When he can ban plastics as they are harmful to our atmosphere from few states then why doesn't he ban the cigarettes as they are killing humans gradually......Is a statutory warning enough?? Ofcourse it is earning a good revenue for our country but is he counting how many lives it is taking with it..........so for him revenue is more valable than LIFE, isn't it !!!!!
2007-03-01 03:15:39 · 38 answers · asked by MOMO 2 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
it's true that they should ban smoking, but this nation being a group of free thinkers and individual freedom, a national ban would cause a riot to the smokers of the nation, like someone posted before: Prohibition doesn't work. People are going to find ways around to get whatever they want, especially if it is banned. There's also the economical stand point that there are a lot of tobacco farmers and companies that would be greatly hurt by this ban, as well as the fact that most tobacco companies do support local politicians and government groups, so the fear of losing financial and political support is what is keeping our government from banning tobacco outright, hence with the staggering taxes and such on tobacco products.
2007-03-01 03:26:29 · answer #1 · answered by E T 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The cigarette industry earns a whooping-ly lage revenue and contribute significantly in taxes. It would be a big loss to the gov without these sources of finance. By the way, it would face toooooo much opposition from the tobacco manufaturers.
Besides, plastics bags haven't been banned, only one kind has been banned (the thinnest kind) so there was no great opposition since there were many other priducts the businesses could manufacture.
Moreover, the gov has banned these plastic bags only ecause of awareness and the shocking effects of the Mumbai floods. I think, only if public awareness increases and there's pressure put in the gov for a long time, will they do anything.
2007-03-01 03:28:48 · answer #2 · answered by namratha r 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You hit it on the button...the revenue...not to mention taxes, jobs created, etc.. we live in a country that was founded upon the principal of freedom from over reaching governments...ultimately prohibition didn't work and cigarretes will be no different...on a national basis of course... my city has taken some steps like banning smoking in establishments where a certain percentage of the revenue must be from alcohol in order to be able to smoke inside...remember the president is bound by congress in regards to legislation..lobbyist's will never allow such a ban..wishful thinking but not likely
2007-03-01 03:33:06 · answer #3 · answered by Frankie A 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The government doesn't really want anyone to quit smoking. Do you realize how much money they would lose? They make tons of money from smokers and people who drink alcohol...the taxes are ridiculous. This is the same reason many people do not want marijuana legalized, it's just another way for the government to get their hands in the cash.
2007-03-01 03:20:00 · answer #4 · answered by sassy_395 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is a multi million dollar source of revenue. When politicians make money off of something they won't ban it. Think about it. Lobbyists for big tobacco get paid a lot to line the pockets of congress, while cigarette makers paylots of money to government in taxes. All the while passing along this costs to consumers.
2007-03-01 03:20:57 · answer #5 · answered by logan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Life is more valuable, than revenue. The government doesn't ban cigarettes, because they want to make money. The government it seems, doesn't care about its own people that much. Of course I could be wrong, about this, this is just my opinion.
2007-03-01 03:21:28 · answer #6 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Natural Quit Smoking Magic
2016-04-25 08:30:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Discover How to Quit Smoking in as Little as 7 Days - http://quitsmokingmagic.info/98-success-2722.html
Even if You’ve been a Chain Smoker for the Past 20 Years with No Relapses, No extra MONEY Needed, and a 98% Success Rate, Guaranteed!
Are YOU dealing with a smoking addiction that is consuming your life? This will be the most important message you’ll ever read!
Quit Smoking Magic is for YOU if…
+ You’ve tried everything else that you can think of.
+ You’ve realized that you are FINALLY ready to kick the habit.
+ You’ve just started or even been smoking for 20+ years.
Quit Smoking Magic helps you to successfully quit smoking in as little as just days.
Discover Right Now - http://quitsmokingmagic.info/98-success-2722.html
Works for almost EVERYONE – 98% success rate thus far. You will never relapse with this program.
2014-09-13 07:33:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Once again it's the almighty dollar !
The price of a cigarette pack is worth less than half of what it
is being sold for. The rest are taxes!!!
Then the government bitches about the cost of health care !
2007-03-01 03:22:34 · answer #9 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but your question is ridiculous.
I am not a smoker, I dont like to be around smokers, but to ban cigarettes would be a horrible step beyond the boundaries of government. The role of government is not to restrict how people live, but to provide law, order, and infrastructure for us to live by.
Besides, I don't think any of us can trust the government to make the right decision on many things... so why would you welcome their interference in your life at such a large degree? The transfatty oils ban some states passed is a clear example of governments overstepping their boundaries with little knowledge to appease a lobbying power, as low-linoleic oils (transfat free) produced by agribusiness giants like ADM have great lobby power in New York (who banned transfats) and the trade off between oils with transfats and those with no transfats is an exchange of artery clogging oils in transfat oils to extremely fatty oils found in transfat free oils. I dont think the government is in any capacity to make such decisions for us, their rep sheet is tainted with corruption, lobby money, and bad decisions in many areas.
The government is better off developing its infrastructure in education to teach people about what is available to them, what is out there, and its consequences. If anything, history should serve as a lesson, and you should read what happened when prohibition was in place. If you trust your government to make these type of decisions for you, please stay away from the voting ballots for all of our sake.
2007-03-01 03:52:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋