If smoking is sooo bad, to me, to pregnant women, to children, to the planet: Why on earth is it still legal?
I know taxes play a part of this, but I really wonder how much is due to tobacco lobbying? I read an article recently (which is making me think long and hard about quitting smoking) about the American Chamber of Commerce, and how they are throwing around their weight in various central Asian countries to keep anti-tobacco laws from being passed. I mean, I hate but understand lobbyists. But the ACC I (naively?) thought was above political intrigues to promote American business interests.
As for taxation on cigarettes, why should all the money go to treating smokers? It's fantastic that there is extra cash to go to other causes. You cite the UK government but you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that they are promoting smoking, indeed the laws on smoking advertising keep getting tougher and tougher.
I suspect that you've just got an axe to grind against governments in general.
This is a non sequitur. Banning lottery competitors certainly would be "promoting" the lottery.
(I wonder if any has done studies on this? There must be some 'optimal' (for tax revenue) number of lotteries for a jurisdiction)
Raising money to treat smokers is all well and good, but I'd rather see fewer people smoking. If a government becomes reliant to the tax revenue it risks becoming as addicted to cigarette use as the people it was once trying to stop smoking. Such traps are what separates vice from other pleasurable activities.
I reckon that actually the only real limiting factors involved are that if government taxes something like cigarettes too much, then the black market steps in and more people buy untaxed products, cutting the tax revenues. In fact I suspect that's already happening in some countries (black market cigarettes are big in the UK, for instance. There are occasional busts of lorries packed full of untold millions of them, and anecdotally, most people seem to know of someone who sells them).
Perhaps (speculation time) this actually keeps governments from even considering promoting vices like smoking? The current balance of taxes and government controls on advertising vs the black market means that there's marginal benefits to increasing demand, and current taxations are 'optimal' ?
Just look at this: http://www.bclc.com/ And here is their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/bclc
That's the British Columbia Lottery corporation, the crown-owned business with a monopoly on gambling in my province. They buy ads, sell tickets, license betting venues, and even run their own online casino (playnow.com). BC is not unique among states/provinces in this regard. How can one not describe this as governments promoting gambling?
Where do the companies that run them get the revenue and authority to promote them?
Just because the states outsource the management doesn't mean that they are absolved of all of the effects.
But I would definitely say the Canadian government promotes drinking. They have a practical monopoly on many forms of alcohol. Whether they turn a net profit re medical costs is complicated, but they certainly do earn lots of money from sales.
(fyi Canadian government control of alcohol sales is a holdover from prohibition days in the US. The provinces actually sell the alcohol to the public. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Canada#...)