I’m not sure there’s much of a “debate” on the lung cancer issue anymore. The evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is about as firmly established by science as any issue can be. If you think the “jury is still out” on this question, I don’t think anything I post will sway your mind.
It would be easy to debate lots of points about smoking and lung cancer that don’t have anything to do with the commonsense conclusions, which is why I didn’t get into it. I didn’t say anything about the jury being out.
I didn’t read your whole cite, but I didn’t notice anything that said smoking causes lung cancer. I think you mean smoking is one of the major risk factors for lung cancer.
That’s why I didn’t go there you see. It’s a whole other debate about causal relationships. People would much rather die from a strong correlation than a cause and effect relationship.
If you don’t already, someday you’ll wish somebody stopped you from starting. Not the government, those jack-booted thugs better not try to stop me from killing myself slowly. But somebody.
It gives people a way to rationalize their behavior. I’m sure everyone has heard anecdotes about people who live to be a 100 while smoking 2 packs a day, or someone who has never smoked a day in their life but got lung cancer. For any particular individual who has lung cancer, there’s always the possibility that they would have developed it even if they didn’t smoke. And there’s always the possibility that a smoker will never develop a smoking related illness. People aren’t used to thinking in statistical terms.
But semantic quibbling aside, it seems pretty obvious that scores of people are dropping dead earlier than they otherwise would have if they didn’t pick up smoking.
All those things i said are dead serious and true. Saying there are other causes that cause those problems does not change the fact that all of them are found in the smoking habit. I have heard of a lot of home fires caused by smoking in bed. It happens ,but only to smokers. The health problems are huge. My dad had half a lung cut out at the age of 42. He died at 53. He always had a diminished ability to exercise because smoking was harming his lungs.
I think tobacco should be legal on principle. The government has no right to tell people that they can’t do something that is not in any way harmful to someone else, even if it is unhealthy.
Once we start meddling into people’s lives like this, where does it end? Should sodas be made illegal?
If a cop sees someone on his own front lawn playing Russian Roulette, do you think the cop should be able to stop him? Maybe you don’t. But I think it’s pretty widely accepted by most people that the state can intervene and prevent people from taking their own lives.
This cite says there are 405,000 deaths in the U.S every year due to tobacco, and 17,000 for all illegal drugs. Tobacco causes about 24 times as much carnage as all those less socially acceptable drugs our government has chosen to wage war on.
Imagine that tobacco was completely unknown to us, and the legislatures of the world were looking at this new substance with unbiased, fresh eyes and comparing it to any other addictive substance. There’s not a chance in hell it would remain legal under those circumstances.
But there’s a huge established industry with deep pockets, lots of lobbyists, and millions of voters hooked on it. This is the only thing that insures the continued legality of tobacco.
I think there’s a major difference between tobacco and soda. It’s quite possible to drink some soda every day and not put your health at serious risk. But even one cigarette a day can triple the risk of heart disease and cancer.
I do think that soft drinks should not be sold in public schools (it teaches kids bad habits), and that there should be a tax on soft drinks to reduce overall consumption. But I wouldn’t go so far as to outright ban it.
Smoking is stupid, but i don’t want to make it illegal. It is sad that people start so young. But that can not be prevented. People do a lot of stupid and dumb things. Watch them drive cars if you doubt that.
I have lived in Iowa most of my life, and not once have I seen a farmer burn his crops in the feild. I have never even heard of it being done. Sounds like a “Reaganism” to me. (see welfare Moms)
“Would society be better off without tobacco?” to which the answer is probably, although if tobacco never existed, it’s possible something roughly equivalent might have taken it’s place.
“Should we make tobacco illegal?” to which the answer is no. And the corollary “Would prohibiting tobacco have any real affect on tobacco use” to which the answer is no.
Wondering about the merits of an alternate universe is quite different than thinking you can actually put the genie back in the bottle.