They do contribute to society, and they do useful things. This is evidenced by the fact they are still in business and their customers still give them money.
Now granted they may not benefit -you- directly, they may even make -your- life worse, but -society- as a whole keeps them around.
Personally I'm not a smoker, so cigarette companies (to me) are a net loss. On the other hand enough people see them as a gain so I bow to societies vote.
Not just heroin dealers: contract killers also benefit society according to this logic. They're in business, their customers give them money for a service the customers think is valuable, etc. They may not benefit you directly, and may make your life worse (if you're their target), but bruce thinks they're fine since they do "useful" things and have paying customers!
You're comparing legal to illegal. That's kinda moving the goal posts a bit.
By definition illegal things are things society as a whole have declared impermissible. By contrast cigarettes and advertising are legal, meaning that society has determined them to have value.
Not surprisingly illegal things still happen because there is still demand by some minority for that service. Society as s whole though has decided that the negative effect on others outweighs the positive effect on the few.
Contract killing is not analogous to tobacco companies. Both big tobacco and heroin dealers base their business on the exploitation of addiction, and are a nett detractor of societal value in all ways except one: creating shareholder value.
Strangely enough, I do actually think there's a time and a place to kill, but that's not the norm for hired killers.
Now granted they may not benefit -you- directly, they may even make -your- life worse, but -society- as a whole keeps them around.
Personally I'm not a smoker, so cigarette companies (to me) are a net loss. On the other hand enough people see them as a gain so I bow to societies vote.