But no, they won't do that because........... they make too much money out of the tax. Now, if smoking cost the country more that it earned in tax revenues why is it still possible to buy a packet? because it dosen't.
Goverments are telling us that we cannot do anything that will reduce our life expentance on one hand, then telling us that we are living too long to be allowed to retire in their 60's on the other.
Things are not as simple as just the tax alone. There are more to that. Take the prohibition of alcoholic beverages in the US during the early 1900's as an example. With so many people addicted to smoking cigarettes, banning the sale of them altogether would just make things worse and create more problems. There will be people who create black markets for illegally manufactured or smuggled cigarettes. The government will not even be able to control the nicotine and tar content in each stick because those illegal manufacturers have nobody to regulate them. They'll just put in more "ingredients" in it to make the smokers crave for more. And the government will a very hard time controlling the problem. The situation could be even worse than illegal drugs problem that we have now as the number of smokers is so much higher than drug addicts.
Since banning it could cause so many problems, the government have decided to just tax the sale of it and regulate them one way or another.
If they want to save us from this great evil - ban it completely, make it illegal to sell, possess or smoke tobacco.
Lets not pussy about, if they were looking after the health of the nation, that is exactly what they would do!!!
Gotta agree with you there! If it weren't for the fact that a whole lot of people would end up going just about nuts if their cigarette supply was cut cold turkey, I'd be all for banning the stuff completely. They say it's harder to quit smoking than cocaine, though, so you can't plunge people into instant rehab if they're not ready.
Cigarettes have been proven to cause a whole host of fatal diseases, and yet governments spend more effort, for example, trying to curb marijuana use - which I assume kills a whole lot less people than cigarettes. The U.S. holds people in jail without the chance of parole for posession of marijuana - convicted killers can end up doing less time. And cigarette companies, which produce goods that drain our health-care systems and kill innocent bystanders through second-hand smoke, have free reign to promote, distribute and sell their wares. Where's the logic in that?
Relaizes she's gone off on too many tagents and meekly passes along soapbox...
tina your my hero, jus' thought i'd let ya know.
i dont really know how to feel about this one as far as gov. regulation an all that, so im keepin it shut. peace an love is all i got to say!
No government is truly concerned about the health of its people. The corporations certainly don't care, and the corporations are the ones who dictate policy in legistlation(i.e. The lobby system).
It all comes down to how much money the corporations/government can make off the product.
The reason marijuana is illegal is because it would be too difficult to control. You can grow however much you need in your closet if you like, but tobacco is not quite the same.
Although I have heard that Marlboro already has a patten on marijuana cigarettes if they ever do become legal in the U.S.
I could take this argument and splinter it into several tangents as well, so i'll pass along the soapbox also....
I have stayed away from this discussion because I do smoke. I don't have a problem with the regulations making enclosed public places (ie: restuarants, bars, stadiums, etc.) smoke-free. I will have a problem if someone decides to regulate what I can do in the privacy of my own home and vehicle, or wide open spaces. (I am also not a smoker who throws cigarette butts on the ground or in waterways. I also try to be a considerate smoker and follow the wishes of the people I am with at any particular time.)
I refuse to get into the debates about the cigarette companies promoting their product to underaged individuals. They do it, it's wrong, and that's that. But, for those over the legal age of consent, it is a choice they make. The ramifications of smoking have been public knowledge since the early 1960s - this is not news. I also feel that establishments should be able to choose if they want to be completely smoke-free or not. Customers can decide for themselves if they wish to frequent those places or not.
I also understand the health care issues surrounding those who smoke versus those who don't. But, I can take the same discussion in several different directions, showing where certain behaviors of non-smokers also contribute to the burden. But, that would be nit-picking and take this thread totally off the subject.
Those who smoke - smoke. But, realize that non-smokers don't care to share your habit in public. Those who don't smoke - don't. But, realize that not all smokers need nor want to be regulated under the guise of the "healthy lifestyle".
*I will try to find the report, but a study here in the US, did find that most restaurants and bars that became 100% smoke-free (due to legislation) did not have a significant decrease in their patronage nor profits. The type of clientele just changed.
I think when Rep of Ireland went smoke free last year bars clubs etc found the same results as that in US the patrons did not vote to stay away.
I agree with Isa - as a secret smoker(!) l think you simply need to be considerate to those around you.
The pubs I visited in Dublin last October were the first smoke-free drinking spots I'd ever been to. What bliss!! Imagine being in a packed pub and having clean air to breathe. The smokers went outside with their beers, so it was like the pub extended onto the street. And the places were packed, so I don't think the law affected business much - if at all.
Quebec will pass its own anti-smoking law this May. Bring it on!
Imagine being in a packed pub and having clean air to breathe.
What about the perfumes/colognes that clash with, well, everything? Me and the Mrs. will talk to you through the window from outside...
i don't smoke but i have to say the smokers part outside the pub has the best athmopheres, everyone mingles with each other, a lot more relaxed then when you're sitting inside with cliques...... the smoking ban is brill for mingling.....
What about the perfumes/colognes that clash with, well, everything?
thats the bad side, the sweat and fart odours in clubs is horrible !