Amazon.com Widgets

Do you believe the United States government is just as guilty as the tobacco companies since they subsidize the industry?

  • This seems to indicate corruption. The gov is plenty guilty, but of slightly different things to the tabacco industry.

    The purpose of the tobacco companies is to make money. The duty of the government is to represent and protect the interests of the people, considering of cause that the beneficiaries of the tabbacco companies are amongst said people.
    Now in basic, uncontested economics (theory of externalities), governments should 'internalise' costs that industries cause to the wider comunity (e.G cancer) by imposing a tax. Subsidies are for internalising wider benefits into the transaction ( e.G education lowers crime rate).
    By subsidizing tobacco, the government is taking money away from the collective and awarding it to a specific group, where such an action is not supported by the population to be fair or for an economic purpose. It sounds like textbook corruption to me. The harm they cause by supporting tobacco is the least that they are guilty of.

  • This seems to indicate corruption. The gov is plenty guilty, but of slightly different things to the tabacco industry.

    The purpose of the tobacco companies is to make money. The duty of the government is to represent and protect the interests of the people, considering of cause that the beneficiaries of the tabbacco companies are amongst said people.
    Now in basic, uncontested economics (theory of externalities), governments should 'internalise' costs that industries cause to the wider comunity (e.G cancer) by imposing a tax. Subsidies are for internalising wider benefits into the transaction ( e.G education lowers crime rate).
    By subsidizing tobacco, the government is taking money away from the collective and awarding it to a specific group, where such an action is not supported by the population to be fair or for an economic purpose. It sounds like textbook corruption to me. The harm they cause by supporting tobacco is the least that they are guilty of.

  • This seems to indicate corruption. The gov is plenty guilty, but of slightly different things to the tabacco industry.

    The purpose of the tobacco companies is to make money. The duty of the government is to represent and protect the interests of the people, considering of cause that the beneficiaries of the tabbacco companies are amongst said people.
    Now in basic, uncontested economics (theory of externalities), governments should 'internalise' costs that industries cause to the wider comunity (e.G cancer) by imposing a tax. Subsidies are for internalising wider benefits into the transaction ( e.G education lowers crime rate).
    By subsidizing tobacco, the government is taking money away from the collective and awarding it to a specific group, where such an action is not supported by the population to be fair or for an economic purpose. It sounds like textbook corruption to me. The harm they cause by supporting tobacco is the least that they are guilty of.

  • This seems to indicate corruption. The gov is plenty guilty, but of slightly different things to the tabacco industry.

    The purpose of the tobacco companies is to make money. The duty of the government is to represent and protect the interests of the people, considering of cause that the beneficiaries of the tabbacco companies are amongst said people.
    Now in basic, uncontested economics (theory of externalities), governments should 'internalise' costs that industries cause to the wider comunity (e.G cancer) by imposing a tax. Subsidies are for internalising wider benefits into the transaction ( e.G education lowers crime rate).
    By subsidizing tobacco, the government is taking money away from the collective and awarding it to a specific group, where such an action is not supported by the population to be fair or for an economic purpose. It sounds like textbook corruption to me. The harm they cause by supporting tobacco is the least that they are guilty of.

  • The US is just as guilty as the tobacco industry.

    Yes, if the US government is subsiding the tobacco industry, they most certainly are just as guilty as the tobacco companies themselves when it comes to the plaguing addiction and burdensome health problems faced by users of the product. Anyone who works with, supports, or profits off of the tobacco industry, is just as guilty.

  • The government allows the industry to thrive

    Yes the United States government is just as guilty as the tobacco companies. The use of tobacco should be minimized not promoted in any way. The government gains taxes on the tobacco industries and their subsidiaries and they are as much to blame as the industry themselves. Making it illegal will not stop the use, but there are other ways to help stop the usages of this drug.

  • Yes, they are

    The money that comes from tobacco alone is merit enough to blame the government. The fact is they do what they want,because they pay for it. I think the government looked the other way for generations,but now we are fed up with it. I think the end results will be better when they go away.

  • I don't see any difference

    I think the line between the government and the tobacco companies is a very blurry line. Though local governments are getting better when it comes to curbing tobacco use and protecting non-smokers, the federal government has done nothing that matters, which is to say they have colluded with the tobacco companies.

  • Nobody makes you smoke.

    No, I do not believe that the United States government is just as guilty as the tobacco companies, because the United States does not force anyone to smoke or to buy cigarettes. People clamored for marijuana to be legal, and now it is. When people realize that's worse than cigarette smoking, they will blame the government.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.