Ray9
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2016
- 2,707
- 4,506
- 1,970
- Banned
- #1
People will do what they do, and we know that no well-meaning action of the part of government will deter them from what they feel is a right to personal enjoyment or stress relief in a confusing and dangerous world. The 21st Amendment, better known as Prohibition, made this crystal clear in the United States in the 1930’s. Outlawing alcohol did more damage than allowing it and that was a lesson learned not just by the US but for the world. Additionally, tobacco use by itself or in combination with chronic alcohol abuse, is the number one early killer of humans on the face of the Earth. No doctor will deny this.
Banning substances that people crave will not work to improve the health of the multitudes. This is not due to flaws in human character or failures of leadership policy, it is written into the DNA of the human subject-nothing is perfect.
We know that the World Health Organization (WHO) advertised to be concerned with the health of the world, has done little to address the lucrative sale and distribution of these toxic chemicals because their producers are well established, powerful, and apparently too big to fail. In the US, their gargantuan lobbying efforts are legend in the halls of Congress. Money talks and good intentions can be purchased by real gold and converted to the glitter of public persuasion.
Human health is certainly important, and in light of the fact that the human race is adaptable why not address a complex problem with a concrete solution? Why don’t we make the world’s largest tobacco and alcohol producers the main health providers in the United States as a test case for the rest of the world? Why don’t we make these habits more expensive but with a massive benefit to All? Why don’t we stop taxing these industries for anything other than health?
This could be an actual manifestation of socialized capitalism. The people would be paying at the pump for their health instead of relying on corrupt government fiat that would benefit the rich as usual. We should do this. Philp Morris and Budweiser along with some matching state funds could pay for all the health of the country in spades.
It would cost the consumer more, but the benefits would eliminate suffering and maybe even save some lives. We should lead the world, not be led by the world.
Banning substances that people crave will not work to improve the health of the multitudes. This is not due to flaws in human character or failures of leadership policy, it is written into the DNA of the human subject-nothing is perfect.
We know that the World Health Organization (WHO) advertised to be concerned with the health of the world, has done little to address the lucrative sale and distribution of these toxic chemicals because their producers are well established, powerful, and apparently too big to fail. In the US, their gargantuan lobbying efforts are legend in the halls of Congress. Money talks and good intentions can be purchased by real gold and converted to the glitter of public persuasion.
Human health is certainly important, and in light of the fact that the human race is adaptable why not address a complex problem with a concrete solution? Why don’t we make the world’s largest tobacco and alcohol producers the main health providers in the United States as a test case for the rest of the world? Why don’t we make these habits more expensive but with a massive benefit to All? Why don’t we stop taxing these industries for anything other than health?
This could be an actual manifestation of socialized capitalism. The people would be paying at the pump for their health instead of relying on corrupt government fiat that would benefit the rich as usual. We should do this. Philp Morris and Budweiser along with some matching state funds could pay for all the health of the country in spades.
It would cost the consumer more, but the benefits would eliminate suffering and maybe even save some lives. We should lead the world, not be led by the world.
