The government realizes a lot of revenue through tax OK OK but still thousand die every year bcoz of it... what society is this... what government
2006-06-29 17:35:36 · 24 answers · asked by krypton 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The government would loose out on alot of money,With that said now I would like to say that it is a choice.You do not have to do it and if you ar against it then I suggest you don't do it and quit trying to make rules for others.If They choose to do it then it is their life,not yours
Now,Have a nice day
2006-06-29 17:43:02 · answer #1 · answered by jlthomas75844 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The earliest colonies were intended to produce tobacco for European markets. Tobacco has very deep pockets and power dating back for centuries. It may also prove difficult to outlaw a product which is still widely used and on which so many small farmers still depend. Hopefully tobacco use can be minimized without full prohibition, as it has been for decades now.
2006-06-30 00:52:43 · answer #2 · answered by Hector Rolle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is ineffective to ban something a lot of people want. It may actually cause more harm than good, no matter how noble the intention.
The government banned booze 80 years ago. People wanted their booze so they paid what it took to get it and the mobs got a pretty good launch out of it. It took almost ten years for the government to get around to "oops" and lift the ban.
2006-06-30 00:40:22 · answer #3 · answered by Fred S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the government makes billions a year on the taxes of cigarettes. its about 10 to 15 percent of the government money comes from tobacco taxes. booze is a fraction of that. more die from cancer from smoking than drinking. stats already show that. the government will never touch the hand that feeds it great wealth.
2006-06-30 00:42:15 · answer #4 · answered by hollywood71@verizon.net 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because eventually...people would stard getting shot over tobacco deals the same way they are over other drugs. If you ask me, they should stop the war on drugs, and put a bit more money and effort into controling their distribution and getting addicts treatment. Besides, it would save us Tens of billions of dollars a year on paing for drug addicts and dealers to live in jail. Banning tobacco would cost lives and money. better to limit those who smoke to certain areas when in public and call it good. It's their choice to smoke. They pay the consequenses. their business.
2006-06-30 00:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by Wench 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the government would loose too much money in lost tax revenue. In this issue they really don't care about your health all they care about is tax revenue.
2006-06-30 00:40:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thousands die cause of all sorts of addictions, but even if they ban it people will still do it, and if you say no it'll more likely make the person want it even more just cause its against the law/been banned
2006-06-30 00:39:03 · answer #7 · answered by Reika 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Big Money[Lobbiest] Taxes and the Politicans who are from the States that profit from the Industry.
2006-06-30 01:00:57 · answer #8 · answered by whoeddy 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't they ban alcohol...again? It kills more than tobacco... Tobacco didn't cause people to total three of my cars and put me in the hospital. Really, I wish they'd do away with the pair of them.
2006-06-30 00:39:18 · answer #9 · answered by Boom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Impossible. The ban of alcohol didn't work, and there are more people addicted to tobacco than alcohol. It won't work.
What would you ban next, McD fry's?
2006-06-30 00:45:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋