Senate Passes Bill to Let FDA Regulate Tobacco

The government has no authority to do this, and it's a counterproductive measure. Bigger warning labels are not going to stop anyone from smoking as it's common knowledge what the effects of smoking are. The government needs to realize that it can't legislate morality, and it's immoral to try and do so.

You're forgetting obowma is President, and in his world he has the authority to do whatever the hell he wants.

Well despite what Obama and the 111th Congress think they have no authority that is not given to them by the Constitution. Regulating cigarettes isn't in the Constitution.
 
Nope, no difference ... none, zero, zilch, you are projecting a difference. Lung cancer, as I pointed out many many times, is caused by chemicals which are also in car, factory, and power plant exhaust, of which there are millions of tons put into the air every year. One car alone puts out a thousand times the amount as a chain smoker does, same chemicals that cause lung cancer. Lung cancer has many other variables as well, many people are genetically predisposed to cancer. The reason the connection was made was because they discovered that certain chemicals increase the chances of getting cancer, and that cigarettes contain these, but what they fail to mention is that other sources put out a LOT more (tons more) than cigarettes, because the US care manufacturers forced the anti-smoking groups to stop airing that fact. you are now running in circles, you can't prove your point so you are forcing people to repeat themselves in a failed attempt to wear us down. Well, I don't wear down. Relating all deaths to smoking like that is purely circumstantial, there are many many more common causes for lung cancer, moron.

You are a fucking idiot. You can tell when someone dies of a DUI. Usually because, well, they get into a car crash while being drunk. Their heart condition is irrelevant to the fact that they ran into a pole. Less so with smoking.

This is elementary shit, kid. Get with it. Oh, and learn some basic math while your at it.

Actually, many times a person dies from accidents indirectly, the shock to the system triggers heart attacks on a regular basis, the most common reason an accident will kill is shock, unless they receive medical attention fast enough. Spinal and head injuries often do no show up immediately as well, so yeah, it's actually a more logical connection than "they smoked and got some illness, so cigarettes killed them" ... sorry, but you do not know much about the world. Also, usually the one that's drunk is not the one that dies, almost always it's anyone involved in the drunk driving collision that is not under the influence who dies, while the drunk people get minor injuries. With smoking, again, there are many causes for the conditions that they attribute to smoking, and will include even those who "pass a smoker" in their statistics, which is lying of course but you are too blind to see that. You have something against tobacco, well, it sucks to be you. We will never stop these problems as long as they keep blaming cigarettes, we cannot cure cancer with all the money being funneled into demonizing a very minor cause of it. There are so many factors you are ignoring, and you didn't even read my whole post or you would see quite a few of them. If you want to slow lung cancer, ban all cars, factories, and power plants, then you will see a dramatic decrease, until then, you are just looking for someone to attack legally.

Lmfao. I don't know much about the world?

This from the person who think drunk driving kills more people than anything else, and who doesn't know the difference between 1 billion people a year and 1 billion people a century :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top