Government is advising not to smoke. Instead, why they are not taking action to stop production of tobacco pro

Answer 1

It is because law enforcement departments of government of India and state governments are not doing their jobs more than 10%

Government employees are mostly corrupt leaving a negligible minority of sincere employees... who are usually harassed

Right now, every thing… law and order, public life, employment for youth, safety of oldies, honor of women, discipline, poverty, health, electric supply, economy, trade, etc is in shambles in our country

Indian voters should bring decent, sincere, qualified, civilized and emotionally sensitive representatives for forming governments in the centre and states

Answer 2

The Government has not proper planning. First they have to find alternate uses for tobacco. They have to stop tobacco cultivation, Alternate crop cultivation to be started. Tobacco based industries also advised to manufacture other products.

Answer 3

Everyone knows smoking is bad for you.
Because the government taxes peoples vices and makes money off of it. Also it is your personal choice whether or not to smoke. YOu cant ban something because it is bad for you, otherwise all fast food joints would be closed down.

Answer 4

The government is not serious as many of its members also smoke in private. When they can create a non smoker and non drinkers parliament then they can think of banning smoking and drinking.

Answer 5

Senators from tobacco growing states

Answer 6

Because of the lobbyists for the tobacco industry.

Answer 7

Yes u are right they should stop the production of tabbaco. If there is no tabbaco there will be no smoke or smokers. They should stop it to keep the young generation safe from smoking.

Answer 8

tobacco has been a major cash-crop in the US since before we were a country.

Answer 9

Because Repubs own the companies.

Answer 10

One of the strongest lobbies has always been the ones used by the tobacco companies. Their work is why it took so long for the US government to even require the surgeon general’s warning. They also made it hard to stop tobacco advertising as in “The Winston Cup” of NASCAR. Any victories are small and hard fought. I have seen cigarette ads on TV in print ads, and supporting sports events, then they were only sold to adults, then they were only in print ads, then the Surgeon General’s warning was put on the pack in fine type, then the stores were forced to keep the cigarettes behind the counter, then they were accused of using cartoon characters to try and reach the teenage market, then the crack down on only letting adults buy cigarettes was strengthened, and now they have lost the ability to support sporting events. However there are no laws restricting their sale to adults, and their probably never will be.

The farmers who are still growing tobacco in the US also don’t want any regulations against cigarette smoking. They don’t want to convert to another crop, but instead keep growing tobacco, so they help to support the tobacco lobbies. The tobacco companies also help the farmers, but keeping the price of cigarettes high.

Cigarettes have caught on outside of the US, especially in China. This is a huge market for the cigarette companies, and they will fight hard to keep it. This gives the tobacco companies another reason to try and prevent any legislation against cigarettes. If tobacco was further restricted then it wouldn’t be long before the rest of the world followed suit, plus the tobacco companies are working hard to keep their US market. They are making their cigarettes more addictive and are actively seeking the teenage market.

Lobbyists are one of the biggest problems in Congress, at the state and federal levels. They raise a lot of money and “donate” it to politicians who are running for office. Every year it gets more expensive to run for office. If a politician doesn’t run for office then few people take them seriously anymore; they are lame ducks. So the contributions from the lobbyists are critical.

These “donations” come with no strings attached, but if the congressman votes against a position that the lobbyists support then they can kiss any future “donations” goodbye. Therefore rich companies who employ lobbyists have a powerful influence on congress. In fact if you don’t have a lobbyist working for you on a bill that you want enacted into law, then you don’t have much of a chance of ever seeing your bill made into a law. Other powerful lobbies are the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), and the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons). Both groups have their agenda and want to promote it. So a congressman who gets campaign contributions from the AARP will try to stop any bills that could hurt retired, or elderly people. In the case of the NAACP their agenda leads to helping black people, so they work against those who are hostile to black people. Another way that these lobbyists are powerful is that they can direct their members to do something and often they are a big block of voters.

In the case of the NRA (National Rifle Association) any legislation that would restrict the sale and ownership of guns would be harmful to their position. If they can’t “bribe” a congressman with campaign contributions then they tell all of their members that this congressman is trying to take their guns away and you should not vote for them on Election Day. That can have a powerful effect on politicians. Just the endorsement or lack of it by a lobby can make or break a politician’s career. If the NRA didn’t want congressman John Doe to be re-elected then they would contribute to his opponents, they would help fund negative ads against John Doe, and they would encourage people to not vote for John Doe. They would also generate TV and newspaper stories against John Doe, and make people start to doubt if they can get elected. In this way the lobby increases its power and influence. So just the threat of not supporting a congressman can bring rebellious congressmen in line.

Lobbyists used to abuse the system by giving high value gifts to congressmen that has been made illegal. However, it doesn’t prevent the congressmen from making a “fact finding” trip that is paid for by the lobbyists. A trip to a Palm Desert, a day on a world-class golf course, with a free 4 star hotel room for the entire family is a pretty powerful incentive to listen to the lobbyist.

Then lobbyists can ally with others. If a lobby promises to help another lobby with their congressional votes then the second lobby becomes more powerful. If there is a bill in congress that restricts cigarettes then the cigarette lobbyist could talk to the alcohol lobbyist, “Hey if this law passes then what’s next? They could try and restrict alcohol as well.” The alcohol lobbyist wouldn’t want that to happen so they would be happy to ally with the tobacco lobby to make sure that the bill to restrict cigarettes wouldn’t pass. Both groups might support the same congressman, but there is a strong chance that each lobbyist will be supporting different congressman. By getting the influence of both lobbies behind the move to stop the bill, there is a strong chance it won’t pass.

With all this power, and with the huge profits of the tobacco companies invested in maintaining this power, their lobbyists are very strong. It would be almost impossible to pass a law outlawing cigarettes. Plus the cigarette companies “cooked the research” on cigarettes for years. If a group from Harvard ran an experiment that proved smoking was harmful then the tobacco companies would move against them. Suddenly, congressmen in the lobbyist’s pocket would “investigate” Harvard, and find ways to restrict their funding; this is most often done in committees. Meanwhile another University would find itself funded to run experiments to discount the previous experiments. The tobacco companies would look for someone willing to take a positive position on smoking. There are not any laws against bribing scientists, and the tobacco company can hide that bribe in a research grant or some other way.

This is why it took so long for people to accept the proof that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health. The lobbyists and the cigarette companies did their best to discredit any research that showed smoking was harmful. The tobacco companies even had doctors say that smoking was good for you. If they couldn’t find an independent scientist willing to say that smoking isn’t harmful then they would hire their own scientists to a prove it.

Faced with all this power, it is almost a miracle that there are any laws against smoking. It took a long time, but the public finally realized that smoking is harmful. They are demanding antismoking ordinances. These laws are enacted by individual cites and towns so congress doesn’t have anything to do with it. The tobacco companies may be rich, but they can’t try to influence every city council.

Then there is the example of Prohibition. It was once illegal to sell alcohol in the US or to transport it into the US or store it. This was done with a Constitution Amendment in response to the Woman’s Temperance League (another powerful lobby). That ushered in the organized criminal organizations and later the Mafia. Smuggling alcohol into the US became a big business, as did illegal stills and breweries and illegal bars called speak easies. People still drank no matter what the law said. The police tried to enforce the law, the FBI has its roots in this attempt, but in the end they all failed.

Therefore it is VERY difficult to enact antismoking laws and making them illegal would only promote more smoking, by creating smuggling rings and other groups to handle and promote the illegal trade. Because so many people are addicted to smoking any law against it would be unpopular and doomed to fail. The cigarette companies would actively work against those politicians that supported the law and would do their best to make sure they would never be re-elected.

There are almost no laws that restrict lobbyists. The original Framers of the Constitution never expected this, and didn’t put in any safeguards against it.

The term lobbyist came from where they worked. Special interest groups would come to Congress and wait in the lobby. When congress adjourned or took a break they would try to snag Congressman and talk with them about their issue. They would offer their political support and campaign contributions, all leading up to influencing their votes. The lobbyists concentrated on the Federal Congress first, but soon they moved to the state congresses, governors, and mayors.

Any attempt to restrict the sale or use of cigarette smoking is doomed and cannot pass through either the state or federal congresses. The lobbyist will even work to prevent such laws in major cities. The only hope is for “grass root” movements to restrict smoking and the sale of cigarettes. We have seen that in local antismoking ordnances and an insurance companies policy of charging a higher premium to smokers.