<p>“You wouldn’t wipe out cigs? No one would know it was you; it would just happen if by your snap.”</p>
<p>No, I wouldn’t. It’s neither in my, nor the governments place to tell me what I can or cannot do as an individual. Insofar as others are not harmed.</p>
<p>“That’s odd. Hell, I would even wipe alcohol off the earth, that way so many friendships, abuses, drunk drivers and deaths could be stopped. These drugs are descriptive and destructive. The elimination of these drugs outweigh the costs (the costs would be “drunk fun times”) since hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would be saved.”</p>
<p>Guess we should wipe out cars and modern industry too, while we’re at it? Stop advocating a paternalistic stance.</p>
<p>“You would save hundreds of thousands of lives if you did. What’s the reason behind your decision? Do you really think people need them to relieve stress or (gasp) to look socially acceptable?”</p>
<p>Again, you’re thinking in terms of potential lives saved, not actual. The reason people smoke is irrelevant.</p>
<p>“I mean that it is a sole detriment in the sense that it doesn’t serve any other purpose other for which they were originally designed.”</p>
<p>Again, arguable.</p>
<p>"LOL. Goodness. Maximizing corporate profit? What the hell does that have to do with your health? "</p>
<p>You yourself stated cigarettes are marketed in a manner specifically to introduce people to addictions. My point was that it’s not limited to just one industry.</p>
<p>"<a href=“http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pre...s09122003.html”>A baby box aims to save infant and maternal lives | News | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. "</p>
<p>I’m not talking about worldwide figures, buddy. I’m talking about data pertinent to the country you and I live in.</p>