2007-12-03 09:17:50 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes yes and more yes.
The effects of first and second smoke pale in comparison to that of the effects alcohol has. It's a shame we don't attack alcohol in the media like we do smoking.
2007-12-03 09:25:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
They tried making alcohol unlawful and it did not artwork out so nicely. Alcohol is a nicely-enjoyed substance, and the ban created an underground financial gadget with bootleggers and gangsters making a residing for the era of prohibition. i'm guessing the government decide just to maintain those prevalent vices legal, to extra advantageous alter and tax them as a substitute of having criminals make money off it.
2016-12-10 11:32:28 · answer #2 · answered by schaner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they should ban alcohol. However, if the government wants more money for health care why don't they raise the taxes on alcohol as well as tobacco products. We all know that alcohol also affects your health if used in excess. Of course it's probably because all government employees drink and very few of them smoke.
2007-12-03 12:35:44 · answer #3 · answered by Penny 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only thing the US government should ban is the sale of US arms to other nations.
2007-12-03 09:26:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it was tried and all we got was corruption, illegal sales, crime, etc. Kinda like the drug business we have banned today that somehow people believe is working. You see, we can't illegalize alcohol because it causes too many problems -but we also can't legalize marajuana because . . . . well . . . OH YEAH, because it would SOLVE too many problems.
2007-12-03 09:48:46 · answer #5 · answered by Kathy M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not ban because it would just take us back to the prohibition days of old, instead the government should tax it as heavily as it does cigarettes. Sure got me to quit smoking, and I hardly ever drink. Goes the same for the illegal drugs, make them legal and impose real heavy tax on them.
2007-12-03 09:30:54 · answer #6 · answered by !truth! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Negative, The government has never been able to ban anything effectively. The only thing that happens when something gets banned is its usage and its price increases ten-fold and we have to build more prisons to hold people who are otherwise non-criminal.
2007-12-03 09:22:49 · answer #7 · answered by David M 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
While I enjoy a cold beer once in awhile, it would not really affect me much. Would kill the hell out of the economy probably but we would recover. Now, the next question would be, what to do with the people that get caught selling and using it? Talk about over crowding the jails.
2007-12-03 09:22:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
It has been done before, didnt work. Option, raise the price of alcohol, not gonna work england done that and the old and new school chavs are still drinking alot.
2007-12-03 09:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by gus t 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Haven't we nearly done that already? DUI laws have gotten so ridiculous that if you basically have a beer, you could lose license and spend the night in the drunk tank. They've become a new form of prohibition--regulate/tax it to death.
2007-12-03 09:33:42 · answer #10 · answered by God 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cause that worked last time. I see where you're going with this line of questions, and although I haven't smoked pot since high school, I am very much in favor of legalizing it.
2007-12-03 09:34:23 · answer #11 · answered by benni 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋