Quote:
Originally Posted by Houseboy
It's a strange thing this "bad habit" idea. The government (of any persuasion) wants to ban smoking (as it has done in the work place) and is trying, supposedly, to curb people's drinking through this latest bonkers idea. The problem is that the revenue raised by alcohol and smoking is immense. We all know this. The whole thing smacks of pandering to the chattering classes and "being seen" to do the right thing.
The fact is if there were no smoking and alcohol consumption where would the economy be? We wouldn't just lose the revenue, hundreds of thousands would be out of work and claiming social and the revenue from their income tax would also be lost.
So many of the "bad" things that we are warned about keep the economy afloat. The same is true (even more so) of crime. We all hate it (apart from those in it) but if there were no crime the economy would be in melt-down. If you consider all the crime related legitimate jobs (police, security, jails, cctv companies, legal firms, courts, alarm companies, etc.) we'd be in a hell of a mess without it.
Kinda strange when you start thinking about it, isn't it? The economies of most countries in the world are heavily reliant on that which is bad for you or illegal.
I'm a life-long non-smoker by the way.
|
The argument that governments make, esp. in countries such as yours and mine, is that smoking, drinking too much, etc. puts a strain on the public health care system.
However, in general, I don't see it as the function of governments to spend too much time and energy worrying about legal vices. Smoking is legal, so are drinking and gambling (legal, but controlled). I'm sure that there are things that governments can concentrate more of their time and effort on ... the economy comes to mind, so do corrupt politicans. It's a "nanny state" thing ... I think that's what you guys call it. And I can't stand the holier-than-thou moralist assholes who have somehow convinced themselves, and try to convince others that smokers, drinkers, gamblers etc. are somehow morrally inferior. They are not.