Comments - Latest Popular Stories, Instablogs Community by Aroonindia

Taylor Flatt

Taylor Flatt — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Well I see where you are coming from. You visit the economic aspects of this age long controversy. But it truly is bad for the person smoking the cig. There are some good health uses for it, but the majority of them are bad to the user and people around the user. Although you are right we can’t get rid of the industry surrounding the product you can at least limit how people use the product so it doesn’t interfere with people around them and limit their life span, especially if they don’t want to be subjected to it.

I for one don’t like to be around smokers. My whole family smokes and it’s terrible and they know to not smoke around me which makes it a little more bearable.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar — Sun, 25 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Taylor:

Please go through the last paragraph. The earnings of healthcare indutry, which is the money spent by people for the treatment on tobacco diseases, are much higher than the total benefits listed herein. Do you think we can afford human life-loss at this cost? As regards unemployment and earning oppurtunities, there are several ways. On the other hand, there are very limited methods to regain lost health.

Anwesha

Anwesha — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

what kind of logic is this? if a country needs to prosper at the expense of the lives of its citizens, it is better off in the dumps and with its people alive. when one people smokes, he puts the lives of several others around him in jeopardy. under no circumstances, due to no economic benefits, can that be supported.

Alpheus

Alpheus — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Economics and morality never meet. justify one and contradict the other. sad part is the survival of a million is dependent on the death of a million others. All along, I thought smokers (the habit) will one day be history, but I guess now (from the figures) it is impossible.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@ Alpheus:

Not that it is impossible. Like one finds another job before quitting the current one, the country can look for other sources of revenue. Once done, it can ban tobacco. However, the element of greed should not be allowed!

Alpheus

Alpheus — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

@Arun Kumar

In your example, one is quitting a company and not changing his profession. A weaver cannot become a farmer easily. And a fashion designer will find it extremely difficult to become a scientist. You are talking about snatching the livelihood of a million people and promising them a change of profession. I know ’impossible’ is an overstatement, but I’m sure it would take more than a hundred years for the change you’re proposing.

Ahmed

Ahmed — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

WoW! Try and bring in cocaine and other lethal drugs too and see how these drugs give boost to the economy. If tobacco can stay, poppy is a much better alternative. Don’t you think so? See how the whole country, Afghanistan, is surviving on its basis. In that case, you can change the headline to - “Snorting your way to prosperity!”

Anyway, getting serious - Ban it, it’s possible. Believe me, there will be no revenue loss. The unnecessary amount of money spend on health will be saved. The stall spaces can be used to sell other products. All will thrive. There will be no prob at all. All issues are inflated here. The truth is, government doesn’t want it to implement as it’s filling up the coffers of the politicians.

Taylor Flatt

Taylor Flatt — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

It didn’t seem to let me post this a couple days ago. Oh well, well heres what I was going to say, lol.

@Ahmed

Saying there will be no revenue lost is really pushing it. To come even close to that solution the government would have step in and for years dictate what and where people will work. And that would be highly unlikely, at least in the US. I know for one that theres enough people out there that even if there was a ban they would still continue to make tobacco products and sell it for a major profit since no one else is selling. People will grow it in their basements, backyards, fields. I don’t think it can be fully stopped. But if the smokers see the light and try to stop, and we all know it’s hard, then that’s one step closer to a better society. But you are right about the politicians. They are making a boat load on this stuff it’s a sin. So much corruption these days.

@Arun Kumar

What are you saying?

”The earnings of healthcare indutry, which is the money spent by people for the treatment on tobacco diseases, are much higher than the total benefits listed herein. Do you think we can afford human life-loss at this cost?”

It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. Besides I would much rather save a life then a $20 bill. Not forgetting all the ones they smoke around regularly. It’s proven that those emissions are more harmful than what the smoker is getting. Over 35,000 people get Heart Disease each year by secondhand smoke. Then babies with women who smoke are 1.4 to 3.0 times more likely to die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. That’s something that needs to stop. One way we’ve been able to combat it is to ban places where smokers can smoke, like diners.

Anymore ideas besides cold-turkey?

Jayaprashanth

Jayaprashanth — Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0000

BTW I’v always seen blokes at engineering school broke after smoking their pocket monies away. That says a lot about prosperity associated with smoking. Oh yeah, smoking makes people prosperous! Especially the big corporations and the hospital chains and lest I forget, our governments’ excise departments.