If cigarettes are so harmful, why not just ban it like other drugs?

Question

Or are governments (including the UN) so corrupted and are taking bribes from the tobacco companies that they would compromise everybody's health.

Answer 1

Because it would show how greedy the government is.
Tobacco makes them too much money. They won't ever get rid of it. Honestly, I'd love to see cigarettes banned... and I'm a 2 pack a day smoker! I've tried EVERYTHING to quit. The only thing that could make me quit is not being able to get them. I'm not the kind to buy anything from dealers, no matter how bad I want it. So a ban on cigs would make me quit. I want free from this nasty, money grubbing, health killing habit, but its so hard.. that first cig in the morning feels oh so goooood! Please BAN CIGS!

Answer 2

Hea, you got it right on the second part. Tobacco companies pay a lot of moolah, oops, bribes to the government. Besides tobacco effects are 20 years down the road whereas drugs can kill you the same day. Human nature to deal with a now problem, not a future problem. Look at global warming. When was the last time you heard of someone smoking a cigarette for the first time and dying cause of the effects of the tar and nicotine. Unless he was allergic to the tar and nicotine.

Answer 3

well banning addictive substances leads to all kinds of problems....They tried to ban alchol many years ago, but people became violent and the black market became huge. Theft was a major concern....and basically all hell broke loose. So I dont think its because the Government is getting a kick back from people smoking...although the Government is making zillions from smoker, its more what the implications would mean if they banned tobacco. You just have to look at heroin addicts...You cant trust an addict, they will steal from their own mother so they can afford to get a fix. I think the same problem would arise if you banned tobacco...the addict would become poorer and poorer and the pusher would become richer. Its a no win situation in my opinion because if the Government banned tobacco then they would see crime rise and the black market become bigger. Prohibition doesnt work...history has proved that to be the case.

Answer 4

I think the issue is that the actual effect of nicotine is fairly mild. They are biological damaging but this your choice of course secondary smoke issue is rising pardon the pun. So there are increasing restrictions.

Recreational drugs have more profound effects on peoples psyche and affect their ability to do stuff like drive work etc so could be dangerous to others.

This raises the real question of why is Alcohol not banned the answer is because people will do it anyway. Just like drugs but on a much larger scale. Why a bigger scale? I hear you ask. Because it has been legal so long and readily available so lots of people drink.

Whether we should legalise other recreational drugs is the issue and whether that would have a positive or negative effect on our nations. Things seem to be pretty good in The Netherlands I visit often and it's a fairly prosperous nation of pretty level headed people. I haven't seen many people laid about in the streets smashed off their faces on drink or drugs.

Answer 5

They are banning cigarettes with new laws against smoking all the time (in bars, etc.). Since there are so many people addicted to nicotine they have to do it gradually. Some towns it is actually against the law to drive in your own car and smoke. Eventually, I believe it will come down to banning them altogether but the tobacco industry would cease to contribute big bucks $$ to campaign organizations in Washington and would go broke. Congress doesn't want that to happen.....not yet anyway.
Besides, they would rather change the public's perception of cigarettes, change society's behavior, that would be a simpler way to get people to quit.

Answer 6

The US got badly burned the last time it tried to ban a popular product; see the history of Prohibition [of alcoholic beverages] for details. To ban a product that a lot of people like requires convincing evidence not only that it is harmful, but that the harm is so great that any pleasure of using it pales by comparison. That is not now the case. However, more and more states and localities are restricting cigarette use, so that non-smokers are not subjected to the ill effects.

Answer 7

Cigarettes should be banned but tobacco companies make so much money that it's not going to happen. They bank on the hope that people will become addicted to their product. And at the same time I feel sorry for the farmers who bank on tabacco as their crop/income because they have no other choice.

Answer 8

I don't know about the whole bribe thing, but i do know that it would be hard to make something illegal that so many people are addicted to. I am a smoker, and I would love for it to become illegal because it would force me to quit. I doubt many people feel that way. The same goes for alcohol. It isn't good for you, and causes so many problems. It was banned once Prohibition, but that didn't last long. No mater what people will always smoke and drink.

Answer 9

I don't know about bribes but the government does make a lot of money from the tax on tobacco products.

Answer 10

You have to understand that other drugs are banned for a multiplicity of reasons, but one of the primary ones is that they affect how you drive, operate machinery, and they affect your mind to an extent that you could, for example, kill someone and not be aware of it. Cigarettes don't affect the mind like that. If they banned cigs, it would be like the Prohibition of the 1920s; It would open up a whole new black market. I hate cigarettes, but as long as people are not smoking indoors around me, I believe it does not harm anyone but them.