Hmmm. Now that’s an interesting angle. May be a good time to look at campaign donors.
Perhaps. I would counter that if it’s true most smokers start young, there are still enough smokers for there to exist a market where every convenience store, grocery store, and other stores in my city, have shelves filled with a panoply of smoking options involving tobacco, sold at crazy high prices, and sales are brisk. Dropping, perhaps, due to the rise of the e-cig and vaping, but still brisk.
I guess what I’m saying is, if getting rid of the advertising somehow kept them from smoking as kids, how many of them still managed to become addicted as adults? Enough to keep the wheels of that industry turning and churning.
I agree with this. Plus actors smoking on TV shows and in movies created icons that people (not just kids) wanted to imitate. It was everywhere at one point. Hell, Fred Flintstone hawked cigs.
Once that got eliminated, smoking was finally a thing of the past, never to be heard from again.
Oh. Wait. That’s not right.
In addition to not smoking, I don’t vape. It’s weird that I’m the side of… not so much “protecting” it, as not blindly hopping on the bandwagon to try and stomp it out.
I guess the idea that water vapor is somehow worse for your lungs than smoke just sounds absurd to me, when the thing I turn to when I’m congested is one of these:
and not one of these:
The thrust of attention seems to be focused on getting rid of the new kid on the block, and keeping the old one.
Why can’t the same laws that keep kids from smoking cigarettes work to keep them from vaping?
Or, why can’t the new laws designed to stop vaping be applied to cigarettes?
As long as nicotine and unknown or foreign particulates are entering your lungs, neither one is safe.
