No reason to tax it beyond reach of the consumer. To aid giving up for health sake.
If they find a cure for cancer, can I smoke, then get a pill should I develop lung cancer?
2007-02-03 08:51:06 · 11 answers · asked by Moorglademover 6 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
To the 'bahbumbugs', it was intended as 'humour'....
2007-02-03 09:08:51 · update #1
No. The only time the price of anything comes down is when ABSOLUTELY NO ONE wants it any more. In the case of ciggies, 80-90% pf the price is tax. Can you see Gordon Brown (or for that matter any Chancellor of the Exchequer) actually REDUCING tax? Methinks not, baby puppy! Anyway, if you think there's a chance of development of a pill to cure Lung Cancer, try entering the Lottery with the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 and 7 for the bonus ball. I'll bet you will have won the Jackpot before such a pill is developed. And, regretfully, I speak as a smoker!
2007-02-03 09:09:13 · answer #1 · answered by Ghostrider 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's say 20% of the population smokes. On average a person smokes a pack a day. In NYC, a pack of cigarettes is taxed $5.00, total cost is $6.50. Okay, 10 million in NYC, including illegals. So 2 milion smoke. That's $10 million a day in taxes for the government, which does little to collect the money. $10 million a day times 365 days a year, that's $3.6 billion a year in tax money. In other words, if they find a cure for cancer, the government could go bankrupt.
2007-02-03 12:46:19 · answer #2 · answered by mac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not all cancers are caused by smoking.
If smokers get lung cancer, why should the NHS and tax payers foot the bill for a self inflicted disease? There are far more deserving cancer sufferers that should benefit from a cure.
Get a life, save money and stop smoking.
2007-02-03 09:04:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they find cures for cancer, lung disease and heart disease..all caused by smoking..then the price will go UP, because the demand will go up.
2007-02-03 08:58:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they will never find a cure for cancer, smoking doe's not cause cancer, not only that, when a human is born it has the cancer bug, it only needs something to trigger it off
2007-02-05 08:30:20 · answer #5 · answered by truebrit 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
treatment for many cancers: C My dad had maximum cancers in the esophagus this previous 365 days. fortunate he made it out alive. he's doing extra appropriate. Going to Boston day after today for a checkup. gas expenses is in basic terms no longer a $ lower back, so a minimum of a treatment for many cancers makes extra straightforward experience.
2016-10-01 09:17:51 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be nice to think that the tax was in place to encourage people not to smoke for their health....but realistically this is not the case. The government tax it heavily because its guaranteed high revenue!
If they were genuinely concerned for people's health then they would ban them, but whilst they are creaming the profits they never will!
2007-02-03 08:57:09 · answer #7 · answered by linkysplinx 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whats cigs got to do with cancer more smokers die of heart failure and chest compliants not cancer
2007-02-03 08:55:49 · answer #8 · answered by will 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO The government makes too much money by ripping us off
2007-02-03 08:55:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prevention is better than cure, don't smoke.
2007-02-04 07:16:47 · answer #10 · answered by funnelweb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋