In Reply to: Re: protect us!! posted by sara on December 2, 2001 at 14:34:17:
actually cigarettes are probably worse than some of the other things you're talking about because of the fact that second hand smoke kills innocent people, including children.
: People do have the free will to not buy cigarettes. They know the consequences of smoking, just like they know the consequences of drinking coffee, using cell phones, and even drinking coke (amongst many others). See, if the govt were to prohibit the selling of cigarettes, another parallel market would appear.. crime would go up etc. It would be another thing for drug-traffickers(?) to sell and gain more power with. People aren't forced to smoke, and if one wants to quit well then go ahead and do it, but you can't say that there is almost no free will. Does this make sense at all? We aren't talking about heroin or cocaine addiction, where dependency levels are higher and from which people will have irrecuperable sypmtoms (i'm not talking about emphysema, chronic bronchitis, or lung cancer since not every smoker will get these). Plus, the government has already got taxes imposed on cigarette sales... If the cigarettes were not sold anymore, the tax revenue the govt gets would have to be replaced (redirected to) with a higher tax on something else, and since there is a large portion of the population that doesn't smoke the new higher taxation would most probably anger people. Go on and say that it is for the greater good of society... but now honestly, how realistic is the idea of tobacco products to dissappear from recognised legal markets?
: For your point on pharmaceutical companies, i'm slightly confused. Are you saying that the govts should have a more socialist approach to the provision of drugs to the population?
: If that is your point, I would probably have to agree. There welfare system in this country i think should be improved. Then again, you can easily argue with me about this because i will freely admit that i may be ignorant to some very good reasons for why it is how it is. I don't recall where it was that I read this, but I read that the US's general medical care is ranked 58th in the world (France being first). But there still are some of the best doctors in this country, and you're right when you say that not many people have access to such care.
: So there's my thinking on the matter... do respond if i lost you or confused you and perhaps i can clarify.
: : In my oppinon The Government should always step in to protect the people. Why not when it comes to economic necessities.
: : It creates all sorts of problems when the government does not step in. An example of this is the cigerette companies they have more power then should be aloud to one entity, both in the economic markets and the political world.
: : People who are addicted to ciggerets almost have no free will; when buying the product. The government should take this product off the market not only because it is taking away peoples free will but because it is harmful for citizens in general to be buying these product.
: : The pharmasutical companies are a diffrent story the Government should regulate on them because they aquired too much money and therfore too much power. It is not benificial for the Government (because the are to help and represent the people) if the people to lose their freedom of choice. AND THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH PHARMASUTICAL COMPANYS TODAY IS IT NOT? THEY GET TO DECIED IF THE POOR CLASS SHOULD LIVE OR DIE. I welcome any comments on my thoughts.
: : -Biiftu
Post a Followup