Who Makes Profit From State Ban On Smoking Or "Two Dollars Instead Of One"

"Age XXI without smoking" - that's the slogan we hear more and more often. The States refuse to advertise the image of a "tough guy with a cigarette in his teeth". Iron Arny caring much of the bright future of the nation barred smoking in the California prisons. Western Europe does not fall behind America in anti-tobacco race - Ireland, Norway, Greece and Italy refused smoking in H1 2006. In H2, Britain and Portugal will "gladden" smokers. Similar public sentiments appear in France which expressed its will to join the trend of the day before June next year.

Surprising. Doesn't the tobacco industry bring millions of dollars into the state budgets every year? Has anything changed so much that a harmful habit which has been accompanying people for years suddenly became deathful? What did the smokers to cause such persecutions in the form of tremendous penalties at the federal level now?

"You may swing your arms but your rights end where my nose begins". Today, this Rousevelt's phrase has got a new meaning: "Your freedom to spoil the air with smoke ends where my nose begins". Age XXI without smoking slogan dose not imply the fight with a harmful habit. No. We talk about something greater - a liquidation of an antisocial habit. You may poison yourself if you want but you should not act as a negative example for teenagers; you should correspond to the bright image of a citizen. "Every time you reach for your cigarette - think of your country".

How pathetic these words are. Thus, they reflect the position of the government. Why would the government voluntarily weaken such a powerful allowance into the budget? Is it just due to caring thoughts of national wise me? Definitely not. Power is the same as business, and if the government loses a dollar, it means that it gets two from elsewhere. Who gives these two dollars? Who makes profit from trapping smokers?

Fact #1: everyone knows that a passive smoker inhales no less harmful substances than smokers do. Therefore, one smoker can damage several people staying in one small room in close contact.

Fact #2: Insurance companies only make profit if the funds received from insurance police sales are in turnover before there appears a need to pay for treatment. In case all the insured people demand payments all at the same time, none of the existing companies would survive such pressure. Therefore, those companies exist by hoping that their clients will not fall ill.

Now let's unite the two facts. Insurance companies suffer tremendous losses by treatment of illnesses caused by smoking (both active and passive) - let's all them S group. The number of clients suffering from S-group diseases constantly grows. Insurance agents may not refuse curing such diseases due to a wide range of S-diseases. Such refusal will soon displace minor players from the market. And even this absence of the competition would not allow big players preserve their profit levels. The only way out in this situation is to look several years ahead and play government games. It's insurance companies who lobby bans on smoking and it's them who give one of the two dollars into budgets. Where is the second one then? Let's look for it together.

Such bans reduce the profit of tobacco companies. There is serious confrontation growing between them and insurance companies. It's easy to predict who will be the winner - public morality and the new world healthy trends support the latter. Tobacco manufacturers who failed to kill the monster in its cradle now have to play by the new rules. The mistake of the management seems more than silly. Silly if we regard it as a mistake. And what if we consider the situation in other terms? Introduction of bans is a serious excuse to raise prices on tobacco products demanded no less these days. Therefore, behind the visible profit losses we find acquisition of super profits partly paid into state budgets as a tax. Here it is! The second dollar - the dollar which was assertedly refused by the government.

What do we see as a result? Smokers are besieged from everywhere making money on their habit and pretending to act in their interests. What answer can smokers give on that? They may play by the rules (let it be temporarily) and refuse tobacco products. In this way they will provoke real losses of capitalists who so not wish their clients any prosperity. It's time to remind people that we are free citizens of a free country but not donkeys who silently accept everything they are given.