🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Delanoy <cdelanoy@ualberta.ca> wrote in message
news:BlLs6.4270$Dp6.663335@news-rep.ab.videon.ca...
> Scott Willing <NOTwilling2BSPAMMED@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:8W5s6.5186$tn1.67410@news1.mts.net...
>
> > Agree, but you haven't gone far enough. Nasty additives to
> > keep the smokes burning in the ashtray, formulations
> > intended to increase addictiveness, and youth-targeted
> > advertising come to mind. These people are heartless killers.
>
> What's "heartless" about any of these things?

If you believe it's ethical to entice children to embark on a lifetime of
servitude to a completely unnecessary and dangerous substance -- especially
for your own profit -- I'd guess you lack suitable neural receptors to
process the explanation.

Since you don't seem to know, and for the purposes of this discussion, I'll
define "heart" for you as a combination of empathy, conscience and moral
responsibility.

Would you try to talk your own children into trying tobacco? (I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt and assume you're old enough to procreate, despite
a lack of overt evidence in your postings to support this assumption.) How
about your children's friends? Would you offer to supply it to them, at a
tidy profit? Would you reformulate the product to try to make your new
customers dependent as quickly as possible? Would you add additional
chemicals, regardless of their health consequences, to ensure maximum
product usage?

If so, congratulations! You are certifiably heartless, and can now take a
consistent stand on the issue of dealing drugs.

But if not, why not?

> > > A person who smoked knowing it was bad for them can
> > > hardly blame the cigarette companies.  A person who kept
> > > smoking because they believed the tobacco companies is
> > > stupid,
>
> > -- or more likely addicted, which isn't quite the same --
>
> "Addiction" is a choice.

1. By placing addiction in quotes, do you mean to imply that the concept of
drug addiction is a fabrication?

2. Independent of 1.

I accept (and in fact stated as much elsewhere in this thread) that
consuming any drug (food, whatever) upon which one develops a dependence, is
indeed a personal choice. Do I assume correctly that you would disagree
(with my position) that the supplier shares some responsibility for the
effect of the product, even when the substance of choice has known and
rather nasty side effects?

 3. Independent of 1. or 2.

Would you agree that the consumer should be free to use whatever substance
they wish without legal interference? Shouldn't Phillip Morris, for example,
be allowed to sell crack, heroin, etc.? I'm sure they'd love to. Crack Lite.
Mmmmm... goes great with Kraft Dinner.

-smw

> Chris Delanoy
>
> -----
> "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny
individual
> rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
>      - Ayn Rand
>
>
>