why does the govenment ban smoking, but allow cigarettes to be sold .....hipocritts.....?

Question

freedom of choice.

Answer 1

Sadly, the government is having trouble honoring personal property rights. For example, a private restaurant owner may be required to eliminate smoking from his restaurant. This is unsettling at best. Now, of course, the government is in it for the money. This is coercion. This is yet another example of the eroding rights of all Americans.

Answer 2

All it did was drive the business underground and the dollars to the gangsters. Naturally there were no taxes paid so the government (tax payer) was the real loser. The curbing of tobacco use will only occur when the tax dollars raised from the sale go to smoking cessation and education programs, but the government won't do that and lose future tax revenues from all the reformed smokers. The only real way to stop tobacco use is to stop providing free health care to users, If a person chooses to poison themselves why should my tax dollars pay for their treatments like COPD or asthma or lung cancer. I'm not sure that cigarettes in an impulse buy and that if you don't see it you won't want it. Most people who smoke will buy cigarettes whether they are displaye dor not. The one thing that bothers me most about the ban on displays is the media advertisement regarding the ban. I think it should have been done quietly instead of the government looking for a pat on the back. And how much money was spent on those ads? I lost track of the number of times I heard the Ad on the radio in one day and how many times the word cigarette was used. Talk about planting an idea...

Answer 3

As an ex-smoker (quit nearly 3 years ago) I will sit on the fence about this; however I did read a few years ago that the UK Government receives £8bn per year in revenue from tobacco sales.

You can argue that much is spent on Health care to look after smokers etc and you wont get an argument from me on that score, but even if everyone gave up smoking today the effects of 20, 30 or 40 years smoking are not going to disappear overnight. The hospitals will still have to care for ex-smokers for years to come, but the Government will have to devise further stealth taxes to tax everyone, even the non-smokers, in order to recoup some of the lost £8bn of lost revenue from tobacco sales.

I wonder just how much the price of a pint will go up at about the same time?

Answer 4

it;s all about the tax money. if they ban the sell of cigarettes, they would need to find a way to tax us again.
and why don't the smoke free nazi's what to ban the sale of cigarettes.
high paying non-profit jobs.. 100k plus if i don;t say so
high paying jobs for there family's.
and where else would you work 40 hrs a month for that kind of money.
your right when you say hypocrites.

the use of cell phones, hair dryers, and electric blankets have higher risks that second hand smoke. About half of the smoking population has quit over the past 30 years, yet there has been no comparable increase in life expectancy. The smoke haters will quickly tell you this is because of the effects of second hand smoke. The fallacy of their argument is that if there has been smoking there has also been second hand smoke. In spite of the decline of smoking, childhood illnesses such as asthma, ear infections and A.D.D are rapidly increasing. Cigarettes and/or smoke have about 4,000 identifiable chemicals. Your daily diet has about 10,000 such chemicals. Arsenic which is considered a leading cause of lung cancer is found in significantly larger quantities in a glass of water than in a cigarette.

Answer 5

The answer is very simple.
They are still trying to figure out how to replace the tax revenue, because, in spite of some of your answers, the tax benefit actually outweighs the tax cost. In other words, despite illegal imports, despite ever increasing amounts of tax levied, the government is a net beneficiary of the tobacco use in the UK. The revenue exceeds, by many millions of pounds, the amount spent on tobacco related diseases.
One of your respondents wants tobacco to be banned altogether, but not see his tax bill go up. Sorry, can't be done unless he is content to see some area of public spending suffer.
It is not a simple question.
If a brave government prohibited tobacco, would the, now criminal, smokers vote for them in the next election?
Of course it's cynical. Chancellor after chancellor after chancellor has milked the tobacco revenues just enough, but no more, to ensure a healthy revenue while condemning smoking.
Look beyond the end of your nose. It's governmental management of a situation.
If they were serious about wanting to encourage people to stop smoking using tax as a method of control, they would slap 5 or more pounds on a pack of 20 at the next budget

Answer 6

There are lots of things that are illegal yet they sell them
In my state fireworks are illegal yet they sell them about three times a year. You are only allowed a certain percentage of tint on your car windows yet they sell the 80 plus tints. You are not allowed to have the fancy exterior car lights on while driving, the wheel spinners do not pass inspection. All these things are sold and if you don't know the law you can end up with a fine or your vehicle not passing inspection.
I think the smoking laws and some others are stupid money rackets as well as taking away our freedom of choice
and I do not smoke

Answer 7

It is about money, but also about socialism. The more the socialists in our government wants the taxes, but also wants control of the population. Infringing on our rights, in the form of "protecting us from ourselves by sticking it to the big guys who are trying to trick us" is a popular mechanism used for many centuries now.

Whether it is helmet laws, or suicide laws, or anything meant to protect us from ourselves, it is an infringement of our rights that we have accepted for the concept of "the greater good" rather than using the principles that made our country great, such as capitalism (don't shop or eat at places that allow smoking), or social pressure (I won't sell you a motorcycle without a helmet, nor ride with you).

We build our own chains. It isn't the government. It's those who prize socialism above freedom.

Where do you stand?

Answer 8

Banning smoking in public places has to do with others people's rights. Second hand smoke can cause cancer. Waiters and waitresses can develop health problems working in bars and restaurants with smoke. Then there are people who are allergic to smoke. Inhaling smoke will send them to the hospital. Many times I have had to leave a bar because the smoke was so bad my eyes started to burn. You have a right to do whatever you want as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Answer 9

They have to be seen to do something but deep down they don,t want us to stop smoking as they make too much money. They say we cost the NHS millions of pounds, but the way I look at it we pay for our treatment with the tax we pay on our cigarettes,The government is only interested in themselves,can you see them getting a 2.5% rise I don,t think so but they expect us to accept that, They get more money in expenses than a nurse in the NHS gets in a year. How is that fair

Answer 10

So many times I have heard that the government is "in it for the money". Logically, that makes no sense since the amount of tax money spent on health care for smokers far outweighs the tax revenues. The reason that it is banned in certain public places is to protect others from second hand smoke. Smokers can still smoke and they can still buy cigarettes.
And, the "freedom of choice" argument is transparent. That's like saying that making battery illegal is against your freedom to choose to batter someone. No one has that freedom. And, no one has the freedom to endanger the health of others.