static
TAG Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2016
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 703
I just listed other substances that generate more secondary deaths per year than nicotine, as has been my position since you're the one that brought up second hand smoking. There are no moving goal posts. You say they're somehow not relevant or somehow different. I'm still waiting for you to explain that logic. Why tobacco? Why not ban alcohol? It has detrimental effects on the body, long term it causes liver damage, short term in inhibits your senses, to many it's mentally addictive. It has inhibited people enough to commit cases of rape, date rape, drunk driving accidents and kills 5 times more people than cigarettes. By every objective metric we have, it is more harmful to society than nicotine, and even a single beer can impair someone enough to be dangerous to those around them. There is no level of consumption of alcoholic products that can be considered safe or harmless. I can draw those same conclusions from every single thing I've mentioned here.And now you're moving the goalposts.....
"Addictiveness" is unquantifiable. There are more people who have caffeine dependencies than nicotine because there are more coffee and tea drinkers than smokers, but nobody can say with quantifiable evidence which substance is "more" addictive. People in general have an easier time quitting coffee than smoking/snus though. . As to the links between caffeine and heart disease, there are no conclusive studies as of yet, but moderate consumption has been shown to be harmless.
Yes, this is becoming apparent despite the sugar producers' efforts to subvert research proving this and sugar's links to heart disease since the 60s. But moderate consumption is not harmful.
You're losing track here - obesity is not a substance that you can control.
Again, moderate consumption is relatively harmless, and can even carry health benefits.
There is no level of consumption of tobacco products that can be considered safe or harmless.
Obesity absolutely is something the government can and does control. The food pyramid was straight government propaganda when they tried to push corn during the 50's and 60's. Public schools control 1/3 of the meals you eat for at least 7 of the most formative years of your life, possibly 12 years depending on your school and as we learned during Obama's term, what food and what portions can be mandated at the federal level. FDA can declare HFCS a controlled substance, same with pesticides, to force all farms 100% organic. They can dictate how much of certain things you can have, like New York's soda tax / size restrictions. The FDA can get rid of additives that we're finding have been causing recent generations to develop new types of long term health issues. They can get ban preservatives to make us have to eat clean, fresh foods. I'm sure a number of initialed agencies can dictate what hormones we're allowed to feed animals that we breed for consumption. Physical activity? The DOE can push out revised curriculum in schools to make PE class more intense. I seem to remember in an early version of ACA there was a hamburger tax that'd be implemented federally. Do you still think our government can't control obesity by restricting the substances that most often cause it or by implementing sin taxes?