So if someone steals a bike or a car, that means cars and bikes are addictive? If someone steals your phone or laptop, that means they're addicted to electronics? If they steal jewelry, that means they're addicted to bling?
Those things are stolen either for personal use....or to sell to buy drugs. Nobody steals your car so they can chop it, sell it, and buy...cigarettes.
Um, well, maybe not individually. But, people steal what they want, or what they can sell to buy what they want. While I get your point, I did not realize your previous point was that cigarettes are not addictive. I think they are, but like many addictive things they are not addictive to some, highly addictive to some, and moderately addictive to others. I didn't think that was even in dispute. I thought your previous position was that cigarettes are not as much of a problem because they are legal, and thus more readily available.
How about women who leave their kids to bake in the car while they get their nails done? Or go boink with their boo? Does that mean manicures kill? And sex kills?
The cigarette is not the direct cause of the child neglect, whereas being so strung out on drugs that you cannot function is. And I want to point out that millions - trillions if you count Asia - of people smoke their asses off around their kids with no ill effect. If second hand smoke was really a killer, the Chinese would be extinct.
I'm sure you're kidding, since there aren't trillions of people on the planet (not even tens of billions), or, you're talking over time. But, I can agree the cigarette is not the direct cause of the neglect; it is the addiction to the cigarette that makes the mom/dad make poor choices. Whether that addiction is to gambling, or getting one's nails done, or boinking, or smoking legal tobacco or wacky tobakky or buying things off of Amazon or chugging your favorite wine until you can't see straight - it is the addiction that is the problem, not the thing one is addicted to.
Right, Prognella, but they still cost money.
I don't know what Prognella is, but I'm sure there's a funny story there.
Yes, they cost money. If someone is addicted to a cheaper and more readily-available thing, it's easier to fit that into one's lifestyle with a legal and non-degrading job.
According to the media and the American Lung Association, pretty much everything causes cancer. Dying eventually perhaps of lung cancer isn't even remotely the same thing as accidentally ODing on heroin and you know it.
I do. One is a long, drawn out, expensive, painful, and completely avoidable death at a much earlier age than would otherwise happen. The other is a short, painful, and completely avoidable death at a much earlier age than would otherwise happen.
Your argument is flawed and full of strawmen. I'm sort of insulted that you didn't bother to make a better case.
I will try harder next time