The amount of problems it causes is unbelievable.
So why don't they just stop it altogether?
And the same with cigarettes....
I mean, is it ALL down to money? Their greed?
2007-07-06 22:44:34 · 17 answers · asked by ... 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Hm, so smoking related illness and deaths aren't problems? hmm okay.
2007-07-06 22:51:52 · update #1
I like how you throw cigarettes into that equation.... Oh no!!! Riots started over cigarettes!! You are stupid... I agree that cigarettes should be banned ( I smoke) But what the F do they have to do with causing problems?
Sounds like some priss is ranting
2007-07-06 22:49:08 · answer #1 · answered by untchble 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
|I suggest that you look up Prohibition and see how it cannot and did not work. All it did was made a lot of criminals unbelievably wealthy.
Drugs are banned but you can even get them in prison. Banning substances just does not work, and in any event it is not the alcohol that causes the problem, it is people.
Ever heard someone say "I can't drink port, it gives me a headache"? No it doesn't - one glass of port won't give you a headache - half a bottle might, and it's the same with any alcohol. In moderation it is great, in excess it is a problem.
I suspect that heroin is actually the same.
Consider how many people are employed in the drinks industry - where would they all work? And then the tax revenue - where would that come from?
Homer Simpson once said: "Beer - the solution to, and the cause of, most of life's problems".
But read up on Prohibition first
2007-07-07 05:54:09 · answer #2 · answered by Essex Ron 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If baned there would be a huge surge in crime. 1928 the U.S. did ban alcohol and guess what happened. Crime organizations took over transporting and selling it. These gangs fought each other for control and innocent people got caught in the middle of bloody gun fights. No matter what laws are enacted people are going to want to get drunk and gangs are more then happy to make money off of them. Alcohol in moderation is actually good for the heart and urinary system. The current problems are nothing compared to what would happen if banned. There would be no government oversight to quality which means the moonshine could be deadly, gangs would gain even more power, and I would be mad as hell that I would not be able to enjoy a fine beer after spending the day working my butt off.
2007-07-07 06:03:06 · answer #3 · answered by sonofmary 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If only it was that simple.
Perhaps they could make cigarettes a prescription item that only registered nicotine addicts could get from a pharmacist.
But you can't ban alcohol, I love red wine, not that I'm an alcoholic... you'd have riots on the streets if wine was band.
2007-07-08 19:33:09 · answer #4 · answered by Andrew 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. Many people choose to drink, but some not responsibly. Money is only a part of it.
2007-07-07 06:22:23 · answer #5 · answered by scott p 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was tried, called prohibition in the 1920s. ended up with gang wars, bootleg alcohol, lots of dead people and the most important... the loss of government revenue in form of taxes. Yes. it all comes down to money. its a big pie and everyone wants a piece of it.
2007-07-07 06:41:45 · answer #6 · answered by oldguy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was tried in the US in the 1920s. It was called Prohibition and it didn't work at all. Read a history book.
2007-07-07 05:49:11 · answer #7 · answered by tartu2222 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Then the governments will suffer - most of the % of money from alcohol and smokes goes to them.
2007-07-07 05:48:27 · answer #8 · answered by • Koala • uʍop ɹǝpun 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
smokes relax me and beer makes ugly women at the pub look better
2007-07-07 05:49:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because not everyone who drinks alcohol has problems. some people know their limit and only drink it on occasion.
2007-07-07 06:14:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋