[DL-Invariant]

If you have a pension fund, target date fund, market index, or many variety of diversified products in an IRA, 401k, or similar retirement account, you almost assuredly have money invested in tobacco.

If you look at history, nicotine has been nearly unstoppable. If one cigarette company stops selling them, they will simply cede market share to another. If all stop selling, it would inevitably create a massive black market - there are specific markets that attempt prohibition, you can see what happened historically.

Instead, isn't it rational to be realistic and aim for harm reduction? If Consumers can receive a satisfactory nicotine experience from a product that is going to be far less harmful, isn't that still a net positive?

[hellotomyrars]

There will always be many things in this world. I don’t have to directly support them though. Tobacco companies do not care about harm reduction, they care about money. The way they make money is to sell a product which is objectively harmful.

I’m not saying they won’t exist, I am choosing to not support them though. I am realistic. But I’m not going to compromise what I believe in to ride on the back of their success in hurting millions of people on the plant, many of whom are not making an informed choice. Every child in a smoking household did not get a choice. Pets too.

You make your choices and I’ll make mine.