Does the government not stop harmful products like smoking because it pays off so well for them .?

Question

They collect huge amounts of tax on smokers and in the end it shortens lives reducing the amount of social security that needs to be paid out .
A win win for the government .

Now I wonder why they do not legalize pot .
Could it be every drug manufacturer and distillery in this nation and abroad is paying off the politicians to keep it illegal .

I am sure that pot will kill people the same as smoking , just wonder why its not legal ? Can you explain it with any logic at all .

Answer 1

Well, first of all, you are assuming the government has any business protecting people from doing things that are harmful to themselves. They don't. If a person wants to smoke tobacco, that's their business. Same for marijuiana, as far as I'm concerned.

Tax revenues are not the point--if they were, pot would be legal. It is the largest cash crop in the US (no kidding--it really is) but the government gets no tax revenue because its illegal.

The difference has to do with a belief--within the "neoconservative" bloc--particualrly the religious right--that pot is "evil"--that it is addictive, causes extreme harm and behavioral changes, etc. This is not founded on scientific evidence--its an article of faith. In point of fact, while pot probably is harmful to a degree, its effects are not what the right has convinced themselves they are, and certainly not as harmful as tobacco--and WAY less harmful and addictive than many of the popular and legal prescription drugs on the market.

The different legal categories of these two drugs is based, therefore, not on their actual effects, but on a socially constructed mythology. However--Iwoud add this: As harmful as tobacco is, the same right wing is engaged in attempting to ban it as well (that should be obvious) and have a great deal of support from so-called "liberals" on this--that particular crusade is one of the few things they cooperate on. But their highly promoted claims of the harm tobacco does are gross exaggerations. Don't take my word for it--go look at the actual data sometime. YOu'll find it clearly shows tobacco is harmful to the smoker. But the degree of harm is exaggerated and there is no evidence supporting the whole "secondhand smoke" ballyhoo.

My point with all of the above is NOT to defend using either substance--but to point out that the status of these drugs is NOT based on either economic incentives or on scientific evidence. Its a "moral crusade" based on faith--and an arrogant notion that these self-appointed moralists have the right to tell others how to live their lives.

Answer 2

The tobacco industry is big in some states and employs a lot of people. Outlawing it would effect the economy of those states. The tax revenue from smoking would also be missed. There is a likihood that outlawing tobacco would result in another law enforcement problem. There is no way to get revenue on a weed that grows wild unless the tobacco industry took it over. People would still just roll their own.

Answer 3

Smoking is a user's choice!!!!!!! The government cannot stop one from using or from not using!

Answer 4

I will pretend I'm smoking and sign the contract.

Answer 5

It's legal because humanity has smoked tobacco for years. I wonder why pot isn't legal yet myself. I think it has more to do with propoganda than any legitmate threat to society. Also, smoking isn't as dangerous as other things in the world. When was the last time someone plowed into a minivan for smoking one to many cigarettes? And how many alcohol related deaths are printed in your local newspaper just today?

Answer 6

It's political pandering. They don't care about anyone's health. Well most don't. They can use the issue to enlarge government and once a program is in place it is next to impossible to remove. Funding? They just raise taxes. If you live (heck even if you die) you are a revenue stream for liberal governments.

Answer 7

Not really. Seems to be the tax on said item would be a tremendous boost to the government.

Answer 8

yes, not only that to add insult to injury we also subsidize tobacco farmers.

Which party do you think Tobacco is in bed with?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A02

NONAME...how is it that you're a "top contributor", but I gave the factual answer?

I am an Independent , and you Republicans are so god damn hard headed, you all refuse to see how corrupt our government is, at least the democrats here will take an honest look at the facts!!!!

Answer 9

it's not just tobacco, which we all with our tax dollars subsidize, but things like growth hormones that are in our foods and milk.

there are more chemicals allowed in our food than any other nation on earth.

there are harmful chemicals that are allowed into our food that are not allowed in any other nation.

the answer is simple.

the govt does not care in the slightest about it's people.

the govt is very upfront about being a corporate watchdog group...

Answer 10

yes

Answer 11

To answer your question;

Yes it does, Socialists wants smokers and fat people to pay the health costs of non smokers and thin people with their tax plan. Makes you wonder who would pay if everyone stopped smoking and went on a diet huh. It doesn't make sense but pitting one group against another is the trademark of the left. Penalizing those habits (with higher taxes on them) that only they think is "BAD" for you.