Given that the governemt could actually stop us doing anything they felt like stopping us doing, why do they cntinue to allow sale and consumption of a dangerous and addictive drug?

[Coldtits]

Is it because allowing smoking is cheaper than paying for pensions?

Well I guess the main reason is that smokers are propping up the health service financially. Even those groups opposed to smoking agree that smokers pay a huge amount in (even allowing for the possibiity of them using more resources).

Also the MPs smoke. I understand that they can smoke in their private restaurant and that it doesn't matter about the people working there like it does outside.

Maybe because the prohibition model is ineffective and leads to black market sales and illegality (with attendant violence and associated law-breaking)?

dh has a theory that they want people to keep smoking because it controls the growth in population worldwide.

It's cos the tax on smoking pays for pensions

If they ban smoking no one will get there pensions from the state

I have this image of every smoker stopping on the same day and refusing to start again until everyone apologises for being mean to us

....

if all smakers gave up tomorrow morning, by tomorrow afternoo the government would have found at least 10 reason why its good for us to smoke. they cant/wont ban it because they cant aford to, smokers pay more in tax than they cost in medical bills.

you could say the same about alcohol

what's wrong with smoking?

I think alcohol causes as many problems if not more

onager

I once got hold of the stat for money raised in taxes on smoking. Forget what it was now but it was about 1/4 of the entire NHS budget - and many times even the most extreme, loaded-with everything-anyone-can-think-of-and-then-some estimate of the cost of smoking-related disease.

I think a more sensible decision would be to legalise all drugs and set prohibitively high taxes on them, would make the drugs safer, lower crime, and raise money. No brainer surely

wondersuff, that would just encourage people to buy and sell ilegally (as they do now with most drugs) meaning that the nhs would still have to deal with the problems but would get none of the money.

Cigarette companies have become too big to legislate against. Same with alcohol companies.

Nancy surely the NHS would have more money with my plan?

Marla Tesco heroin (every little helps LOL) would be safer than the stuff from the dealer, can't think anyone would be encouraged to take it up by it being available? So actually helping people to better health? I also feel I, rather than the govt am responsible for my health

"Alcohol is not as addictive in the way that nicotine is, though, is it?"

Lots of drugs are not as addictive as nicotine, and yet they are illegal.

You can do a bit of cocaine every day and not be addicted. Lots of people do ecstasy every time they go out at night, and they are not addicted.

When America legalised alcohol the crime rate dropped significantly

if it was prohibitively expensive to buy legally, more people would buy/sell ilegally (cigarettes would be smuggled in the same as everything else), it would increase crime and the govt would loose the tax.

This isn't about "going backwards", though.

That something is already banned isn't much of an argument for it to continue to be banned, and vice versa.