cigarettes. Unhealthy for you and those around you, completely nonessential.
Is gas essential? For me yes, I live in rural Ohio and the nearest store is a 15 min drive. Could I live in the city and take the bus or train? Sure but who would milk those stupid cows? You don't want that stink next to your coffee shop!
2007-05-03 07:33:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by hazydaze 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
A gallon of gas we Need
A pack of cigarettes we Want
Our needs should come before our wants, therefore the cigarettes should cost more.
2007-05-03 14:36:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Silhouette 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Cigarettes
2007-05-03 14:41:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by divinity2408 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
That's actually a really good question with definite religious overtones.
I say gasoline - because the consequences of gasoline are much more profound then cigarettes. Cigarettes are a public nuisance to some people. They also cause sickness and disease - indeed, in terms of the cost of health care services, they are a multibillion dollar drain upon the health and welfare services of modern nations.
But the cost of gasoline is much greater. (Speaking as an American and as a Westerner) In order to feed our gasoline habit, we must do business with nations whose leaders fail to provide basic human rights for many citizens. The environmental toll of gasoline use is as yet ill-defined, but we have good reason to suspect that the combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels may lead to global warming, glacial and polar melting, the worldwide rise in sea levels, the intensification of tropical cyclones, etc.
Of the two, to me the greater evil is gasoline - perhaps because we don't acknowledge its consequences as readily as we do with cigarettes. It should cost more.
And after all, Jesus might have been a smoker - but he definitely didn't drive a Harley.
2007-05-03 14:58:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by jimbob 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
A gallon of gas can cost upwards of three dollars. A pack of cigarettes can cost upwards of five dollars. I think we should go to war with Salem, and see if we could lower the prices of cigarettes.
2007-05-03 14:33:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Patrick S 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ethically, which should cost more?? Or, are you actually asking which one should cost more??
In a market driven by consumer demand, there are far more drivers than smokers - so gas should cost more.
Ethically, cigarettes cause much more health issues, and thus should cost more. Although, this discounts the possiblity that cancer can be caused from breathing exhaust fumes while sitting in Bay Area Traffic.
2007-05-03 14:34:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I smoke, (I know it's a bad habit) I'd love it if they were both cheaper, but on the side of logic, I'll have to go with cigarettes needing to cost more. Everyone in this world needs to buy gas. smoking is a choice. Gas needs to be cheaper.
2007-05-03 14:37:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Cresha B 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
A gallon of gas and a pack of cigarettes should both be the same price, $10.00
Guns and chocolate cake should be free.
Bullets should be $1 million each.
Heroin, cocaine and meth should all be legal, but cost $20,000 a hit.
Marijauna and LSD should also be legal, but be only $1 each, same with bottles of beer or shots of whiskey.
And everyone should be required to be proficient in at least one musical instrument.
2007-05-03 14:34:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
A pack of cigarettes of course. I think that if the government raised the prices, those spineless addicts might actually have to start quitting. The increased cost of the cigarettes could cover some of the cost of gasoline. So, to answer your question, I think if the cost of cigarettes was higher the price of gas could be made lower because I think that smokers would be too weak to stop buying them.
2007-05-03 14:32:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by Obi-wan Kenobi 4
·
4⤊
3⤋
a pack of cigarettes does cost more than a gallon of gas.
cigarettes: $4.25
gallon of gas: $3.99
2007-05-03 14:35:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Me 6
·
1⤊
1⤋