Find solution
What do you think about alcohol advertising?

Tobacco&Alcohol kills. But is a part of American Industry. Whats more important human suffering or Economy?

  • Do you think the government should ban Alcohol&Tabacco? What about the millions of jobs that would be lost? I believe our Alcohol/Tabacco industries have helped us more than hurt us. Yes, innocent people have died from drunk drivers and Yes millions have died from lung cancer. But the sale of Alcohol and Tabacco is apart of our economy. People our mistaken when they think the "so called" rich people our the only ones who profit. We all do. The Tabacco farmer, the miller light commericails, beer factories, Sponsors/Ads etc,.etc..equals alot of Employees. The word Employee can also mean Middle class. The larger and more productive a nations middle class is the stronger the economy.The government warns people and puts restrictions on the sale&advertising of these products. If Jerry died of Lung Cancer because he used it irresponsibly, yes.. its still sad. But be Happy that one casulty might = 1,000 jobs.

  • Answer:

    I would have to say our economy because without it "we" would crumble and not be able to help really anyone or other countries. It sort of like cancer and other serious illnesses "they" found a real cure for most cancers that would be less expansive then radiation, chemo, all the pills, etc. but our government doesn't let it out because it would destroy our economy

Future at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

if demand wasn't so high there wouldnt' be an issue. it's teh consumer who want it! so stop blaming the companies...

al e. c

Where is the line where the public good outweighs individual choice to the point where government regulation is appropriate? Obviously, the government cannot regulate away all societal ills. What is the societal cost of smoking-related diseases, alcoholism, and alchohol-related injuries? What are the few critical points where government should regulate to minimize public cost while also minimizing interference in individual's choice? Crap, I think I just wrote the outline for a really long paper.

Bjorkmeister

Yo, Yo! (giggles) You have raised a basic question about personal freedom. Lots of people do risky things, everything from smoking and drinking, to skydiving and flying ultra-light planes, to auto racing and simply driving on snowy days. The question for me is, how much power should we give government to interfere with my personal right to choose. I'm not a smoker, and I hate the smell of smoke. I do not drink to excess and I'd hate to get hit by a drunk driver. I do enjoy a big breakfast at IHOP, however, and I wouldn't like it if intrusive governments and anti-fat zealots took it upon themselves to tell me how to live. People who hunt and Jehovah's Witnesses who do not believe in blood transfusions would probably say the same. Economics adds another dimension. Others do make their living in the liquor, tobacco, fast food, skydiving, hunting, and blood-supply industries. It is not something to be taken lightly, just eliminating their jobs because "activists" don't like them. For me, though, personal freedom is more important than government nannyism. I will say to you that if people want to do foolish things with their lives (provided they don't take others with them), I defend their freedom to do it.

Anne Marie

The industry of tobacco and alcohol doesn't generate that much for the economy as whole with jobs, profit, etc. It's merely a tax horse for the gov't, nothing more.

It's Kippah, Kippah the dawg

Is not a question of economy/jobs vs. human suffering. It's about choice and free will. If people want to harm themselves, then it is their choice. The decision to use alcohol and tobacco is a personal choice. Should we ban Twinkies because some people get fat and have heart atttacks? Or is it their choice to do so? We tried to ban alcohol before and it didn't work (and also resulted in a lot of organized crime).

C-Bunny

it's all about the money and taxes, thats it thats all

jim m

I do not think they should subsidies these products but it is a personal choice to use them.

Jim

Ban it, no. What kills me about Americans, is that we have lost a sense of self responsibility. We are so quick to blame the government, the economy, the big companies. Not to say they don’t cause major problems because they do (i.e. Bush) but, on things we can control ourselves, if we choose not to there’s no one to blame but yourself. You know cigarettes cause cancer, so why smoke? You know your liver is going to rot if you drink like a fish, so why drink or drink so much. The company’s a rich because they have many many consumers. That’s the bottom line.

THe T

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.