Friday, March 30, 2007

Why can't they just ban smoking?

All over the world, governments were talking shit loads about campaigning for people to quit this 'unhealthy' habit, health organizations all over the world talks about banning cigarettes.

Well, these so called Health Specialists think on a micro mode. Gain a wider, broader perspective, and they'll know why governments merely campaign about them and not taking actions to illegalized smoking.

Governments as we all know, measure their 'performance' by the re-elected probability they would have for their next upcoming elections. Thus on a society level, there's this commonly perceived 'goodness' of quit smoking, governments will response to this in order to get the votes they needed, and the seemingly mutual understanding of public's wants and needs; for doing so, they'll be in-line with public's perception of a GOOD GOVERNMENT.

Tell me, is it better to let one die, or a couple of millions? Can i conclude that the tax obtainable from smokers for a government, is enough to sustain the much needed infrastructure build ups, the health and medicinal budgets, the sustaining of social order, the sewage lines, the money to build barriers to sustain over floods over river bannks?

To ban cigarettes, that literally means stopping all production and manufacturing of cigarettes, or the importing of them.

This serious act would definitely trigger the whole tobacco industry to flow underground, triads would be the happiest, prices per pack would inflate, profits will all turn to triads, and the more money they have, the stronger they get. This is a basic economic term call DEMAND and SUPPLY.

One fine example, America banned liquor in the 1920s to 1930s; what hapened? The whole industry turned underground, triads and gangs earned so much and became so powerful and influential that Mayors were controlled by the mafias, police forces corrupted, social security dropped to a level America has never experienced before. Remember Al Capone? (Picture from above) Want that thug to re-emerge? Ban Smoking.

To conclude, stop banning of something that had low immediate effect on a social level, allow casinos, prostitution, gambling, tobacco industries as such to grow in the bright, everything will be under control, taxes would be insurmountable, government stays strong, citizens will have higher per capita earning, educate themselves, and deter whether they wanted to get involved in these so called 'unhealthy' habits.

Smoking is a bad habit for a person, on a micro view, this person smokes, dies. What bad is it for the society? Less one person, less one to fight for your job that you might be interviewing this coming Monday, less one person buying the expensive coffees from StarBucks, the cheaper it will be, less one person, the overall GDP Per Capita of a country will be marginally higher.
If suckers out there would continue to smoke, to thrive the economy, like me, let this sucker die of lung cancer, at least the profits generated through taxes amounted since this bugger starts smoking, lets say, 16 year old, and dying around perhaps 58 year old, this bugger would have contributed more tax to the government than mere average you or him.
Ok, i might die young, sorry mom and dad, but thank me homosapiens.

No comments: