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

It just dosn't add up. Alchohol obviously does more harm to others when abused than cigarettes do. Cigarettes do more harm to the user, with the exception of second hand smoke. Alcohol not only dammages the abuser, but also the people around them. I mean when alcohol is abused it ends with someone hurt, car accidents, mood swings, etcetera. the list is endless. The government must be really ignorant and corrupt not to relize this. I don't smoke or drink, but I can definately tell when laws should be made and against what they should be made. Honestly, If the government is this stupid, they might as well legalize pot, crack, and heroin as well.

2007-12-13 09:30:39 · 10 answers · asked by lamborghini518 3 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

10 answers

The alcohol companies have better lobbyists apparently. Plus, someone somewhere began suing cigarette companies, making it impossible for them to deny the health costs involved with smoking to the general public. Also, society decided to make smoking uncool as a general rule. I think the fact that nicotine yellows walls, teeth, clothes, fingernails, and smells bad helps too.

2007-12-13 09:40:04 · answer #1 · answered by relandlukesmom 3 · 1 0

In April 1970, congress handed the often used public wellbeing Cigarette Smoking Act. the often used public wellbeing Cigarette Smoking Act is a usa federal regulation designed to shrink the prepare of smoking. It required a larger wellbeing warning on cigarette applications, asserting "warning: The physician often used Has desperate that Cigarette Smoking Is risky on your wellbeing". The act additionally banned cigarette classified ads on American radio and tv. further acts handed in 2010 banned cigarette organization's from sponsoring donning activities. it extremely is why there replaced into not extra Winston Cup.

2016-10-11 05:42:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

in most states (USA) you can smoke at 18 but not drink until 21.This is absurd, given you can vote and be drafted at 18. Are they telling us that a soldier who can be sent overseas and put in harm's way, can have a pack of butts but would be ARRESTED right there in his foxhole if he drank a beer? How silly is that ???

2007-12-13 09:42:37 · answer #3 · answered by Mike 7 · 2 0

WELL BUSH IS DONE SO MAYBE THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL FIX THIS CUZ A LOT OF THINGS NEED TO BE FIXED BISH CORUPTED EVERYTHING AND SCREWED IT UP AND PUT US IN A WAR THAT WE NEVER WERE A POSE TO BE IN,PLUS 2 SOILDERS WERE DENIED THEIR COLLEGE FUNDS FROM THE WAR BECAUSE THEY SPOKE UP AND SAID THEY DONT LIKE IT SO BUSH HAD IT PROVOKED WHEN THEY WERE PROMISED THEIR FUND FOR EVEN GOING TO THE WAR HOW DIRTY IS THAT

2007-12-13 09:59:28 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1 0

The alcohol companies have better lobbyists

2007-12-13 09:35:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You have it fugured out. Maybe the Liquor Control Commission donates to someones campaigns.?

2007-12-13 09:34:42 · answer #6 · answered by PATRICIA MS 6 · 1 0

th government makes too much money to stop anyone producing cigarettes or alcohol

2007-12-13 09:34:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

there are still cigarette commercials. and many of them are Ads in magazines these days.

2007-12-13 09:35:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Yep.

2007-12-13 09:38:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Good question.

2007-12-13 09:34:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers