" wrote in
:

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 14:47:04 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:



All my econ classes indicated that paying good
money for something meant it had a use for that person.

If you really took Econ 101, and I doubt it, you would understand
that he, and
the person who had the tobacco, are the only people who mattered.


Which of course is not what you were arguing.

Of course it is. Just because you refuse to understand...

The response was to the immorality of tobacco.

Tobacco *CANNOT* be immoral, any more than your car is immoral. They
are inanimate objects.

the production and USE of tobacco is immoral.
It's poison,and not just for the users.It affects everybody.
(whether they recognize it or not...)
It even affects wildlife.


You suggested that just because "good money"
(whatever that is)

i.e. no fraud involved; everyone is playing above-board here...

Ah,ANYTHING goes,if it's "aboveboard".... = anarchy.

was spent that tobacco by definition was a good
thing.

Both people in the transaction both benefited. It was good for them,
yes.

Not really. they suffer poor health,higher medical costs,live shorter
lifetimes. but it's also bad for -everyone- else.
Thus,society has reasonable cause to regulate or prohibit it.

Econ only talks to the utility of the people involved and
doesn't make any moral (or heck even legal) distinctions.

Wow! He gets it (even though he claims not to).




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com