can the government make smoking illegal?

Question

it is more addictive than Marijuana and some other drugs....instead of the warnings on each pack, dont u think it is best to tag it illegal?

Answer 1

Well, although I agree with you in essence, I have to say no. True enough, it is one of the single most harmful things that a person can do to their body, and it also causes physical harm to those breathing the unfiltered second-hand smoke, but if it is made illegal, it will lead to a very dangerous black market situation. Look at our county's illegal drug trade. Thousands are killed every year due to drug related crimes. I think that it would be better to simply ban smoking in all public places, including bars, public or private.
The government has recently started increasing the sales tax on cigarettes in an effort to make them too expensive, but considering what people will pay for drugs, I think that they are only hurting families by taking money out of their pockets.
Big Tobacco, unfortunately, has enough money to influence politicians to the point that it would be impossible to outlaw it (think along the lines of Exxon/Mobil and Conoco/Phillips, who have their hand in the government as well). Until the government steps up and takes the special interest groups out of Washington, D.C., it will not happen.

Answer 2

I actually think I is a good idea. But if this rule is impose to Singapore, it will made Singapore earn a lot lesser from the missing of taxing tobacco. Thus, I think that government should perhaps sign a contract with the people it itself when they are about twelve years old(they are likely to go astray), so they will know more deeper into the harm cause by the tobacco and such. They may even feel that it is important because there is a need to sign a contract. The contract (in my opinion) should be about asking the person whether is willing to be a life long smoking-free. Or by any chance if they are already a smoker, they should know that they must pay a amount of money (by CPF or cash or others) each month, or each year etc. Secondly, there should be not much subsidy(relating the part of their body cause by the harming of tobacco) for their visit to doctor or hospials. Thirdly, if they smoke in the later years, they must inform the whoever incharge of the contract thing. If they failed to do so and caught smoking, they will have to face some consequences. But if the government impose that rule, it can actually fine those younger generation when they are caught smoking. This may also be a good way to get money for Singapore instead of heavy cigarettes taxes.

Answer 3

Yes the government can make smoking illegal and in fact some local governments across the United States have done so already. In the past, 1919 to be accurate, the U.S. government banned the sale and consumption of alcohol. Fortunately in 1933 this act was repealed. The government may make almost anything they want a law; it just has to pass the house, the senate, and the white house. Then anybody can protest the law and have the supreme court decide if it is constitutional or not.

I do not believe the government will ban tobacco products because of the sin taxes applied to them. FACT: If a pack of cigarettes cost $4.00 the government makes over $2.00 in taxes. Tobacco is actually very very cheap but it is taxed heavily at the local, state, and national level.

Answer 4

The laws passed so far concerning smoking in public places have a certain amount of credibility based on the alleged dangers of second hand smoke. That's a premise that's hard to debate.

What premise would they possibly base a total ban of tobacco on?

Surely if they ban tobacco based on health effects - alcohol would soon be next.
And if they base it on the estimates of the cost to society - instead of next, alcohol would be first.
And, once the door is cracked open, what about caffeine? Or processed sugar? Or transfats? Or hydrogenated oils? Do you really think this trend of giving more authority to our government concerning our personal preferences would stop? More than likely, it would lead to more bureaucracy and control.
They're already doing a pretty good job in Maine of taxing tobacco to the point of becoming an effective ban - $3.00 state tax per pack presently.

I personally think the government is slowly getting out of control - they should be concentrating on the economy, jobs, education, health care costs, poverty, illegal immigration and a host of much more pressing issues rather than whether people smoke tobacco in areas where second hand smoke is not an issue.

Answer 5

I'm a smoker
i wish they would
they could if they really wanted
its all about money at the end of the day
it would be great if i had no were to buy fags
i would have no choice but to stop
its no different from petrol
energy efficiant cars have been around for years but governments make it impossible for them to survive were would the yanks get all there money for guns if they couldn't sell oil
how many people actually realize that the diesel engine was originally made to run on sunflower oil or something similar to that
tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax
p.s i do have a choice as to wheather i can smoke or not but addiction is are hard thing to fight
its the children of the future who need the temptation removed before they gotta fight a killer habit

Answer 6

Sadly they can but won't. What are they doing? They are just putting more "sin" tax on the product to punish the people that are hooked.

I would dearly love them to make pot a controlled substance and sell it along side alcohol. There are an estimated 60 million people in this country that get high. If pot sold for $50 per ounce (a deal if it was bud) and each person consumed one ounce per week and half of the cost was tax, like cigarettes, the government would realize a 72 billion dollar per year revenue. Law enforcement costs would plummet and the farmers would have something to raise.

Answer 7

Yes, they can, but why? Many localities are banning smoking in public places, so that takes care of second-hand smoke, and believe it or not, tobacco is big business, and our politicians don't like to mess with corporate America if they can help it.

And if it was illegal, all that would accomplish is to create another class of criminal. People still smoke pot, still do plenty of things that are illegal. Isn't it absurd too think of paying tax dollars to lock someone up for smoking a cigarette in their own home?

And no, I do not smoke.

Answer 8

Sure they could, but do you think that it would really help or make a difference? Drugs are illegal, but people who want them have no trouble getting them. Historically, Prohibition did not stop drinking either. As with drugs, it just created an underground culture for those who wanted to participate and those who wanted to get rich off of the participants. Personal responsibility, education, and better judgment are the only things that are going to have any chance combating any substance.

Answer 9

In Texas the tax on cigarettes just went up $1 per pack and $10 per carton. When cigarettes become illegal people will buy them illegally is all.

Answer 10

No. What would be the punishment for smoking ?
Jail time ?
A fine ?
People do worst things and get away with them.

Drinking liquor was illegal once, and that didn't work.

I think having certain areas you can't smoke in helps
a lot.