Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE WHITE HOUSE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (2492)	3/18/2007 8:33:16 AM
From: Gersh Avery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

There has been a great reduction in the numbers of cigarette smokers without having to put them in jail. A lot of education, elevation of sin tax and bans of smoking in some settings has had success. In spite of cigarettes being one of the most addictive drugs known to man. As a child, I broke a lot of laws to keep smoking. B&E and shoplifting, mostly. While attempting to jail users of some drugs, there has not been such a reduction. In spite of the billions we spend every year in the attempt. Drug laws don't produce the desired results. Education does. Drug laws totally waste huge amounts of governmental resources and taxpayer money.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (2492)	3/18/2007 9:02:13 AM
From: John Carragher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

the problems are the companies not the addicts. most of these people were brought up on cigs before they were 12 years old. gov failed in closing down the tobacco companies. too much money being made, too made jobs, etc. mo for example everyone got it a buy, spin off kraft and big firms recommending buy mo. where is the justice. just shut down the tobacco companies.

To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (2492)	3/18/2007 10:21:40 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25737

Re: "Nicotine addiction brings disease, disability, and death to all who use it." I would never dispute that point. But that is not what we were talking about. The question was not 'how many people harm themselves', but rather was about HOW MANY are killed or robbed by 'addicts'. In other words: innocents harmed by others. A COMPLETELY different thing entirely. A different example: the fat in MacDonald's fast food likely is 'responsible' for many, many heart attack deaths. Yet, it is people's RIGHT to eat what they want to (regardless of if it is 'good for them', or not...) ONLY if the government were to ban burgers, (thus criminalizing those who make and who eat them), would there most likely develop a criminal underclass supplying and consuming them... (&, not so incidentally, adding to the prison population....)