners, dairy products, nuts like peanuts, guns, pork, red meat, ... there's many things that kill, injure or lead up to people getting hurt or killed.
As soon as the government bans all 'harmful' items, we'll all live forever. :)

Seriously, It's the new nationality: professional victim combined with overtly unsympathetic overlord. Too many Americans are willing to order others at the point of a gun to conform to their demands.

2007-01-26 10:06:44 · answer #1 · answered by Phil #3 5 · 0 0

firstly alcohol will not cause you harm in moderate doses, and is produced naturally in the body. The carciogens in cigarettes however, are not natural and harmful.

Secondly, in economics this phenomenon is called collective action. The market situation for tobacco companies is that a few companies dominate the world market and hence have strong lobby groups to prevent legislation to ban tobacco. They are better organised than the alcohol producing companies which are generally small and regional (think all the wineries). They are not as well organised to form a powerful lobby group.

Lastly, although i do not have any igures i guess the costs to society caused by smoking is small if u split it out on all individuals in the country. It might be the case that the stamp money used to write a protest letter to your local congressman costs more than what u pay in tax to contribute to healthcare forthe smoking people. Hence the argument to ban tobacco is a purley moral one, and not economic. If it is not economic, its likley to be harder to push through.

2007-01-26 10:15:14 · answer #2 · answered by Link 2 · 0 1

Because you can moderately drink alcohol without getting drunk or having the negative long term and short term side effects.

Smoking on the other hand, can't be moderately smoked. With alcohol, you can easily drink smaller amounts everyday for the rest of your life. You can't do that with cigarettes.

I do see your point though.

2007-01-26 09:59:38 · answer #3 · answered by LaissezFaire 6 · 0 1

You got it. It's a popularity contest. And cigarettes. are that the top right now.

2007-01-26 09:52:13 · answer #4 · answered by Josher 3 · 1 0

i agree what about the drunk drivers they kill thousands every year!! what is the difference

2007-01-26 09:52:22 · answer #5 · answered by BlessedMommyof3.. 5 · 1 0

"Why not alcohol?"

I agree; that's been my motto for years.

2007-01-26 09:48:44 · answer #6 · answered by halfshaft 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers