Who continues to allow cigarette companies to sell us poison?  The government?  The law?  What's up with that?
352298
Cigarettes are the 3rd most adictive drug in the world and millions of people smoke, now take those numbers and realise that 'every; goverment taxes the hell out of each packet- in spain and eastern Europe you can buy a pack for about €2 but in Ireland each pack costs €6.50, thats nearly €5 tax on every pack with over a million Irish smoking about 1 pack a day so do the math, the Irish goverment makes €5 X 1 million X 365 tax and more every year...they'll never be banned
933151
Vending MACHINE?\n\nI believe cigarette vending machines became illegal under federal law about 15 years ago because they have no ability to deter or defeat underage purchases.\n\nYou can vend cigarettes in your bar over the counter with proper permits (if your state or city require it) and a supplier.  Unfortunately, taxation and the paperwork attached to this are not worth the return value on your investment.
48885
Because they are just like drug pushers.They don't REALLY want people to stop smoking. They just use that phrase "discourage use"  as an excuse so they can keep raising the taxes. If they REALLY wanted people to quit, they would ban cigarettes. But, if they did that, then who else could they stick with the outrageous taxes? They aren't fooling anybody.
1037177
I think that many people are finally getting the message. Cigarettes are very expensive and it's very hard to smoke in most places. The restaurants and bars in my county have forbidden it. Cig. smoking costs everyone money because of the costs of the illnesses they cause. Ins. rates go up for everyone to cover it.
353433
In England there is a Wills cigarette company that has been in existence for over on hundred years. Their main brand is 'Wills' Woodbines' and the also make 'Park Drive' cigarettes. Both these cigarettes have lost popularity as they do not have filter tips and since the introduction of filters in the UK in the 1960's sales have fallen. However they are still popular brands with older smokers and they are cheaper than most others. Naturally Wills need to protect their trading name hence their assertion of copyright laws. If the Pakistan Tobacco Company had persisted they would have had great problems in selling their products overseas due to the slice of the market that Wills already have and would have been subject to legal action.
1107485
people keep trying to raise tax on cigarettes because they dont want people to smoke. These people should worry about themselves.
909330
I am not a smoker, but have no problem with people smoking in designated areas in restaurants, or public places like hospitals, malls, etc. I expect people to be smoking in bars, clubs and such. I know there are people that are on oxygen, allergic to smoke, have lung problems and the smoke increases their difficulty to breath. However, everyone has the right to do what they want to as long as it does not hurt someone else. I believe their is a common ground and solution without totally banning smoking and coming down so hard on people who choose to smoke.\n\nAs for taxation, the government has that go in' on....They tax the vices they know people won't quit....gambling, Alcohol,......that's the way it goes.
925151
No. Consumers are the ones that buy the product. Tobacco companies do not force anyone to smoke. If you want to say something about second hand smoke, I live in a state where smoking in public is banned. Anyways, it's the person smoking who is at fault.
863856
I don't think that it should be a Gov't choice...It should be the owner of the property choice....I have yet to be somewhere where smoke bothered me because most places are non smoking...bars here in Ohio aren't most anyway...and that doesn't bother me at all...maybe the next day after smelling my clothes and hair but my breath probably stinks just as bad after a night of drinks.  This is just a way of people controlling and getting money...one of the issues on the ballot if you read closely says money for the "clean air fund"...if they band smoking why would you need a clean air fund...and what on earth are you going to do with that money?  I prefer my money to go to my child's college fund...but If this passes I won't have a choice will I?
996643
No, if booze and cigerettes just came out today, they would be just as illegal as pot. They are all bad for you. Also, the government makes too much money by keeping it illegal. If they said it was ok, they couldn't keep all the money, cars, etc., that they took away from all the people that they catch.
263215
Yes, it is illegal to sell one or more cigarettes other than in a sealed and properly labeled package in California. It's a violation of California Penal Code Section 308.2, 830.1. It has NOTHING to do with the age of the person buying the cigarette. \n\nI believe you should contact the California Department of Health Services.
363948
Same like other governments...\nIncrease the taxes for cigarettes and tobacco products...\nevery year...\n\nif that's not enough...ban shops/stores from selling packs less than 10 cigarettes..
985499
Yes, it's not a serious toxin, but crooked politicians love to posture about how much they care about protecting you -- so -- it will probably stay illegal.\n\nAnd the public likes to be coddled -- a dangerous sign and weakness in the body politic.
80007
A business banning smoking has nothing to do with a law. Some states have made laws outlawing smoking in businesses across the board, but otherwise, The business has a right to set its own standards on its property.  Now, laws banning smoking in government (federal and state) buildings are another matter.
844801
There has been a mind-control program regarding second-hand smoke instigated by the controllers of the medical industry.\nThey are struggling to hide the fact that vaccinations are killing people, and they put it down to second hand smoke and sun bathing.\nSecond hand smoke has far less effect that the pollution from a passing car
698255
Issue 4 would allow smoking in bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, racetracks, enclosed areas of restaurants and some other buildings. \n\nIssue 5, would ban smoking in nearly all buildings outside the home.\n\nMy husband and I just recently purchased a bar and we are very concerned that the people, (may I remind everyone one that their name is not on our promissory note with the bank.) Can decide if I can allow smoking in my establishment.\n\nI'm pissed. It's suppose to be effective December 8, 2006. And since Issue 5 passed, the only place smokers can smoke is outside. That's it.\n\nI posted a similar question, about possible loopholes. There is a clause in the issue 5 regarding private clubs and you would have to get a D-4 permit to do so. But, to get a D-4 permit you have to be Non-Profit and an established "club" for at least 3 years. \n\nSo basically, the voter's told us how to run our business. Which to me is not fair. \n\nI guess the bright side is that there is no evidence that it actually decreases business, it may possibly increase business because the people who don't like cigarette smoke may be more likely to frequent bars now, since they won't have to deal with the smoke. and since it's for the entire state and not just a city/ward . It's not like our patrons can go around the corner and give there business to another bar because you can't smoke there either.
1169858
Maybe the way tobacco products are advertised and promoted needs to changed but ban it all together?  No.....it is a viable product and like most things if used in moderation by adults there is nothing wrong with it.  Plus as an after thought, if it was banned get ready to pay a lot more in taxes in general.  My state alone collects almost $30 million a year in cigarette taxes.  You think if they banned tobacco they would give up that $30 Million?  No way, it would made up in higher gas, sales, and/or property taxes.