1. Allow it to be sold?
2. Not fine the growers and sellers?
3, Levy all kinds of fines on individual users?
4. Accept money from tobacco companies?
2007-09-12 16:34:13 · 20 answers · asked by m 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I know Voice, I was correcting and hit submit twice.
2007-09-13 05:40:27 · update #1
If cigarettes were a new invention, they would be outlawed very quickly. As it is, smoking tobacco has been around hundreds of years and has ingrained itself into our culture. Many local economies depend on tobacco and would fall apart without it. For many people, smoking tobacco is part of their lifestyle, and that is their right as long as they are not infringing on other people. As far as fining the users, I'm not aware of any "fines," but there are taxes. Most of the taxes I can think of are voter approved (California's Prop 10 and Prop 99 are two examples). In addition, the growers and sellers pay taxes on their profits. Also, I'm not aware of the government accepting money from the tobacco companies, other than the taxes they collect. I know for certain the tobacco industry contributes to campaigns and has a powerful lobby, but that's not unique, many industries do that.
2007-09-12 16:58:55 · answer #1 · answered by helloeveryone 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1) The government knows complete prohibition does not work. This would cause a complete underground black market for the product.
2) The government makes billions in tax revenue off of the sale of tobacco products.
3) In the United States we have freedom. This freedom includes the freedom to do dumb things as long as they do not hurt others. Of course, the government out laws some drugs but most of those are extremely addictive & mind altering and cause a danger to society as a whole. Despite the media hysteria, there is still no clear evidence that second hand smoke causes any health risk. There simply is no proof. If it did there would be an entire generation dying of cancer right now. I know my father smoked around me constantly growing up and I have no health affects from it nor do any of my siblings.
Your point is solid, the government should out law tobacco if it is such a horrible substance causing so much harm to our society. The fact is, it is merely a political item which some politicians use to gain power and push their agendas. Tobacco is not going to become illegal so the government should simply back off and let this legal industry alone.
What product or company will the government want to demonize next? Maybe your industry........
2007-09-12 16:47:48 · answer #2 · answered by InReality01 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"We" are the government. yet, on an identical time as a democracy, we ought to guard the rights of the minority. a standard 'vote' on what's solid for one does not stand. i'm perchance the main adamant non-smoker alive, and it frustrates the heck out of me that my tax funds generally ought to pass to assist people who've chosen a self-damaging life form. yet, as quickly as society deems one such merchandise as unlawful, what's next? We tried it with alcohol interior the 20's and early 30's, did no longer paintings, and ended up inflicting different subjects. people who smoke are the sickest maximum vile creatures that inhabit the planet.
2016-11-15 02:27:56 · answer #3 · answered by dorval 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1) It's legal. 2) It's legal. 3) it's legal. 4) They love having billions of dollars coming in and not have to actually use it for the health care they are "saying" it is costing them. I know of no one who gets free hospital or doctors care because they were/are a smoker. Many pension plans (including government pensions) buy stock in the tobacco companies.
2007-09-12 17:21:37 · answer #4 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
#4 is the reason the other 3dont happen. Not to mention the fact that you would be restricting the freedom of millions of people. If you let the government start outlawing things because they are bad for us we would be in trouble. Then they would start restricting what type of foods we can consume for the same reasons. Eating fastfood is just as dangerous as smoking. In san francisco its illegal to smoke outside. People come to newyork from other countries and think we are silly because they cant smoke in bars.
2007-09-12 16:43:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Partially because they're wedded to the revenue.
Partially because there are enough smokers to
make them pay at the poles for the unpopular action.
Partially because they don't want to widen the
already disastrous, expensive and unsuccessful
"war on drugs".
And mostly, because smoking really isn't as bad
as they would have you believe, and they're afraid
that the required debate would bring this out.
2007-09-12 17:26:25 · answer #6 · answered by Irv S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
so far its one industry that hasn't gone overseas or outsourcing to a foreign country.
Taxes are huge
personal freedom is something they get accused of attacking daily without going after smoking
smoking, care for smokers, etc. is big business.
2007-09-12 16:43:54 · answer #7 · answered by Ravin 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because it isn't the government's job to police what an individual ingests. Are you suggesting the government should tell you what you can eat, how much you can eat and what you can drink? Where you can go and what you can do?
Are you mad?
2007-09-12 16:44:33 · answer #8 · answered by pepper 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You asked this like 5 minutes ago. It's all about money. They have no reason to stop either, death is protected by the constitution anyway.
2007-09-12 16:39:47 · answer #9 · answered by The Voice 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
one its a free will issue the gov doesnt want 2 get into and they due tx ciggaretts 2 make some money off of it
2007-09-12 16:38:42 · answer #10 · answered by darc_lady 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋