Good riddance tobacco!

If we can reduce or prevent the tobacco trade recruiting enough young teens every year to replace the ones who perish early due to their addiction, then the number of smokers will diminish.

selling an addictive product makes profitable sense as you create a dependent market, but if you keep killing your customers, it is essential to keep trapping new ones. the younger the better since this increases the chance of long-term addiction, and means they have a longer customer life before they die.

Profitable business sense, for the tobacco trade, is 100% unethical though.
 
Sponsored Links
So long as tobacco is commercially available then people will smoke it.

...and so will their children.

...and their peers.

If a company tried to introduce such a lethal disgusting drug into the commercial market place today, they would be hung.
 
JohnD said:
If we can reduce or prevent the tobacco trade recruiting enough young teens every year to replace the ones who perish early due to their addiction, then the number of smokers will diminish.

selling an addictive product makes profitable sense as you create a dependent market, but if you keep killing your customers, it is essential to keep trapping new ones. the younger the better since this increases the chance of long-term addiction, and means they have a longer customer life before they die.

Profitable business sense, for the tobacco trade, is 100% unethical though.
Click to expand...
A realistic analysis for certain. Which is why it is surely in these company's interests to extend the lives of its clientelle. Hence, it cannot be beyond the wit of mankind (well, those involved within the tobacco industry anyway) to create cigarettes which have negligible carcegonic and other health-detrimental facets and yet maintain the nicotine addiction essential to the selling of their products.
 
noseall said:
Why is it that when pro-smokers are presented with the economic and health impacts of their disgusting habit
Click to expand...

Your economics were ripped apart, not one person disputes the health affects.

they always, turn to alcohol and street drugs to counter their argument instead of addressing the issue.
Click to expand...

Not sure why turning to other "narcotics" is also a bad thing, given that they all have similar health, societal impacts and issues and side effects of enforcement.

And what is "the" issue?

There are several issues, and repercussions to actions, sorry if you all find that a bit complicated.

Oh, I'm sorry, should I be thinking of the Chiiildreeeen!!

Would that be these children http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/children-in-peril-the-gang-culture-turning-767468

Criminalisation creates gangs, gangs recruit kids, but banning tobacco is for their own good!

We don't want the next generation to smoke, neither do doctors or those with the wisdom to make fags history.
Click to expand...

We don't want people to take drugs either.

But they do, and criminalisation leaves trails of dead bodies and funds criminal gangs.


Not one single pro-smoker has presented a decent argument other than "stop telling us what to do or i'll throw me dummy out of the pram".

Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Here people we have an example of the average Anti-(insert item) person, uses bad statistics, ignores arguments, and throws around insults.

calorific said:
Maybe the secret is to make smoking safe :idea:
Click to expand...

Already done with E-cigs which essentially use vaporised nicotine.

But of course all the pharmaceutical companies are lobbying government to have them deemed unsafe and banned (unless sold by pharmaceutical companies as quitting aids).

Isn't corporatism great!
 
Sponsored Links
Micilin said:
From an economic point of view is it not better to have more people smoking?
I don't use either, but from a UK plc point of view is there an economic argument against the above?
Click to expand...

I suppose from an economic point of view it would be better for people in this country not to smoke but for foriegners to smoke so factories such as the one in Nottingham (Imperial tobacco? )can export all of the fags they produce.
I'd personally prefer a non smoking society although those that smoke responsibly and don't flaunt bans and litter their empty packets and nub ends everywhere do seem to be perhaps unjustifyably persecuted.
One argument that hasn't been mentioned here but does come up a lot with this topic is the effect the ban has had on pubs. Often people say it has been responsible for pubs closing but I'm inclined to think the opposite. With the ban pubs were allowed to increase their floor space by erecting "smoking shelters" which effectively allows them to cram more customers in for very little outlay.
 
noseall said:
AronSearle said:
Your economics were ripped apart,
Click to expand...
MY economics?

Where were they ripped apart and by whom?
Click to expand...

Go read the previous thread on this subject, or earlier on in this thread I summarised it, or you can read this (I expect you won't though).

http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/defa...s/The Wages of Sin Taxes CJ Snowdon ASI_0.pdf

No, I'm sure in another few months you will be quoting the "costs" as if this discussion never happened.





No, I don't "support" smoking, I just accept that criminalisation would be a worse solution.

Anyone who believes this economic nonsense that it costs more than it is taxed is just blinkered and is letting the government get away with taxing people extra, just because it can.
 
It beats me how the so-called poor in our society (benefit claimants) can all afford to smoke. Benefits are too high.
 
We could both cherry pick stats in our favour but there is nowhere in that report that refutes any of the findings in the link i gave. At least in the ASH report there are also references.

As for YOU summarising it... ripped apart my erse.
 
How come they are all fat and smoke then?
 
These delicate, holier-than-thou types make me laugh. Take the one who's not satisfied that the smokers have been cleared out of the pubs, and as a consequence the pubs are totally smoke free.

Not satisfied with this, the poor delicate flower is affronted because he might catch a slight whiff of someone's Marlboro in the 2 seconds it takes to walk past the smoker who has been exiled to the pavement.

Passive smoking. :rolleyes: What a joke. Where do they get these people from, whose only worry in life is a faint smell of someone's cigarette. They've got the whole smoke-free pub to themselves. What more do they want?

So anyway, this brave non-smoker has risked life and limb by briefly passing a smoker. What does he do next. Climbs into his car as he leaves, starts his engine, and pumps huge amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, slphur dioxide, Benzene (highly carcinogenic), formaldehyde, Polycyclic hydrocarbons, particulates, etc, etc, etc into the air that EVERYONE breathes. That includes non-drivers, children, babies, even the unborn - the hypocrisy of it. :rolleyes: Environmental pollution from cars damages everyone's health. Smokers really only damage their own.


As for the argument for banning tobacco so that future generations don't start smoking. I would much rather my children grew up not living in a totalitarian state, where every action is monitored or controlled. I would like them to enjoy the freedoms I had when I was young. Fat chance of that with the dictatorial zealots who run this nanny-state country.
 
So should we legalise Heroin and crystal meth then?
 
Whitespirit66 said:
joe-90 said:
So should we legalise Heroin and crystal meth then?
Click to expand...

Don't remember that as one of the freedoms of my youth. :confused:

Though there has been some de-criminalising of certain drugs in recent years.
Click to expand...

Answer the question. Tobacco kills 50% of those that use it. Around 100,000 deaths per year. That's more than Wembley stadium at cup final or opening ceremony of the Olympics. Every year, year in year out. A million people per decade. How many does heroin kill?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top