I've no qualms with legalizing marajuana, but there's no reason tobacco should be illegal, it can be an enjoyable drug.

well there's one reason..
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/11/29/tobacco.health.reut/index.html
"According to our baseline projection, smoking will kill 50 percent more people in 2015 than HIV/AIDS and will be responsible for 10 percent of all deaths globally,"

^^ technically, the fact that the tobacco industry knows this makes it "homicide"

*shrug*

Quote (LightningBoy @ Nov. 29 2006, 10:09 pm)

Here goes one of the greatest economic powerhouses and employers that we have. Not to mention some of the most filanthropic industries around. We villanize big tobacco for what? Selling a product that people want to buy. Simple as that. Blame smokers, not cigarettes. This non-smoker will proudly stand up for the tobacco companies. The witch hunts against them are shameful, and go against the good principles of free enterprise.

First off, the "kinder, gentler tobacco company" is a very modern thing. For decades, they purposely lied and covered up evidence of health risks. There's certainly should be repercussions for that, if nothing else.

And as for them being philanthropic? Hah. Funny story about that. Unfortunately, I can't find the info now, but the basic gist was that a tobacco company donated $100,000 to a charity, then spent $3 million advertising that fact.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying we should make tobacco illegal, but I defiantly think the world would be better off without it.

Quote (Captain Seavey @ Nov. 30 2006, 12:26 am)

Unfortunately, I can't find the info now, but the basic gist was that a tobacco company donated $100,000 to a charity, then spent $3 million advertising that fact.

This is bad why?

The charity benefitted, the tobacco company got good PR, it's their money. This is win-win!

You've never worked in marketing, have you? Let's remember, first and foremost, companies want profit. That isn't a bad thing.

Quote (Cobalt60 @ Nov. 29 2006, 10:21 pm)

well there's one reason.. http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/11/29/tobacco.health.reut/index.html "According to our baseline projection, smoking will kill 50 percent more people in 2015 than HIV/AIDS and will be responsible for 10 percent of all deaths globally," ^^ technically, the fact that the tobacco industry knows this makes it "homicide" *shrug*

So how many people die in drunk driving accidents, cirrosis of the liver, or alcohol-related violence.

Should alcohol be illegalized. Let's face facts, certain aspects of society have negative ramifications, that doesn't mean they should be witch-hunted.

"Nicotine is a deadly poison - it can kill a person in less than an hour if even a small amount is injected into the blood-stream."
http://www.lung.ca/protect....e_e.php

alcohol..  not so much.

-==========-

and yeah, btw, I think alcohol should be illegal too.  for what its worth.
I don't drink. and I could definitely live in a world without drunk people.

(and besides there seems to be a double standard in place as to which drugs are illegal, and which drugs have been allowed to form their own industry FFS!LOL
its obviously not based on how 'harmful' they are to the human condition; it seems to be based on how 'harmful' they are to Dupont the economy)

(I say, ban them all, or ban nothing) *shrug*
(the only way to justify the "war on drugs" is to ban alcohol too,
otherwise the law is rooted in hyprocracy)

-=========-

read this: http://www.benbest.com/health/alcohol.html there is no "safe amount".
--> if we're in the practice of banning drugs because they are "dangerous",
then alcohol should be at the top of the list.  but whatever*

* (thats not why we ban them LOL! )

Quote (LightningBoy @ Dec. 01 2006, 1:48 am)

Quote (Captain Seavey @ Nov. 30 2006, 12:26 am) Unfortunately, I can't find the info now, but the basic gist was that a tobacco company donated $100,000 to a charity, then spent $3 million advertising that fact. This is bad why? The charity benefitted, the tobacco company got good PR, it's their money. This is win-win! You've never worked in marketing, have you? Let's remember, first and foremost, companies want profit. That isn't a bad thing.

True, but I hardly see it as particularly admirable.

Let's look at it this way: let's say a company builds bombs for the military. Now, say, one day they sell one of those bombs to a terrorist, who then uses it to kill a few hundred people. Would that company be responsible? After all, they were just "selling a product that people want to buy." Doesn't restricting who they could sell to "go against the good principles of free enterprise"?

Point being: we don't live in an absolute free enterprise state. Greed does not excuse all crimes. There's nothing wrong with asking companies to take some responsibly in selling a product, especially when they deliberately covered up the risks of said product.

^^ Fisher Price takes more responsibility for their product than Smith and Wesson. probably because, if somebody's kid chokes on a piece of plastic, we don't blame the parent. or the kid. we blame the manufacturer.