That’s what taxes are for. Tax the sh*t out of cigarettes to account for the increased public health spending. Banning a substance is not the only, neither the best, solution to addiction.
How far does this go though… Should we still be able to use asbestos in literally everything? Why not just tax it?
Part of the responsibility of the government is to protect the health of its population, particularly from industries that profit from leeching funding from the public.
I’m sorry my response came out pedantic, it was not my intention. But I stand by my comment. Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.
Notice how much work the “new uses” is doing in that sentence.
Some articles on it:
Even though asbestos is known to cause deadly diseases, the U.S. still allows companies to import hundreds of tons of the raw mineral. It is primarily used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine
The EPA has missed some legislative deadlines to enact the ban but says it will finalize the regulation by October.
Right, but are we assuming that a ban on nicotine would ban all commercial uses of it, or just the sale of it as a consumable?
Nicotine has plenty of non-consumable applications as well such as its capabilities as a pesticide.
used by two chemical manufacturers, OxyChem and Olin Corp., in the production of chlorine
Yes, as a reagent that doesn’t come in contact with the general public. They aren’t selling asbestos, they’re selling a byproduct of one of its chemical reactions.
Haha, no reason to turn it into a contest or anything. Just two people exchanging different perspectives for educational purposes. Though I do commend you for your mental plasticity. Not many people possess the mental flexibility to change their opinions based on newly introduced information anymore. Cheers.
That’s what taxes are for. Tax the sh*t out of cigarettes to account for the increased public health spending. Banning a substance is not the only, neither the best, solution to addiction.
How far does this go though… Should we still be able to use asbestos in literally everything? Why not just tax it?
Part of the responsibility of the government is to protect the health of its population, particularly from industries that profit from leeching funding from the public.
Well, asbestos are not banned and they are actually pretty toughly regulated. So maybe find a better analogy.
Pedantry…
I’m sorry my response came out pedantic, it was not my intention. But I stand by my comment. Asbestos hasn’t been fully banned in USA.
Notice how much work the “new uses” is doing in that sentence.
Some articles on it:
(Deadline they missed, again)
https://www.propublica.org/article/asbestos-ban-poisoning-workers-factories
Right, but are we assuming that a ban on nicotine would ban all commercial uses of it, or just the sale of it as a consumable?
Nicotine has plenty of non-consumable applications as well such as its capabilities as a pesticide.
Yes, as a reagent that doesn’t come in contact with the general public. They aren’t selling asbestos, they’re selling a byproduct of one of its chemical reactions.
I yield. Thanks for the information!
Haha, no reason to turn it into a contest or anything. Just two people exchanging different perspectives for educational purposes. Though I do commend you for your mental plasticity. Not many people possess the mental flexibility to change their opinions based on newly introduced information anymore. Cheers.