The best ideas are the crazy ones. If you have a crazy idea and it works, it's really valuable.—Kent Beck
How to Ask Questions | How to Answer Questions | Format Your Code
Shama
Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Harsh on whom? The smoke industry does not need my kid-glove treatment. Nor am I going to scar its feeble psyche by being ungentle. The smoke industry is a rhino-skinned cash-machine.
I think the argument about smoking being a "personal choice" and people having to live with that choice is entirely misplaced here. If that is so, then why don't we also legally permit LSD, Heroin etc ? After all those are also choices which we should be able to make. Yet we draw a line on the "personal choice" - for the sheer survival of the society.
The "personal choice" argument also falls apart for 2 other reasons: 1. Often those who succumb to the evil are underage minds targeted and manipulated by the smoking industry 2. Those who suffer include innocent people in the vicinity - the child in the womb, the family, or roommates - and smoking was NOT THEIR choice.
No I don't consider alcohol in the same class. There is evidence to show that, in moderate quantities, alcohol is in fact a health benefit. Moderate drinkers have been found to be healthier than abstainers. And I think alcohol is also a healthy cooking medium. Alcohol has many medicinal uses. In excess alcohol is bad, but so is fat, protien or iron. It is precisely for this reason that people don't sue their alcohol companies.
Even assuming arguendo that alcohol is an evil, the fact that you don't see people suing alcohol companies, is of no consequence. Tolerating evil is no virtue. One evil should not sustain merely because another evil survives.
I conclude with the fond hope that the litigation will bleed the smoke industry to an early death.
[This message has been edited by Rahul Rathore (edited June 07, 2001).]
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
All people should have a choice of what they want to do with their bodies(in my opinion that includes LSD, cocaine, etc), but they have the resposibility to suffer the consequences for their actions.
Originally posted by Ling Wu:
Sorry, don't buy it and have no sympathy for leeches like that.
Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
On the other hand, the result of his action (immediate/mediate) is the destruction of an evil enterprise. And that is what delights me.
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips
Why is the smoking industry so evil? They see a demand for an item and profit by supplying that demand. That is the way a free market society works. Smoking does not infringe on another person's rights to life, liberty, or property. ... The judge that awarded this judgement needs to be impeached because he has absolutely no understanding of the U.S. Contitution.
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Matthew
Both of us have expressed and repeated our positions. We agree to disagree.
But before leaving off I was just curious to know your position on the [b]narcotics trade.
It appears that you support a free narcotics industry (LSD, Heroin etc.) running as legitmately and openly as the smoking industry. Is that correct? Do you support the free, legal, and open production, marketing and advertising of LSD, heroin etc.? Does that also mean that you are against all the anti-drug laws, and condemn the huge US operations against narcotics and drug-trade?
If my aforesaid impression is wrong, and actually you don't support a narcotics industry then I am curious to know why. Why do you consider the narcotics industry a big no-no, whereas the smoking industry was just fine? Also how does that view fit with your principles of free-market, free-choice, personal responsibility and govt-non-interference?[/B]
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
I am firmly against the drug war. Not only because I believe in a free market, but because stopping the drug war will save lives. As a legitimate business the government can enforce truth in advertising. If someone wants to buy LSD, they will not have to worry about poisons such as Strychnine. Violence on the street will decrease since legitimate businesses do not generally kill there competition. There will still be strong incentive to stay off drugs, because employers will still do drug testing, perhaps it will even increase the number of companies doing so.
Matthew Phillips[/B]
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Matthew, it was great, discussing with you. See ya
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Rahul Rathore:
Let us take some hypothetical scenario - Take some drug - say suicidex. Let us assume that it causes instant death (or something horrendous).
There are millions of mentally-ill suckers out there who would play my game. So I advertise it widely, in every media, as a "cool" drug, the surest way to solve all life's problems. I package it in bright-red attractive packages - of course with the required statutory warning - "This drug will cause death". The drug is a great hit (particularly among street-kids, adoloscents, mentally-ill).
commiting suicide is illegal
SCJP
Visit my download page
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
Candy was probably more expensive at the time.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Speaking of... Do they make candy cigarrettes anymore?
Piscis Babelis est parvus, flavus, et hiridicus, et est probabiliter insolitissima raritas in toto mundo.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
SCJP
Visit my download page
My honeysuckle is blooming this year! Now to fertilize this tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
https://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton
|