Prohibiting Soda Consumption to those Under 18yrs Old

All ye teens, before you shake your fists in angst against me, have you actually met a middle aged adult that wouldn’t like to drop a few more pounds?  Soda consumption rates are a crisis in the USA.  Diabetes is an epidemic, even among the youth, unlike any previous generation has ever known.  It is my opinion that consumption of soda is probably worse for a body in the long term than consumption of alcohol, or marijuana, which is not to advocate for binge drinking, or smoking pot.  Therefore, it would be prudent to prohibit the age for soda consumption to be 18yrs old and above.

For some, I imagine this will be unpopular, especially those looking for his or her first chance to throw a riot in some city while taunting police officers.

There has been a long history of humans restricting stuff, especially for young adults, but even for adults.  There once was a time when there was no drinking age for alcohol.  Later, that age rose from 18yrs old to 21yrs old.  Thus, for young adults the restricted list has come to include lottery tickets, cigarettes, and booze among others.  Even adults are restricted when it comes to the consumption of prescription drugs.

Although I stand for it, I don’t claim that my argument is not without some problems.  I know some of the rebuttals.  The most important is the importance of learning responsibility.  That sounds good, as some may be able to link the raising of the drinking age from 18 to 21 as delaying young adults from reaching maturity, such that they are less responsible when they get to age 21 in college through lack of exposure.

Another argument is that any of those that are pro-legalization of substances use both the Bible and freedom as stepping stones to argue against this idea.  I have to laugh at those who say the right smoke is freedom.  IMHO, as a former smoker, there is no freedom in smoking because for the vast majority of smokers, their addiction would better be likened to slavery than freedom.

Pipes, Cigars: Safer than Cigarettes

Cigarettes are almost certainly and entirely bad, but why?
I suggest that a part of the reason cigarettes kill is that many of them have polyester filters.
Polyester sometimes feels snug, as many of us know through wearing polyester clothing.
Leave polyester against your skin or body tissue for an extended period of time, it is bound to become irritating.
In addition, when smokers inhale, they also may be inhaling small particles of filter, especially if the cigarettes are old and the polyester is broken up.
Through investigation, it occurs to my thoughts that the irritation that these small polyester particles give to the lungs can cause cancer.  15 or so years before Camel, the company that invented the filter cigarette, began putting polyester filters in their products, lung cancer was virtually unheard of among smokers, but those 15yrs gave just enough time for a link of smoking cigarettes with cancer. 

In addition, there was even the possibility that centenarians had their life expectancy increase if they were a smoker, but that I hypothesize was because they started smoking before polyester filters had been invented.  As filtered cigarettes have become more pervasive, so too has the morbidity of cigarette related products increased.  I suggest it is that the polyester filter that is doing us wrong, while the past ways of smoking, such as unfiltered pipes and cigars are actually safer.