Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
So, you don't have a problem with the fact that government programs outside of the medical issues related to smoking and smoking related settlements are dependent on the financial well being of companies like Phillip Morris? Seems like anyone with an interest in the government spending supported by tobacco above the costs to government of tobacco has an interest in tobacco and perhaps share a few common goals. I guess that is another one of those "compromises" one has to make, right?
|
ace...in an ideal world, I would say ban tobacco products and fuck the producers.
But we dont live in that world. It is unrealistic to ban cigarettes....too many people are dependent or addicted and it would only create a bootleg or underground market, producing products of dubious quality (think grain alcohol in the days of prohibition) and the loss of significant tax revenue. So, as long as we, as a society, are stuck with cigarettes, I dont have a problem with a dependency on the financial well-being of the current producers
I simply want to see regulations that hold cigarette makers more accountable for the quality of their product, (including the nicotine content), honesty in marketing (ie no more bullshit that "light" cigarettes are less harmful) and greater reporting of their internal (non-competitive trade secrets) medical studies that they withheld or lied about for years.
I'm done with this one.