What's Sup Forums's option on tobacco companies?
On one hand they have every right to make a business selling their product as long as they adhere to the laws and regulations set forth by the people.
On the other hand...
They make billions selling an addictive product that causes cancer and other health defects.
So what do you think? Should tobacco companies be held accountable for their product, or does the fault fall on the consumer who is given plenty of warnings of its effects?
Other urls found in this thread:
strawpoll.me
politicalcompass.org
twitter.com
make strawpoll voting
>datamining
IP was archived
SAGE
I want to die set aflame in the middle of ten thousand burning cigarettes
Smoker here who is a recovering alcoholic.
I don't have much of an opinion on it, but to say the least alcohol companies are just as bad. It should be stigmatized like smoking.
It's the users fault, not the companies. Same as with booze, but we should keep up on telling people not to smoke. It's a bad habit but I have a phobia of going through any sort of withdrawals, I went through booze and benzo withdrawals dozens of times.
Fucking left wingers need to find a different website to go shit in. Worst posts I have seen in forever today
Here's the straw poll If youd like to participate
>On one hand they have every right to make a business selling their product as long as they adhere to the laws and regulations set forth by the people.
That is the only hand.
Everything else is semantics.
Unless, of course, you're a woman. Then by god of course we must destroy these companies! They're unhealthy! They're addictive! I don't want to parent my child and thus the potential exposure must be eliminated!
>Caring about society's health
>Left wing
NIgger left wingers would defend people's individual right to do whatever they want no matter how stupid it is and how terrible to society is really is.
My post carried no opinion, quit your BS asumptions and claims.
The
>they have every right to make a business selling their product
And that's what is wrong: Tobacco should be banned just like any substance with similar health risks.
They banned asbestos, they banned lead paint, so why not ban tobacco?
>alcohol companies are just as bad.
No, because drinking in moderation is perfectly fine.
Alcohol can be consumed safely.
Whereas smoking in moderation still causes cancer.
You cannot light a single cigarette without putting your health at risk.
You can thank government bureaucrats that wanted cash in on a settlement.
Google the Master Settlement Agreement.
The government agreed to never ban cigarettes in exchange for money.
smoking doesn't cause cancer it raises the risk of you contracting cancer, there's a direct coorelation
Tobacco companies sell a horrible addictive product that does nothing but ruin the user's health. But it's the user's fault for being retarded enough to do it.
What's the difference?
I though you contract a virus, but mutations in DNA are caused by chemicals?
>drunk driving doesn't cause car accidents, it raises the chance of getting into one
Fantastic logic their friend.
Imagine if McDonald's had an addictive substance in it and people got addicted to that shit and literally couldn't stop eating McD's or go into withdrawal
all addictive substances should be banned from the market, it's literal poison
>They banned asbestos,
Nope, still widely used in a lot of industrial products.
>they banned lead paint
Nope, still widely used in a lot of industrial settings such as road markings, large construction machinery markings, and so forth.
>it's literal poison
And it is my god given right to choose to ingest that.
Go back to banning teaspoons because somebody might boil heroin with it.
Your right to ingest poison is not being harmed, but actively selling harmful poison while you advertise it as food is not a right you have
tobacco itself is fine. if people want to damage their lungs and nerves let them.
what is absolute immoral and bullshit is that tobacco is radioactively polluted through polonium 210 in their cheap fertilizer.
As a smoker, I can say this: There are three types of smoker:
1. People who want to pay for a service that they enjoy in relative moderation and know the risks of
2. Self-hating smokers, who say they hate every drag of a cig they take but still do it anyway and talk constantly about quitting and never doing it, making things unpleasant for everybody else that is out for a smoke with their constant self-loathing whining. These are usually the people that started because of peer pressure or some other stupid reason.
3. Addicts. Chain smokers with no self-control or care for their own well-being.
I would like to consider myself part of the first group, and I have no problem paying money to these "evil" companies for something they provide to me, so long as I know the risks and what is in them. The other two groups can go get fucked, I hope the companies make as much money off of them as possible.
>You cannot light a single cigarette without putting your health at risk.
You're stupid if you believe that.
My opinion is as always life fast and die young. When i'm too old to stand up right i'll hit some much drugs and go out in a blast.
Interesting opinion. I agree with you, it's all falls on the consumer since they know the risks.
Nobody is confused about the potential harms that tobacco and alcohol offer. Nobody is confused about the potential harms that eating a cheeseburger has either.
What exactly is your argument if you support the right to sell harmful things and the right to consume them?
Normally I would say never to blame the supplier, because it is the buyer's degeneracy that works him harm. I don't blame Jews for making lousy movies that undermine our values: I blame the people who watch those movies. I don't blame gun manufacturers for violence but rather the superpredators who use firearms for nefarious purposes--it is not the supply that needs to be controlled but rather the demand that needs to be brought to heel. In the case of tobacco companies, however, I'll make an exception on two grounds:
1) the tobacco companies lied about and covered up the negative health effects of their products - at least media-merchants and superpredators are up front with you; and
2) you cannot always avoid smoke like you can porn or mass culture or majority-black neighborhoods -- it is beyond your direct control whether someone else smokes near you, and thus it is beyond your scope of ethical responsibility
If tobacco companies had been honest all along and let consumers know that they were making a deal with the devil by buying cigarettes, and if smoke didn't waft into my apartment from my neighbors', I wouldn't have any problem with the tobacco companies. I still blame the consumer primarily, but I cannot overlook the guilt of the tobacco companies.
on a side note i think that well regulated drugs are a good way of enforcing darwinism in the western world. If you're too fucked up as to chain smoke yourself to death, then good riddance. I say this not as an insult, but objective fact.
It is the right of the tobacco companies to produce these products and ample warning is given on the packs and cartons. Though I must say, cigarettes are pure shit. If you're to smoke, go with a tobacco pipe or a cigar. Cigarettes are the ass end of the tobacco leaf.
>They make billions selling an addictive product that causes cancer and other health defects.
But they aren't forcing anybody to buy it.
I agree with you, but be aware that tobacco companies already paid for their lies.
In 1989 they agreed on a settlement of 200 billion dollars to pay the government's of each state.
I agree, but those should be taxed, those addicts will eventually be a cost tax payers when they go to the hospital.
Remember health care workers are still bound by ethics to help these people.
>and if smoke didn't waft into my apartment from my neighbors
What kind of place do you live in? Can you literrally jump from one window into the window of your naighbour? xD
>1) the tobacco companies lied about and covered up the negative health effects of their products - at least media-merchants and superpredators are up front with you; and
All companies do this, if they do, there are regulatory mechanisms to punish them. If those mechanisms fail, it is our fault as voters for electing corrupt governments. Also, media merchants and other multinationals are not up front with you about anything. The modern mainstream media has done more to poison modern society than any cigarette company has.
2) you cannot always avoid smoke like you can porn or mass culture or majority-black neighborhoods -- it is beyond your direct control whether someone else smokes near you, and thus it is beyond your scope of ethical responsibility
Smoking is banned indoors in almost all western countries. You absolutely can avoid it. If you're talking about getting a whiff of some guys cig at a bus stop then just grow a pair. Your grandparents were in a shit filled trench fighting Nazis and commies surrounded by that smell.
At this point, Mountain Dew and McDonald's are larger threats to public health and cause more harm than tobacco companies.
>I agree, but those should be taxed
Definately. I'm a smoker myself, but i don't mind if you tax the shit out of me for it. Drugs should be considered a luxury that should make you expected to be responsible to pay up the expenses to hospitals and stuff.
>go with a tobacco pipe or a cigar.
I am a cigarette smoker and actually agree with you, problem is that if you're a 20 something trying to relax after work you will look like a massive fedora doing either of those things in public. I want to get a pipe to smoke in my garden in private though.
This is true, but they get around this by labeling the amount of calories the food contain.
The only thing that can fickle them over is if they're using ingredients that are harmful to humans (disregarding fat related components that cause obesity related complications).
the anti-tobacco propaganda was more mishonest than the tobacco companies.
To this day they equate common diseases like heart disease, emphysema, and cancer to smoking. These diseases have been linked to smoking sure, but they are also linked to an unhealthy diet, pollution, bad genes etc...
If a smoker were to be diagnosed with one of these "smoking related diseases", regardless of the actual reason for his diagnosis, his smoking is to blaim.
Cigarettes have become a scapegoat that degenerates use to blame for the shity health of thier population knowing people would never truly change their lifestyle and a small enough demographic that politicians can tax without opposition.
Anything that compromised the health of the lungs with have negative effects on the other organs.
COPD is the only disease as well as lung cancer that is directly linked to smoking
An old meme, people actually just don't smoke.
I'm aware, but you should honestly do it. There are little to no chemicals shoved into pipe tobacco as well, so it's better than a ciggie as well. I use my pipe in public, but I honestly don't give a shit about what some stranger thinks about me so I go right ahead. But, if you're the kind of person who cares about what a stranger think's about you, then I can understand why you wouldn't want to.
Because everybody is 100% responsible for what you knowingly, deliberately put in their own body. If I'm not mistaken, tobacco companies DON'T put guns to people's heads and force them to smoke; people partake of that product from their own free will and are automatically accepting the possible consequences thereof.
that's not left wing lol you have no idea what the left wing actually is they want to strip as many freedoms as they can "for the greater good"
Wtf. Do you even political compass? Politics is a four dimensional game not two dimensional. There is left-libertarian, left-authoritarian, right-libertarian and right-authoritarian.
politicalcompass.org