🚀 go-pugleaf

Doug Craigen <dcc@escape.ca> wrote in message
news:3AABEA44.9E54AA46@escape.ca...
> No objection to much of the list, but two items stand out:

[snipped to one item for a personal rant]

> "G. B." wrote:

> > If you suck three packs of cigarette smoke into your lungs each day for
40
> > years and die of lung cancer, the tobacco company is to blame.
>
> They're not to blame for people choosing to smoke, just for denying the
> medical facts.

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.

> 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 --

> but in that case it is
> the tobacco companies fault.  If you assure somebody that a product is
> safe, you are assuming responsibility for their safety.  If you're not
> sure a product is safe, don't claim it is.  In this case it is the
> cigarette companies you should be railing against for trying to avoid
> their share of the blame.

The blame should be shared, I agree.

IMHO you should be able to smoke, ingest or inject anything you like, but
only if
(a) you sign a waiver releasing taxpayers from financial responsibility for
negative affects on your health,
(b) your supplier provides you with the most accurate and current
information available concerning known risks, and
(c) your supplier is required to put a portion of the product cost into a
health and liability insurance fund, as well as research into mitigating the
negative effects of the product.

(c) Would replace current taxes that put the government in the position of
the "silent partner" in the sale of legal drugs. If these taxes went
exclusively into education and insurance for the users, that would be fine,
but this doesn't seem to be the case, does it?

No doubt this proposal will be labeled socialist by all the good little
capitalists out there, but hey - if you're going to profit from selling
death, the least you could do is pick up the tab for the funeral.

BTW, I heard the other day that legal prescription drugs kill 10 times more
people every year than illegal street drugs. 10 frickin' times. Ain't that
charming?

Sounds to me like the "war on drugs" would be a lot more beneficial if it
was aimed at reckless pharmaceutical companies and physicians instead of pot
farmers. And 'mericans wouldn't even have to travel outside their borders to
wage war. But what fun would that be? Bwwwaaa haaa... yeah, I'm dreamin' of
course. There's waaaay too much money in the legal drug trade, so hipocracy
reigns. Keep on rockin' in the free world.

Anyone besides me suspect that Aspirin would be illegal if it grew on a
house plant? (I guess I'd better not mention anything about wolf willow.)

OK, I'm gettin' carried away. This Fair Trade coffee really packs a
wallop...

-smw