Even though there have been numerous studies indicating they kill smokers and non-smokers alike. Or are they in it for the tax revenue alone? By the way I'm a smoker!
2007-01-25 12:20:38 · 7 answers · asked by InDyBuD2002 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yes, it is a responsibility for the Government to protect their tax paying base. Though Republicans have rewritten the Constitution and Bill of Rights with George Bush's 300 plus signing statements in the last 7 years.
2007-01-25 13:23:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 19⤊ 0⤋
I am a smoker and I have to say that the sale of cigarettes should be illegal.. or be made a "controlled substance" as they say. Why sell a product that you know kills? Is the Almighty Dollar more important than health? I guess that is the governments way of being able to get us addicted to a product that is for the most part socially acceptable and in turn keep their pockets fat. I suppose that if it were made into a "controlled substance" it would bring a lot more money into the cities & states when we smokers get busted for using, buying, or selling. Catch 22.
2007-01-25 12:34:23 · answer #2 · answered by jadawncarson 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is irresponsible as hell for the government to allow he sale of cigarettes, yet continue to declare drugs as being illegal.
It is proven without a doubt that cigarette smoking is a silent killer, more so than any illegal drugs on the market, today.
Tax revenues are the only logical reason they continue to allow cigarette manufacturing and distribution. They also keep a few thousand tobacco farmers in a job.
2007-01-25 12:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eating raw meat is dangerous too. Should they ban that. OOP, they did already!
Eating too much chocolate cake can kill you too. Should they ban that?
I'm so sick of this new "healthy" agenda. It's so gay; they might as well ban everyone that tastes good.
It's not even the government's issue--why do we have to be babied by them? We'd have nut-leftists complaining that shutting down cigarette factories is "unconstitutional". ANything can kill. Abortion kills, people still vote in favor of that.
And it's not the government's responsibility for anything of that sort; if you're retarded enough to buy them, it's your problem. Just like that stupid-*** mom who sued because her son thought he could fly off a building in a Superman costume. Individual responsibility, people!
2007-01-25 12:33:21 · answer #4 · answered by Picard Facepalm 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course they're in it for the tax revenue. Besides they know outlawing cigs won't do any good. Dope is illegal, but I could go three blocks in any direction from my house and buy anything you can smoke, poke, snort, or swallow! Too bad the government doesn't tax that ****. We'd not only balance the budget, but we'd probably have the largest surplus in U.S. history!
2007-01-25 12:33:41 · answer #5 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it responsible for them to sell alchol? no look at the death rate of people who are under the enfulence of pot and cigs there are no deaths what so ever or a very very extremely small amount but under alchol almost 65000 americans die a year from the enfluence.
2007-01-25 12:28:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not the Governments job / duty to regulate cigarettes..
2007-01-25 12:28:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋