2007-07-13 20:04:59 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Prohibition
2007-07-13 20:06:45 · answer #1 · answered by loofa36 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because outright prohibition doesn't work and what you choose to put in your own body should ultimately be a personal choice anyway. The manufacture and use of cigarettes would just go underground, and not only would we still have the same old health problems but now the government would be wasting huge amounts of resources in maintaining a "tobacco gestapo" police squad going around and imprisoning people for it. Taxation and regulation is a better way to discourage use of a substance, or at least encourage moderation.
2007-07-13 20:18:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the government wouldn't raise nearly so much revenue.
This isn't about the tobacco lobby or corporations, although I recognize both exert some influence on the government. This IS about what drives the government in almost all respects - money. There's no money to be made by banning cigarettes. By punishing cigarette smokers with excessive taxation, the government brings in quite a lot.
2007-07-13 20:09:40 · answer #3 · answered by TheOrange Evil 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rhetorical question, right? Here, I'll say it: because they want your money. That's also why seat belts are so much more important to wear when the price of gas goes up and less people are getting tickets from speeding.
Still, if you can afford to smoke, your better off than I am. Yet the poor smoke more than anyone and the rich hardly smoke.
They will eventually outlaw smoking. Fattening foods are already getting taxed. Things like pop and candy used to be free of tax, now many states treat them like non-grocery items. It will be necessary to keep an ever fattening government budget well fed.
2007-07-13 22:38:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the tobacco lobby is very powerful. Besides, taxing smokers brings in a lot of money. Frankly, its more economically reasonable for the government to tax smoking rather than ban it all together.
2007-07-13 20:07:09 · answer #5 · answered by tom w 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, look at what happened furing the prohobition. The gangsters started a crime ring and all the money went to them. If we banned cigarettes, then the same thing would happen again, so the government figures "hey, why not tax them and let it go to us instead of gangsters?"
2007-07-13 20:07:53 · answer #6 · answered by Rose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tax is more profitable than banning. Also the tobacco companies have a very strong lobby.
Finally, it should be your own choice and decision to waste and spoil your life
2007-07-13 20:09:08 · answer #7 · answered by blapath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They certainly could.
Why don't they -- the tobacco lobby donates a lot of money to many politicians, which means those politicians are not about to alienate their donors.
What drugs are legal and which are illegal has very little to do with actual harm and much more to do with politics and who has more money.
2007-07-13 20:09:11 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Banning alcohol didn't work, and it's a time honored tradition to tax "vices".
2007-07-13 20:07:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the tobacco lobby is incredibly powerful and spends millions on lobbying.
2007-07-13 23:32:21 · answer #10 · answered by EC Expert 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋