If smoking is really a health hazard why not governments ban it like drugs?

1. 67

   ahmed.bposted 11 years ago

   If smoking is really a health hazard why not governments ban it like drugs?

   replyreport
2. 80

   teresapelkaposted 11 years ago

   Nicotine is not really a neurotransmitter antagonist. This means it cannot work like a narcotic, cheating the nervous system.
   
   Nicotine is an acetylcholine (ACh) competitor.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ahmed.bposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But still it is reason of heart diseases , lungs and mouth cancer. I have read somewhere that it even affect memory as well.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      teresapelkaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @ahmed
      It doesn't qualify for a narcotic biochemically, this is my answer to the question. I don't defend smoking.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      TheSingularityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, Nicotine is a narcotic. THC, the active substance in Marijuana, is an endocanabinoid competitor. Opiates are endorphin competitors. MDMA is a Serotonin competitor. Few narcotics are really neurotransmitter antagonists.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      teresapelkaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @ahmed
      Mark Twain was a heavy smoker, son of a lung disease sufferer - against all odds on genetics and nicotine use, Twain lived quite a life.
      
      I do not defend smoking. I'm happy without it myself. Some research results are exaggerated, I think.

      replyreport
3. 41

   ChristinSposted 11 years ago

   In the US all the taxes on cigarettes are the reason.  The government doesn't care about the human health issue as long as they are raking in the cash on it.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      ahmed.bposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Suppose this is correct what you said but then govt would earn even more taxes if it legalize selling drugs. Do not you think so.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      Georgie Loweryposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's my answer. I'm from VA, and smokes are about $4.50 a pack there. I live in NY and they're over $10. All taxes. They're making way too much money to ban them.

      replyreport
4. 59

   brianc2kposted 11 years ago

   Christin S. hit the nail on the head.  It is all about money.  The government knows people are hooked and just keeps jacking up the tax for more profits.  There are too many human issues if they tried to tax drugs the same way.  After all can you imagine the flack from agencies for senior citizens and other individuals requiring medication if they were taxed through their life savings for medications.  It is all money.  The government views smokers as their cash cow and just want to keep milking profit. 
   
   This is just my personal opinion.  I am only speaking for myself.

   replyreport
5. 59

   IDONOposted 11 years ago

   Prohibition didn't work. And was reversed when the country realized it was going broke because of it  This would be the same. Black market cigarettes would boom just like homemade booze did. If health hazards were the real reason, they would also have to ban Twinkies, Big Macs and Super-Pacs. Viagra would have to go too. Many women have been injured by the second hand effects of this heart drug.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      teresapelkaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Viagra could be a heart drug?
      
      'Where's your heartache, there's your heart'?

      replyreport
   2. 59

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Viagra did start as a heart drug and the side effects of it, well let's just say, became very popular.

      replyreport
6. 60

   TheSingularityposted 11 years ago

   Same reasons Alcohol is legal. Alcohol is a narcotic, and it is also bad for your health. The government does give people the right to decide what you put in your body. Smoking cigarettes and eating Mcdonalds every day are not that different, and the government doesn't tell you what you can and can't eat. Like others have said, another reason is tax. The government makes money from cigarettes, and cigarette companies make money from cigarettes, and they contribute to many political campaigns. In tobacco growing states, cigarette factories are major employers, so outlawing cigarettes would leave many people jobless. It is not classified with other narcotics because it does not lead to anti-social behavior or increased crime rates.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      teresapelkaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @the Singularity
      LSD is a serotonin antagonist; lithium is a potassium antagonist - one is a narcotic, the other is supposed to be therapy. These are actually only antagonists to endanger the nervous system. The effect might be not success.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      TheSingularityposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Correct, but just because it is a therapy does not mean it is not narcotic. Many prescription drugs, like Lithium, Ambien, Percocet, etc, are also narcotics. A narcotic is any substance that alters perception or neurochemistry, not just antagonists.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      teresapelkaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @The Singularity, you say
      
      'A narcotic is any substance that alters perception or neurochemistry, not just antagonists.'
      
      Antagonists alter the natural chemistry. Many patients become dependent on 'legal therapies'. Why have antagonists?

      replyreport