2007-02-16 04:18:21 · 18 answers · asked by sally sue 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Absolutely
Only problem is, cities don't care about being fair. They only care about gouging people on taxes to pay for their corrupt power structures. A politician can get good milage out of the smoking-ban, but they wlll never stop sales, too much tax money to be lost.
2007-02-16 04:21:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Non-smoking laws are hypocritical. They will never ban the production, sale or use of tobacco. They get WAY too many tax dollars from the sale.
How do you think they would replace the billions of tax dollars....maybe put a tax on cell phone use? Alcohol? Cable TV? Gasoline? Junk food?
2007-02-16 12:32:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no place where you cannot smoke in your own home. Smoking is still legal. The sales of tobacco are heavily taxed, and the tobacco industry has some very persuasive lobbyist who ensure that cigarettes are available to as many people as possible.
2007-02-16 12:27:52 · answer #3 · answered by smedrik 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's like banning alcohol sales at a bar. People won't go for it, and I, being a smoker don't go for it either. It's almost like a sneaky way to pass prohibition on smoking. So what if it kills and is bad for your health. So is driving drunk, not wearing your seatbelt or speeding and thousands more. The point is, it's a choice. We choose to smoke, and I hate how in WA where I live, it's damn near $7 a pack. Hell, there's no more smoking in bars(which is the entire point: to smoke and drink).
2007-02-16 13:05:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ted S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Laura, the answer to this is simple, taxes, the government reaps great rewards from my addiction to nicotine. In Michigan it is in excess of $3.00 a pack. That's millions in the state Treasury, it is a way to appease non-smokers without giving up on the revenue. But I look at smoking bans this way. I will do more damage to you if I smoke and you don't then you will do to me by not smoking, therefore I can wait and have that cigarette in an appropriate place.
2007-02-16 12:29:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Banned sale`s would not work the government wouldn`t get its cut so an all out ban would not work you know they want the money.
2007-02-16 12:35:05 · answer #6 · answered by Den Budmen 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they should but they will not because they make oodles of money off the taxes on cigarretts so fair or not they will ban the smoking but not the sales which in it self is ironic
2007-02-16 12:43:42 · answer #7 · answered by auntie s 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If they ban the sale of it, then they won't be able to fine as many people for smoking it.
2007-02-16 12:21:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Cigarettes are taxed VERY heavily, so I doubt that the sale of cigarettes will be banned anytime soon. Too bad that smokers are treated like criminals. They are not doing anything ILLEGAL. People might not like t, but it is still legal, right?
2007-02-16 12:25:38 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You got it, but nobody wants to lose the revenue from tobacco taxes but everybody is all about denying people the right to smoke. It costs everyone to much money to treat smoking related conditions, what about obesity?
If you have the right to be obese( another costly health concern that is created by choice)you damn sure have the right to pump toxic chemicals into your body via a cigarette.
2007-02-16 12:25:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋