No. Their existence doesn't affect capitalism in anyway, except in the way you are conflating capitalism with the tobacco industry. There is a need or desire people have, and so the market fulfils it. People want to quit smoking - they buy these products. People want to smoke - they buy tobacco. The gum didn't appear on the market for any other reason than people would buy it. Capitalism isn't about making the rich richer, it's about private property and the right to free trade. Just because one industry takes profit away from another you cannot call this very dangerous for capitalism. This is indeed capitalism. It's like thinking green energy is very dangerous for capitalism when in fact the entire process from one technological improvement to the next uses capitalism, if one believes the "Oil Industry" as a whole represents some cigar-smoking capitalist and anything that takes away from their profit is somehow bad for capitalism. Pills that supress appetite could be argued to be very bad for capitalism, if you saw the food industry as an example of capitalism, and not the pill manufacturer. Do you see?

by jorgehartmann 1 week ago

Nah, now they have more opportunities to try to sell nicotine to the younger generation.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I believe the cigarette companies have to pay for the anti smoking ads. They're probably the ones selling the patches and gum, too, just under a different brand

by Far_Application 1 week ago

You don't understand capitalism, do you?

by Maeganbuckridge 1 week ago