I was waiting for some food at a Restraunt the other day and I noticed a government advertisement (a.k.a my tax dollars) next to their cigarettes... "Cigarettes kill 1 out of every 2 long term smokers.".
If the government knows that smoking is so bad, why do they even allow the sale of tobacco in their country? I know a lot of people smoke (myself included), so banning tobacco would cause a pretty big uproar, I know. However, I pay taxes to what I would ASSUME is a responsible government. If my government didn't give me the opportunity to buy cigarettes by allowing their sale in my country, would I be a smoker right now?
I'm tired of seeing the price of cigarettes go up because of a new tax, only to see those tax dollars spent on advertisemtents telling us how bad smoking is. If smoking is so bad that they need to spend millions of dollars to tell us about it, and complain about how smokers drain government funds, don't let us but them in the first place...
Am I wrong?
2006-10-01 05:54:50 · 23 answers · asked by Charlie C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Smoking also does not have one single benefit to humanity. It's as addictive as heroin and cocaine, and just as hard to quit (I've seen that ad on my pack of smokes too).
If their going to sell us smokes, when can I expect to go buy my crack or other hard drugs at the local corner store?
2006-10-01 06:14:18 · update #1
One more thing... Cigarettes would only be sold illegally for a short time before people just gave up and quit. There is one thing about cigarettes that's different from illegal drugs, they don't get you intoxicated like illegal drugs do. People aren't going to pay top-dollar for a cigarette when they can buy weed or something else for the same price.
2006-10-01 06:19:24 · update #2
It's called MONEY.... and money talks!!!!
2006-10-01 05:56:07 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"We" are the government. Yet, while a democracy, we must protect the rights of the minority. A simple 'vote' on what is good for one doesn't stand. I am perhaps the most adamant non-smoker alive, and it frustrates the heck out of me that my tax dollars often have to go to support those who have chosen a self-destructive life style. But, once society deems one such item as illegal, what is next? We tried it with alcohol in the 20's and early 30's, didn't work, and ended up causing other issues.
Smokers are the sickest most vile creatures that inhabit the planet.
2006-10-01 06:00:27 · answer #2 · answered by jh 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
do not be dumb. of direction smoking a lot less is way less undesirable than smoking better. doing some heroin is better suited than doing extremely some heroin, yet ain't no volume of heroin, or tobacco, secure and healthy and powerful for you. also, the potential of an occasional smoker not in any respect starting to be an accepted smoker is extremely small. the danger isn't a lot the small volume you smoke, it really is that you'll pretty a lot truly smoke further and extra, till it really is a dailly all day habit. all of us began out as occasional those who smoke.
2016-11-25 20:36:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you remember prohibition? People will smoke if they chose to. It probably would not do any good to outlaw them. It would only put the money in some one elses pocket instead of taxes, just like the people who use drugs. Being against the law does not stop some from doing them.
2006-10-01 06:01:33 · answer #4 · answered by mnwomen 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i agree with most of what you saying but I don't think the governement should be able to control every single aspect of life. For example, many people die from cardivascular diseases very year (because of the long-term affects of the food they eat), but the government can't just stop selling the food that causes it. Yeah, many people will benefit it and the statistics will definately dramatically decrease if it did happen but what can they do?
2006-10-01 06:17:54 · answer #5 · answered by JustMe 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Illegal drugs are a 400 billion dollar business in the US right now, if you added cigarettes all you would have done is increase the illegal drug business to 4 trillion dollars a year.
2006-10-01 06:10:57 · answer #6 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
when there is an addiction that has tens of millions of people hooked, it would be idiotic to ban it as it would be unenforceable. the sheer logistics of it would be insane and it would just be a waste of funds. the entire prohibition of most drugs is like this on a lesser scale and is not accomplishing anything but wasting money and locking up people who haven't committed any violent crimes or hurt anyone. the best the government can do is educate and regulate to keep people from beginning to smoke.
2006-10-01 06:04:51 · answer #7 · answered by Bryan t 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The government already controls enough "pleasure aspects" of our lives. Do you really want them to have control over another? I, as a legal adult, enjoy smoking cigarettes, and I believe the extra warnings are necessary in order to prevent children from smoking.
2006-10-01 06:15:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Tobacco is big business and big business rules in the U.S. just like it does in any free society.
In Canada we have universal health care.We all pay the same.I think that smokers should pay a higher premium in order to cover the increased health costs associated with this product.
2006-10-01 06:05:54 · answer #9 · answered by Paul I 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You're not wrong. But you more or less answered your own question. How much money the government rakes in from tax on cigarettes must be phenomenal. And hey, if you want to kill yourself who are they to stop you?
2006-10-01 05:57:24 · answer #10 · answered by uk_lad_2003 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am an ex smoker who does not blame the tobacco companies for making me smoke, I may have played a role in it.
The reason that the government does not ban smoking is all of the tax money that they receive.
If the pigs had their trough taken away they would die.
2006-10-01 05:58:37 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋