So I was just thinking, if cigarettes are a major cause of death in our world why do govenrments allow it?

Here's what I know (and what I know is limited) and what I think. I know that cigarettes cause alot of people to have health problems, but that when smoked it feels "relaxing". It also causes some to litter, instead of disposing buds properly they are thrown on the floor and stepped on. It's also a fact that smoking around others can harm their own health. So one argument would be that if cigarettes and smoking were to be banned then the health of the community would be increased. But this is at the cost of the economy.

Cigarettes have tax levies on them, and so makes a large part of government tax revenue (and we know that government expenditure is an injection into the economy and adds to aggregate expenditure), so if cigarettes were banned than this would mean that surpluses would be worse (or deficits would increase) and that aggregate expenditure would overall decrease (no sales on tobacco), but people would be able to use more of their disposable incomes on other goods and services. This is the other argument, cigarettes boost tax revenue and help in gvt expenditure.

Something else that may help I know that if we eliminate cigarettes then many people would be frustrated and that those who have been smoking for a long time cannot "stop" smoking - almost like their body needs it to run. This is the same as coffee, those who drink it often daily need that coffee to run. (That's all I know about the body and "addiction", and I learnt this trivial matter from a former english teacher)

So, anyone care to share some knowledge and enlighten me on this subject?

They are trying to stop with the consume of tobacco here.

When a single tobacco package costed 2.00€ it costs 4.50€ and, until 2009, 6€ (That's the government ideas).

Also, it's forbidden to smoke in closed areas.

But I think, even if they forbidden it, it wouldn't work. Marijuana is also forbidden. And you see alot of people smoking it. Now try to imagine something like tobacco, it's a part of the western "culture".

What, specifically, would you like to know?

I could go into some depth with regard to the neurochemistry of nicotine addiction, if you want. For now, it should suffice if I say that the brain is often called 'plastic'. That doesn't mean it's made of plastic, but rather that it can (slowly) change. Chemical addiction is a curable condition (behavioural addiction is too, but to varying degrees).

My comments on the social aspects would be more limited, but I do think there is nothing wrong with people paying the government while slowly killing themselves. It's a tax on those who don't value their life or fear lung cancer. I do have a problem with those people giving me lung cancer by smoking nearby, but that is all.

In my humble opinion, you simply cannot ban drugs. Period. End of sentence. End of story. Except for the paragraphs following this :P.

But in all seriousness its much safer for the government to have legalized tobacco products. And if its helping the economy as well, all to the good. Why is it safer you ask? Becasue the government is providing said drugs! Black market (for example cocaine) is not just cocaine, its all sorts of other crap mixed in with it. And its much more potent and dangerous. In the fifties (I think, maybe earlier) coke was much lower potency and thus much safer. If you take away tobacco now, you have a nation full of addicts who will go for the black market tobacco, which will rapidly become unsafely strong, and aduleterated with other drugs. That's bad.

On the eonomic aspect, you get rid of tobacco and not only do you have all the lost tax revenue to deal with, then you have to spend money to prosecute the people who are using the new illegal drug. Getting rid of tobacco wouldn't do overmuch to the world economy I think, but it would be enough to make Americans extremely bitter. And if people want to kill themselves slowly, what right do I have to tell them not to?

Oh, tobacco affects the economy in more ways than just taxes. Ever been to, say, North Carolina? Their economy would be ruined and their farmers bankrupt if they couldn't grow tobacco; the same would happen in other places throughout the US. Plus, there are people who don't believe in the dangers of secondhand smoke, which allows them to use the argument, "It's not hurting you!"

The mindset, at least where I live, is also against limiting tobacco use. God, in my state (which isn't my state by choice, lol), smoking is allowed in public buildings and I can't stand it. I cough and get a headache around cigarette smoke of any quantity.

Yes, but taxes and subsidies are the only ways it affects it on the national level. Although if North carolina went into a rescession on its own it would drag the rest of the country down with it, I dunno.

As to where people should be able to smoke? Outside, in the fresh air, where I can avoid them. If they want to trash thier health, fine with me, but they can stay away from me. I think its awful that there aren't restrictions on tobacco use. Note that I say "use" and not "sale." If someone over 18 (and that should be lowered) and can afford it, then they should be able to buy cigarettes with a reasonable tax on them. No black market, some regualtion in whats in them, and restrictions on the where, and you get the right set up for a drug culture thats not doing any harm.

And for the record, I don't smoke, and have no intention of starting, I'm just in favor of letting people who want to smoke do so.

because they cannot ban it completely, at least not in the US. What politicians will not tell you is that they don't want to completely ban cigarette usage, and they have a good reason for it. Do you know how many health programs are funded by tobacco money? If the US were to ban tobacco smoking entirely, do you have any idea what would happen to all those programs, that suddenly ran out of funds? Anti-Smoking campaigns run by the US government are nothing but smoke and mirrors. Smoking gives them a target that they can bilk billions of dollars out of each year to fund their programs. They tell you they want to ban, etc, but they never do it, because they know that the backlash caused by their programs losing all of their funding would be enough to guarantee they never hold elected office again. I have never smoked, I will never smoke. However, the way most anti-smoking groups operate angers me, because they don't dare to tell you what they are really doing. They don't want to end smoking, they just want government to have all of the profits from it.

IT IS A SCAM.

My aunt died from lung cancer, and I find the thought of smoking absolutely abominable--but there is no logical or just reason to ban it. The advantage that tobacco has over other substances is that it isn't immediately dangerous. You're not going to smoke a cigarette and then get pulled over for driving under the influence, because it just doesn't work that way. It's dangerous in the long run--but then again, so are many of the other things that we do on a daily basis. Freezing plastic water bottles increases your risk of cancer, too many potatoes lead to diabetes, and loofas cause more injuries per year than swimming after eating does.

But none of those things can ever logically be made illegal, and tobacco products really can't be either. They're a bad idea in the long run, but you know what you're getting into, and it's your choice.

Would I be happy to see tobacco go? Sure. But that's impractical, and it would ruin a large sector of the economy. I think instead people should focus on containing smoking--keeping it away from people who don't smoke, specifically. After all: when you smoke, everyone smokes.

I am wandering, how much of that high priced cigarettes profit goes to the cigarettes company and how much of it goes to tax? or tax payers, or governments,

if the hight price does not goes to tax/governments then the cigarettes company will get even more wealth making them even more powerful??

I don't know about other states, but in Michigan, as of 2004, the state tax on tobacco was 2 dollars per pack. A pack of cigarettes in Michigan costs between 4-5 dollars, depending on brand, so essentially, the cost is roughly 40-50% taxes. For a 4 dollar pack, minus the 2 dollar tax, that leaves 2 dollars left. Take out the store's cut, and the cost of producing the pack, the tobacco company gets less money out of that pack than the state does. So what you have is a system where the state pretty much gets around a 50% cut of all tobacco products sold. Thats not tax, thats outright theft.

Thanks Davious, so that's very probably that governmets like tobacco sale... ey.



runs and hide.

i think i have a better way of getting rid of tobacco MWAHAHAHAA, is it possible for governments to impose a law, that say every pack of cigarettes sales the tobacco company can profit 10 sen only and regular tax on that profit? lol i think i should not meddle with things i don't know, but... tempting.

The US will never outlaw tobacco... this country was founded on it! Most of the 'old money' families in the US made their money on tobacco or on oil, which is a reason this county will not devote much effort into alternative fuel sources like solar or outlaw tobacco altogether.

In NJ, packs cost between 5.50 and 7.00, you must be 19 to buy them (which is insane because they can draft you into the army at age 18 to kill or be killed in foreign lands, but you cant smoke a butt), and smoking in indoor public places like bars and eateries is outlawed. Hear they are even trying to have a ban so that you cannot even smoke in your own car anymore. I think its stupid, and getting out of hand. Personally, even though I smoke, I dont smoke right on top of non-smokers. Even before the restaraunt law came about, I used to excuse myself and go outside anyway. I dont like people smoking on top of me, even though I smoke, and certainly wont smoke around others who dont...

But anyway, there is too much money to be made through the industry...that's why the industry has been around for HUNDREDS of years.

Tobacco will never be outlawed completely - the government depends too much on the taxes that come with it. Furthermore, I am against a tobacco ban. Whether I like it or not, I cannot impose my personal beliefs on others.

I think that tobacco smoking should be banned from public areas (where I live it has been) that include: restaurants, bars, government and public buildings, hotels (except personal hotel rooms), parks etc. While I can't prevent people from smoking, I do think that it should be illegal to smoke around children, even if they are your own - in cars, your home etc. By smoking around them, their health and safety is in jeopardy - in any other situation, it would be illegal to put children at risk like that.

Even though I would love to ban smoking entirely, it will never happen, for two reasons: 1) the governments would never allow it - they make too much money from it 2) it's a human rights violation. I think smoking is gross, but people can do what they want -it's their body.

The government could impose a law like that. They could, but I hope to hgih heaven that they wouldn't. IF you were a tobcco farmer and you found out that your cut was jsut shattered by a (stupid) law, wouldn;'t you look for another market for your crop? Say a black market? And then what pays for crunching down on that? (Stupid war on drugs). And I'm not a hundred percent sure that the government can regulate an independent corporation that much. That's against our capitalist system.

governments make too much money to ban tobacco and cigarettes, they know its bad and they don't care, in Australia we have really gross pictures of dead things and people showing us that "This is what can happen" but no one really listens. Its like pokie machines, they are heaps bad for people but the government will never stop them as they make too much money from them.

I am a smoker......and I hate it! The thought of waking up and needing that smoke makes me sick. But, then again, the thought of quitting puts fear in me too. Withdrawl hurts!

I am so happy that they banned smoking in public places. It has made a huge difference. Even though I am a smoker, I hate sitting in a smoke filled room. It feels, smells and looks gross! I happily step outside into -40c weather to smoke. I risk the frostbite, not to have a nic fit.

If the government were to ban tobacco, I would find myself as one of the people turning to the black market to buy my smokes! Even the risk of shoddy substances that may have been used to make them will not keep me from it.

If the government wants to do some good, then why not instead of banning smoking and punishing citizens for a product they helped circulate in the first place - they should make products like the patch, or zyban, free. I want to use the patch, I know it works, atleast for me, but I can not afford 60$ a week for this product, that I will need to use for months along side my smoking habit. Smoking alone costs me almost $100 a week. Other people, smokers I know, just can't be bothered to go and pay for something that will be psychologically hard on them.They would rather light up. To a non-smoker, it is hard to understand why we can not just stop. And truthfully, you do not want to understand.

Then there is the topic of money. That is what it all boils down to. As others have said, you ban tobacco, you put those workers out of business. For some, it is a business they have always relied on, and to close town the tobacco farm and start a new, just isn't realistic.

Also, the government would be giving up all the money pulled in by taxing these products. Without this extra flow, there will other areas in the government that would suffer. Also, the instance of former tobacco workers turning to the system for living help would increase, at least for a while, but long enough to make a huge effect in spending. It would a downhill chapter.