Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AppyPappy
Alcohol can claim that its intent was not to be addictive and not harmful in normal use.

Meth and cigarettes/smokeless cannot make those claims. Both are highly addictive and harmful even in normal use.

That could be the difference. But since the cigarette makers are still in business and turning a profit, it's unlikely that nobody would sell a comparably addictive legal drug.

44 posted on 02/28/2013 9:10:13 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: JustSayNoToNannies

Yes but a Meth manufacturer would be a startup and wouldn’t have the capital of RJR and Lorillard.


60 posted on 02/28/2013 9:55:56 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson