Thread: One for the smokers

Originally Posted by VladTepes

Don't kid yourself this isn't about revenue. If it was truly out of concern for our health they'd simply make them illegal... oh but wait, the government just happens to collect ****LOADS of revenue on tobacco. People may be addicted to cigarettes but the government is addicted to tobacco revenue.

....

Sorry Vlad, that just isn't true. The cost of smoking related illness far exceeds the revenue the government collect from taxing tobacco - has been that way for years now. The only reason smoking hasn't been outlawed, is that (1) - they know they can't just ban such an addictive product without massive social consequences, and (2) - it would be political suicide. Even though smokers only make up 17% of the population, it would be seen as the start of the end for eveything else that can/could harm the population. So, where would it end if you ban smokes...

Edit - just checked some figures out - in 04/05 tabacco revenue for the government was around $5.2 Billon. Hospital costs for tobacco related illness - $669 Million. Social cost $31 Billion (est). That figure include direct costs related to funerals, etc for the more than 15,500 people that died that year from smoking - over 42 per day.... more deaths than from ANY other cause in this country by miles. Taxing them out of existance may be the only way we can rid ourselves of these appalling figures.

A bit underweight ayee