raising taxes on tobacco products

[heyzombiehitler]

Good idea? Pointless? Im curious as to what non smokers think.

[saysmydoctor]

It's brilliant. I love sin taxes.

[Machu505]

They're good.

[The Personist]

Brilliant.

[Love As Arson]

As a smoker, it sucks, but I suppose it is necessary.

[derekmoyer4]

absolutely they should raise the taxes for them. i mean they are putting harmful chemicals into the air. so they should suffer, and rightfully so.

[leifstar]

If it wasn't for the damage second hand smoke does, I would not agree with it.

[Mercy Medical]

Meh, I don't really know how I feel about it. I feel like it's a bit unfair to the people who do smoke. I mean, yea we all know that smoking is not good for you, but in the end it's their choice to do it. I don't really agree with "punishing" them for these habits, but its not like anything can be done about it.

[cupcakeomg]

Meh, I don't really know how I feel about it. I feel like it's a bit unfair to the people who do smoke. I mean, yea we all know that smoking is not good for you, but in the end it's their choice to do it. I don't really agree with "punishing" them for these habits, but its not like anything can be done about it.

If they were only harming them selves, then I couldn't care less. but They are harming the people around them and the enviroment.

My mom is a smoker and for 13 years my mom smoked in our house. I didn't realise how gross I smelled untill i moved and she had to smoke outside. we're about middle class so for some things we're tight on money. maybe if they raised the price/taxes on cigarettes she might stop smoking...

[jwicklun]

i dunno, I don't smoke, I don't like ciggarettes, but this still comes off as unfair to people. yeah, its unhealthy, but people have a right to smoke, and I don't think they should be taxed on because of it. It reminds me when the soda tax was brought up. I found it amazingly pointless, and despite the small raise, people are still going to drink soda. The same will go with smokers.

[Mercy Medical]

If they were only harming them selves, then I couldn't care less. but They are harming the people around them and the enviroment.

My mom is a smoker and for 13 years my mom smoked in our house. I didn't realise how gross I smelled untill i moved and she had to smoke outside. we're about middle class so for some things we're tight on money. maybe if they raised the price/taxes on cigarettes she might stop smoking...
I suppose I'm just of the mindset that people should stop smoking for the reasons you just listed, not because they are being forced to because they can't afford it anymore.

What's most likely going to happen is that they will continue smoking, but will have to cut costs in other areas.

I just don't think it's a reasonable or viable solution to people smoking and in turn just makes people worse off.

[GregChambers]

Smokers are a negative externality to the environment...Therefore it makes sense economically to tax this externality in an attempt to reduce it. I think it's a good idea...but then again, I'm a non-smoker myself.

[Mercy Medical]

Smokers are a negative externality to the environment...Therefore it makes sense economically to tax this externality in an attempt to reduce it. I think it's a good idea...but then again, I'm a non-smoker myself.
But do you honestly believe this tax will make enough people stop smoking to make a significant impact on the environment or the people surrounding them who do not smoke and thus get second hand smoke?

I think some of the poorest will be forced to quit due to this tax or, like I said previously, they will make cuts in other areas. I honestly do not see this tax making a big enough impact to make a difference.

Honestly, if smoking is making THAT big enough of an impact on the environment and the health of others, they should just make it illegal. I see these increases in taxes as a bit of a cop out. "Oh, well it's still legal to smoke, but we're just going to tax the hell out of you!"

[GuitarR0cker1]

I support the idea of sin taxes to raise money but to to punish people for "sin". I don't like the fact that most people who use tobacco are working class or poor, which essentially makes it a regressive tax. People will always buy tobacco producs, and a tax will only cause lots more financial problems for them. Of course at the same time a few people might quit smoking because of this, relieving them of a huge financial burden.

[Jason Tate]

Porn tax.

[trindaddy]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.

[anamericangod]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.

I'm totally okay with taxing those things.

[Machu505]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.
Absolutely.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Well would you rather have higher consumption taxes or higher personal income taxes?

I would go with consumption taxes personally.

[Praetor]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.
haha I love how this post backfired.

[Jordachejeans91]

I chew red man straight in the can... its $1.50 haha

[Adeniz19]

they already do tax the shit out of alcohol.

[Praetor]

Also is pornography (like Tate brought up) already sin taxed? If not that would be a huge source of revenue.

[Jason Tate]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.

I'm totally okay with taxing those things.

Absolutely.

Ditto.

[trindaddy]

haha I love how this post backfired.
Eh not really. I was trying to say if you tax one, you should tax them all. I'd rather have none at all though. Should have made that clearer. I don't like the idea of taxing just one; singling out just one group killing themselves.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Here is a fun academic econ paper for you

The Political Economy of Sin Taxes (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1406953)



Conclusions

We have shown that optimal sin taxes will typically exceed the average distortion caused
by self-control problems in the economy: this result arises due to the asymmetric effects
of sin taxes on the welfare of those with severe self-control problems on the one hand,
and on (close to) rational individuals on the other hand. We have argued that under
reasonable assumptions, the demand of irrational large-scale consumers is (in absolute
terms) more responsive to taxation than the demand of rational individuals with a low
level of consumption. Therefore, the positive welfare effect of taxation on irrational
consumers typically exceeds the negative impact on rational consumers. The median
voter, however, does not take such asymmetries into account. There is therefore a
bias in voting behaviour, which implies that the sin tax chosen in a majority voting
equilibrium tends to be below the socially optimal level.

....

The view that emerges from previous empirical literature seems to be that for ex-
ample excise duties on cigarettes are in most countries very high compared to the
external costs of smoking. However, the present analysis provides a theoretical argu-
ment suggesting that such taxes may nevertheless be too low from a social point of
view.
Finally, it should be noted that throughout the analysis, we have assumed that
individuals are sophisticated - that is, they are fully aware of their self-control problem.
Individuals thus value sin taxes as a self-control device, and vote for positive taxes.
However, if some individuals are partially naive, their preferred tax rate will be lower
than the level indicated by our results. In the case where some individuals are either
partially or fully naive, therefore, the problem of sub-optimally low equilibrium taxes
would be exacerbated.

btw: their assumption at the end is very important.

[speakhandsforme]

Creating a tax that applies much more heaviliy to the lower class and milks the poor through their addictions? Yeah, that sounds like something we should be doing....

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

ya casue all "poor" people are addcited to tobacco and alcohol. :-|

for someone who seems to be making this about class warfare you sure have some negitive stereotypes for poor people

[saysmydoctor]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.
Sin taxes are amazing. If you are going to have a bad habit like smoking it has costs down the line. Health costs, the continual costs of cigarettes, not mention the body begins to crave more cigarettes as you become more and more addicted, meaning you have to buy more to consume more to satisfy the craving.

Smoking is the number one avoidable killer, if people aren't willing to avoid it (smoking has decreased slowly), we'll make it incredibly expensive. They'll be mad at first, but we'll save them money (hopefully) down the line and they won't shave 10 years off their life.

Tax all of that shit, 100% agree.

[Love As Arson]

My question is, wouldn't it be more effective to have comprehensive programs that deter smoking, instead of increasing taxes on the poor? Most addictions will not be stopped through price increases, whether it will be due to the creation of an underground economy or merely putting more of their income into the harmful product.

[Love As Arson]

Sin taxes are amazing. If you are going to have a bad habit like smoking it has costs down the line. Health costs, the continual costs of cigarettes, not mention the body begins to crave more cigarettes as you become more and more addicted, meaning you have to buy more to consume more to satisfy the craving.

Smoking is the number one avoidable killer, if people aren't willing to avoid it (smoking has decreased slowly), we'll make it incredibly expensive. They'll be mad at first, but we'll save them money (hopefully) down the line and they won't shave 10 years off their life.

Tax all of that shit, 100% agree.
Tax increase on condoms.

[saysmydoctor]

Not sure if I agree with increasing taxes on those, simply because protection/deterrents should be readily or cheaply available.

[Praetor]

Yeah, if anything, birth control should be cheaper.

[Love As Arson]

Not sure if I agree with increasing taxes on those, simply because protection/deterrents should be readily or cheaply available.
Your argument reminded me of the conservative tendency to legislate behaviour.

[saysmydoctor]

Your argument reminded me of the conservative tendency to legislate behaviour.
If it's course corrective and moves to push healthier choices, it's mutually beneficial. "Tax the shit out of it" may be excessive , but definitely tax it. Things that are detrimental in long run should have some sort of immediate consequence to make you reconsider down the line.

[Theseventhson]

I've been robbed by someone who needed money for cigarettes, not a good idea.

[Praetor]

Great argument. I will now reconsider my position on the issue.

[Love As Arson]

If it's course corrective and moves to push healthier choices, it's mutually beneficial.
They have made a choice.
Things that are detrimental in long run should have some sort of immediate consequence to make you reconsider down the line.
A lot of things are detrimental. To what extent should we be willing to create legislation to dissuade the behaviour?

[Machu505]

I don't. Smoking is detrimental to the health of those around smokers. Levying taxes on cigarettes is no attempt to legislate behavior, it's an attempt to create a healthier environment for the people while generating revenue that can help pay for anti-smoking programs.

[saysmydoctor]

It's an incredibly unhealthy choice--and with cigarettes, it's incredibly harmful to those around them.

Dissuade is not the same as outlawing. I'm not in favor of that. I don't even believe cocaine or heroin and what not should be illegal. I think we should go to great lengths to educate and promote good choices, and if necessary tax incredibly harmful ones. I'm not proposing outlawing it at all.

[Love As Arson]

I don't. Smoking is detrimental to the health of those around smokers
I don't disagree. How will creating taxes prevent this? It's illegal to smoke in many bars, as well as other public areas. How much further shall we go?

Levying taxes on cigarettes is no attempt to legislate behavior
The justification used was the well-being of the individual.

it's an attempt to create a healthier environment for the people while generating revenue that can help pay for anti-smoking programs.
The revenue will, in all likelihood, go to the debts of the state.

[Machu505]

I also think assuming that these taxes are put foreward to disuade smoking is flawed. The existence of toll roads is not to encourage people to not drive, it's to generate revenue using something nearly everyone (or in the case of smoking, something a significant portion of the population) uses.

[Machu505]

I don't disagree. How will creating taxes prevent this? It's illegal to smoke in many bars, as well as other public areas. How much further shall we go?


The justification used was the well-being of the individual.


The revenue will, in all likelihood, go to the debts of the state.
Public smoking bans in places like bars are barely enforced.
I don't care about the well being of the smoker all that much, to be honest. My sympathies go to those around the smoker in both public and private settings. And the smoker's well-being is not the only possible justification.

Then that's something that should be changed.

[Love As Arson]

and if necessary tax incredibly harmful ones.
How does one designate a criteria for this? As I said, there are many detrimental activities. Also, I read back a few pages and some are proposing a fast food tax. It seems increasingly clear that this targets lower-income people, since that is all many can afford.

[saysmydoctor]

That is a good point and I didn't consider that. I think we can agree cocaine, heroin, cigarettes ultimately kill you in most cases and fast foods are incredibly unhealthy, cause obesity and possibly forms of diabetes.

[The Personist]

I also think assuming that these taxes are put foreward to disuade smoking is flawed. The existence of toll roads is not to encourage people to not drive, it's to generate revenue using something nearly everyone (or in the case of smoking, something a significant portion of the population) uses.

I like this way of looking at it.

[SincerelyMe]

This won't make people stop smoking. Smokers will find a way to afford their cigarettes regardless of tax increases.

[trindaddy]

See the thing here in Ohio is that while cigarettes just hit a massive spike, smokeless tobacco actually went down in price as the tax on it lessened. I know many people who have traded one for the other, just because it's more cost efficient. People are also buying two dollar packs of filtered cigars. Most people, as with any addiction, are going to find ways to get their fix, while few actually quit. I just think things need to be uniformly taxed or not at all.

[cupcakeomg]

I suppose I'm just of the mindset that people should stop smoking for the reasons you just listed, not because they are being forced to because they can't afford it anymore.

What's most likely going to happen is that they will continue smoking, but will have to cut costs in other areas.

I just don't think it's a reasonable or viable solution to people smoking and in turn just makes people worse off.

I was talking to my mom about what if they brought up the prices on cigarettes would you stop buying them. and she was like nope.

I'm curious as to what is so alluring to cigarettes (does that sentence sound right?). I ask my mom and shes just like fuck off. Like i've smoked weed just once before and i can understand why people would like that (it smells kinda good, doesn't taste that bad and makes you feel all nice) but what is it about cigarettes that people love so much?

[Theseventhson]

I was talking to my mom about what if they brought up the prices on cigarettes would you stop buying them. and she was like nope.

I'm curious as to what is so alluring to cigarettes (does that sentence sound right?). I ask my mom and shes just like fuck off. Like i've smoked weed just once before and i can understand why people would like that (it smells kinda good, doesn't taste that bad and makes you feel all nice) but what is it about cigarettes that people love so much?
It makes you look cool as hell, and sexy, and smart, and sophisticated.

[Machu505]

It makes you look cool as hell, and sexy, and smart, and sophisticated.
Pipes are far more sophisticated.

[trindaddy]

I was talking to my mom about what if they brought up the prices on cigarettes would you stop buying them. and she was like nope.

I'm curious as to what is so alluring to cigarettes (does that sentence sound right?). I ask my mom and shes just like fuck off. Like i've smoked weed just once before and i can understand why people would like that (it smells kinda good, doesn't taste that bad and makes you feel all nice) but what is it about cigarettes that people love so much?
Nicotine goes to the brain, and makes one feel good by releasing dopamine. It becomes physically addictive, so that's why smokers get all jittery and irritated when they don't have them. It also causes blood flow and heart rate to go up, so that's why people smoke when they drink (makes the alcohol flow around more - get drunk)

[cupcakeomg]

It makes you look cool as hell, and sexy, and smart, and sophisticated.

thats only in movies and tv.

[Theseventhson]

thats only in movies and tv.
In real life, too.

[cupcakeomg]

Nicotine goes to the brain, and makes one feel good by releasing dopamine. It becomes physically addictive, so that's why smokers get all jittery and irritated when they don't have them. It also causes blood flow and heart rate to go up, so that's why people smoke when they drink (makes the alcohol flow around more - get drunk)

aha, my mom freeeaks out whenever she hasn't smoked for a bit.
one time my dad and i were like holding her smokes from her and she almost started crying. i felt kinda bad afterwards :S

[cupcakeomg]

In real life, too.

show me these people and famous people don't count

[Theseventhson]

show me these people and famous people don't count
Well, everyone who smokes.

[cupcakeomg]

Well, everyone who smokes.

bad breath and yellow teeth.
its so hot i can't even handle it. but you know, whatever gets you going.

[Theseventhson]

bad breath and yellow teeth.
its so hot i can't even handle it. but you know, whatever gets you going.
You're not very good with sarcasm, are you?

[cupcakeomg]

You're not very good with sarcasm, are you?

I guess not

[open mind]

as long as an unhealthy addiction isn't made illegal, used an excuse to jail millions of (predominately poor) people, and fund the killing of people in undeveloped countries i can't get myself to riled up.

[.invisible ink.]

Sin taxes are lame. Let's tax the shit out of alcohol, fast-food, and pop (soda) while we're at it. The reasoning would fall in-line with taxing a pack of smokes.

this. I'm guessing most of the people who are all in favor of taxing the hell out of cigarettes would be pretty pissed if they threw the "sin" label and tax onto something that made an impact in their lives. I personally do not think it's fair that certain items are heavily taxed while other items, perhaps just as bad, get off without anything. Considering the obesity epidemic in this country and the rising cost of health care it only seems "fair" that the government would start adding this tax to anything they deem "unhealthy". The government has no business, in my opinion, making judgment calls on what they approve or disapprove of unless it is something they have already deemed illegal (and even then I still take issue with much of it).

and just for argument's sake, the majority of smokers are lower income, so does it seem fair to you that we should tax the hell out of people who can barely afford to pay for things as it is? I don't think it's an effective or positive way to help people quit smoking and it's falling way beyond the roles of what the government should be focusing on. Remember, this is OUR government, they should be working FOR us, not against us.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

Recent Gallup Poll on the subject (which fails to put these results in a relative context of what % of the population falls under each income level):

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fdqj2hryb0qzpfmxdi0yrg.gif




Cigarette Tax Will Affect Low-Income Americans Most (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117214/Cigarette-Tax-Affect-Low-Income-Americans.aspx)

PRINCETON, NJ -- The 62-cent increase in federal cigarette taxes going into effect Wednesday is nearly three times as likely to affect low-income Americans as it is to affect high-income Americans. That's because 34% of the lowest-income Americans smoke, compared with only 13% of those earning $90,000 or more per year.

The rate of adult smoking in the United States is, in fact, directly related to household income, dropping in linear fashion as income rises. Overall, 21% of American adults smoke.
These findings are based on more than 350,000 interviews with U.S. adults aged 18 and older in 2008, conducted as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (http://www.gallup.com/poll/106756/GallupHealthways-WellBeing-Index.aspx).
A different way to look at this smoking-by-income data is that slightly more than half of today's smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year -- making cigarette taxes highly regressive. Another 35% of smokers earn between $36,000 and $89,999 per year, while only 12% of all smokers make at least $90,000 annually.


To put these tax increases in context ONLY 21% of Americans smoke.

[suppyguppy]

this. I'm guessing most of the people who are all in favor of taxing the hell out of cigarettes would be pretty pissed if they threw the "sin" label and tax onto something that made an impact in their lives. I personally do not think it's fair that certain items are heavily taxed while other items, perhaps just as bad, get off without anything. Considering the obesity epidemic in this country and the rising cost of health care it only seems "fair" that the government would start adding this tax to anything they deem "unhealthy". The government has no business, in my opinion, making judgment calls on what they approve or disapprove of unless it is something they have already deemed illegal (and even then I still take issue with much of it).

and just for argument's sake, the majority of smokers are lower income, so does it seem fair to you that we should tax the hell out of people who can barely afford to pay for things as it is? I don't think it's an effective or positive way to help people quit smoking and it's falling way beyond the roles of what the government should be focusing on. Remember, this is OUR government, they should be working FOR us, not against us.

I disagree, respectfully. As a smoker (in the process of quitting) I support having higher taxes on cigarettes as it is quite effective in limiting the amount of smokers in this country. As for these lower income smokers, higher priced smokes should be all the more of an incentive to quit. I am all too familiar with the difficulty of quitting smoking, but it is possible, and if the possibility of dying isn't enough of a reason for some people, maybe the extra tax is enough of a reason for them to quit for good.

Also as far as a broader "Sin" tax goes, I wouldn't be opposed to taxing things such as fast food, soda, etc. Like you yourself stated, one of the biggest problems in this country is our obesity. It is pathetic how fat we've let our nation become and in these economic times, taxing things that produce unhealthy results such as fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, soda, etc, seems like a logical course of action if we want to continue being a leading power in the world. I hear your point in that the government has no right to make these judgement calls, but then who does, in your opinion? Obviously these things have to go through processes of legislation and through that course, more often than not, improper measures would be weeded out and effective taxes could be put into place on these items. Interesting idea I think. Taxing unhealthy products could be very effective for this country, in my opinion.

[Mercy Medical]

Sin taxes are amazing. If you are going to have a bad habit like smoking it has costs down the line. Health costs, the continual costs of cigarettes, not mention the body begins to crave more cigarettes as you become more and more addicted, meaning you have to buy more to consume more to satisfy the craving.

Smoking is the number one avoidable killer, if people aren't willing to avoid it (smoking has decreased slowly), we'll make it incredibly expensive. They'll be mad at first, but we'll save them money (hopefully) down the line and they won't shave 10 years off their life.

Tax all of that shit, 100% agree.
But who is to say that they WANT that? I mean, as crazy as it might sound to some, maybe they want to smoke. It's not up to your or the majority to tell people how to live their lives. If they are open and okay with accepting the risks that smoking causes, then that is their own fault. We shouldn't force them to live the lifestyle we expect for ourselves and it shouldn't be forced upon them.

[bung]

Bullshit. If people want to pursue unhealthy lifestyles, that is their choice. Increasing taxation on items such as these doesn't curb unhealthiness so much as it curbs freedom.

For the record, the harmfulness of second-hand smoke is probably the biggest exaggeration the anti-smoking crusaders have successfully completed.

If you wanna talk about harm to the environment, every car should cost like $100,000+ if we're going to be proportionately fair.

[suppyguppy]

But who is to say that they WANT that? I mean, as crazy as it might sound to some, maybe they want to smoke. It's not up to your or the majority to tell people how to live their lives. If they are open and okay with accepting the risks that smoking causes, then that is their own fault. We shouldn't force them to live the lifestyle we expect for ourselves and it shouldn't be forced upon them.

I respect that but I think it is at some point up to the government to make those calls. There are certain substances/products people use and consume that are indeed potentially harmful but should be left up to the individual to decide, I agree. However, in the case of cigarettes it is a solid fact that they hold no purpose other than destructiveness to the body. We would not be a progressive, logical society if we did not implement restrictions and regulations including higher taxes, on these items deemed primarily destructive. I can understand an arguement for individual liberties but at a certain point unhealthy behaviors need to be at least limited to a certain degree.

[Mercy Medical]

I respect that but I think it is at some point up to the government to make those calls. There are certain substances/products people use and consume that are indeed potentially harmful but should be left up to the individual to decide, I agree. However, in the case of cigarettes it is a solid fact that they hold no purpose other than destructiveness to the body. We would not be a progressive, logical society if we did not implement restrictions and regulations including higher taxes, on these items deemed primarily destructive. I can understand an arguement for individual liberties but at a certain point unhealthy behaviors need to be at least limited to a certain degree.
They obviously hold other purposes and do more then just "destroy the body" or else why would people do it? Couldn't the same be said for alcohol then? In my opinion, we would be a progressive, logical society if we let people make choices in regards to what they put in their body by themselves.

If a person wants to destroy their body with a substance, so be it. I do not feel we should somehow force them not to whether it be by taxes, regulations or legislation. If their use harms other people, then we should enforce laws based on that. For example, banning smoking from public property (which honestly, I think should be left up to the owner of the private property, not the government). Another example, drinking and driving. That aspect of drinking obviously has an effect on others around them and is a safety hazard for other people, therefore a law should be enforced.

I do no agree with the government regulating, taxing, etc people for activities that they are making the choice to participate in. They should focus more time, effort and money into programs that teach people the truths about said activities and provide information to individuals to allow them to make the responsible choice, but then again, that doesn't put money in the government's pocket.

[bung]

I respect that but I think it is at some point up to the government to make those calls. There are certain substances/products people use and consume that are indeed potentially harmful but should be left up to the individual to decide, I agree.

Why should the government make any calls at all about my own personal lifestyle? I'm not intelligent enough to decide what I choose or choose not to ingest?

Going off your own point, cigarettes are potentially harmful. Granted they run a high risk, but nonetheless, like virtually any vice, the harm is only of a potential nature.

However, in the case of cigarettes it is a solid fact that they hold no purpose other than destructiveness to the body.

Yes, everyone smokes solely for the purpose of destroying their body. Cigarettes do nothing else to a person but destroy their body. :rolleyes:

edit: Yes, basically what she said ^

[suppyguppy]

They obviously hold other purposes and do more then just "destroy the body" or else why would people do it? Couldn't the same be said for alcohol then? In my opinion, we would be a progressive, logical society if we let people make choices in regards to what they put in their body by themselves.

If a person wants to destroy their body with a substance, so be it. I do not feel we should somehow force them not to whether it be by taxes, regulations or legislation. If their use harms other people, then we should enforce laws based on that. For example, banning smoking from public property (which honestly, I think should be left up to the owner of the private property, not the government). Another example, drinking and driving. That aspect of drinking obviously has an effect on others around them and is a safety hazard for other people, therefore a law should be enforced.

I do no agree with the government regulating, taxing, etc people for activities that they are making the choice to participate in. They should focus more time, effort and money into programs that teach people the truths about said activities and provide information to individuals to allow them to make the responsible choice, but then again, that doesn't put money in the government's pocket.

Ok you make a reasonable arguement, we definitely just have different philosophies as far as role of government goes. I have to disagree with you though. I've smoked cigarettes for about 5 years and am right now about 10 days into quitting. The difference between alcohol and cigarettes is a big one. The average person who drinks alcohol enjoys it in moderation and is not addicted to the substance, which is not a destructive lifestyle. However, the average cigarette smoker is in fact addicted and those who smoke cigarettes rarely do so in moderation, compared to those who use alcohol. Not to mention that alcohol puts you in a disinctively different state of mind, for better or for worse. While cigarettes do little but crave your need for nicotine. Not to say a cigarette after a meal, or while being stressed out doesn't feel good, but it is only feeding a craving, rather than creating a feeling. Just my opinion though, it's an interesting arguement for sure.

[suppyguppy]

Why should the government make any calls at all about my own personal lifestyle? I'm not intelligent enough to decide what I choose or choose not to ingest?

Going off your own point, cigarettes are potentially harmful. Granted they run a high risk, but nonetheless, like virtually any vice, the harm is only of a potential nature.



Yes, everyone smokes solely for the purpose of destroying their body. Cigarettes do nothing else to a person but destroy their body. :rolleyes:

edit: Yes, basically what she said ^

So what you're saying is the government should have absolutely no say in what a person can or cannot ingest? Do you support the legalization of heroin? What about PCP? Or food that is polluted/infected? Would you like to get rid of the FDA, because they do in fact control what you ingest. I know those examples are a bit more extreme in your mind but in my opinion cigarettes are right up there with those things. They are too addictive and destructive of a substance to be legal, but because of how much money is generated into the economy by the sale of them they will never be criminalized. The best thing we can do is restrict and regulate them which will both limit their consumption by those who choose not to pay extra for their smokes and deter future generations from picking up on such a destructive habit.

[Mercy Medical]

Ok you make a reasonable arguement, we definitely just have different philosophies as far as role of government goes. I have to disagree with you though. I've smoked cigarettes for about 5 years and am right now about 10 days into quitting. The difference between alcohol and cigarettes is a big one. The average person who drinks alcohol enjoys it in moderation and is not addicted to the substance, which is not a destructive lifestyle. However, the average cigarette smoker is in fact addicted and those who smoke cigarettes rarely do so in moderation, compared to those who use alcohol. Not to mention that alcohol puts you in a disinctively different state of mind, for better or for worse. While cigarettes do little but crave your need for nicotine. Not to say a cigarette after a meal, or while being stressed out doesn't feel good, but it is only feeding a craving, rather than creating a feeling. Just my opinion though, it's an interesting arguement for sure.
But here's the thing, most everyone knows the facts about alcohol or tobacco before they do them and if they don't, then there is our biggest issue. The government should educate people on the dangers of smoking. People should be provided a wealth of information at an early age so they can take that information and make an educated decision based off of that (now, they should be provided truths and not propaganda meant to turn them away from the habit). Honestly, I have very little sympathy for anyone who starts smoking and has decided to quit, mostly because I feel that most people knew the dangers and difficulties of that substance in the first place. They've made the choice to smoke, they know the consequences.

If smoking is deemed to addictive by the government and is a habit that should be stopped because it prevents healthy citizens, then why isn't it made illegal (not saying that it should be, just providing a hypothetical question). Wouldn't that seem like the best possible solution to the problem that it is unhealthy? Why isn't it illegal, well because the tobacco companies wouldn't want that and I'm sure they have their hands in the government just a tid bit. I think it's stupid for the government to say "Oh hey, we deem this behavior inappropriate so we're going to tax the hell out of it to sway people from doing it, but we're not going to make it illegal so it still feels like you have a choice. Yay!"

[Mercy Medical]

So what you're saying is the government should have absolutely no say in what a person can or cannot ingest? Do you support the legalization of heroin? What about PCP? Or food that is polluted/infected? Would you like to get rid of the FDA, because they do in fact control what you ingest. I know those examples are a bit more extreme in your mind but in my opinion cigarettes are right up there with those things. They are too addictive and destructive of a substance to be legal, but because of how much money is generated into the economy by the sale of them they will never be criminalized. The best thing we can do is restrict and regulate them which will both limit their consumption by those who choose not to pay extra for their smokes and deter future generations from picking up on such a destructive habit.
I honestly do not agree with prohibition at all as I feel it creates a worse environment then it intends. Food that is polluted/infected is a completely different situation considering it is a provider giving customers said food. They are thus, inflicting potential harm on others while a simple heroin user is only inflicting harm on him/herself.

[suppyguppy]

But here's the thing, most everyone knows the facts about alcohol or tobacco before they do them and if they don't, then there is our biggest issue. The government should educate people on the dangers of smoking. People should be provided a wealth of information at an early age so they can take that information and make an educated decision based off of that (now, they should be provided truths and not propaganda meant to turn them away from the habit). Honestly, I have very little sympathy for anyone who starts smoking and has decided to quit, mostly because I feel that most people knew the dangers and difficulties of that substance in the first place. They've made the choice to smoke, they know the consequences.

If smoking is deemed to addictive by the government and is a habit that should be stopped because it prevents healthy citizens, then why isn't it made illegal (not saying that it should be, just providing a hypothetical question). Wouldn't that seem like the best possible solution to the problem that it is unhealthy? Why isn't it illegal, well because the tobacco companies wouldn't want that and I'm sure they have their hands in the government just a tid bit. I think it's stupid for the government to say "Oh hey, we deem this behavior inappropriate so we're going to tax the hell out of it to sway people from doing it, but we're not going to make it illegal so it still feels like you have a choice. Yay!"

Well I agree there is definitely some hypocrisy on the governments part in that. In my opinion cigarettes should be illegal, as they are the second biggest cause of death, I believe, in this country, as well as the only substance out there proven to be as addictive as heroin. You are right though, tobacco corporations have too much say on capitol hill and cigarettes will never be criminalized because of how much money they generate into our economy. While making them illegal is ideal, if it can't be done we might as well restrict and regulate, as well as continue to properly educate people of their harm, because with each generation that grows up under these restrictions, tobacco consumption will decrease, as proven by our generation. And who can argue that being a bad thing?

[Mercy Medical]

Well I agree there is definitely some hypocrisy on the governments part in that. In my opinion cigarettes should be illegal, as they are the second biggest cause of death, I believe, in this country, as well as the only substance out there proven to be as addictive as heroin. You are right though, tobacco corporations have too much say on capitol hill and cigarettes will never be criminalized because of how much money they generate into our economy. While making them illegal is ideal, if it can't be done we might as well restrict and regulate, as well as continue to properly educate people of their harm, because with each generation that grows up under these restrictions, tobacco consumption will decrease, as proven by our generation. And who can argue that being a bad thing?
For information's sake, I do not smoke cigarettes, never have smoked them and never plan on smoking them. So I am not anybody that thinks smoking is okay. I don't agree with it and I wish people that I love and care about wouldn't do it.

I just do not think the government should have any say in what we put in our bodies, as long as it does not effect other people. I agree they should have a say in the cleanliness of food we are served at restaurants and can buy at grocery stores, etc, but that is because someone else's level of cleanliness (or lack there of) could potentially put us as risk. But smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, etc are victimless crimes as long as they are done in a responsible manner (obviously driving under the influence of a substance could create a victim, but I hope you get what I'm saying). I just believe that giving people the correct information regarding these practices and educating them is the right way to decrease use then regulating and taxing them.

So I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

[suppyguppy]

For information's sake, I do not smoke cigarettes, never have smoked them and never plan on smoking them. So I am not anybody that thinks smoking is okay. I don't agree with it and I wish people that I love and care about wouldn't do it.

I just do not think the government should have any say in what we put in our bodies, as long as it does not effect other people. I agree they should have a say in the cleanliness of food we are served at restaurants and can buy at grocery stores, etc, but that is because someone else's level of cleanliness (or lack there of) could potentially put us as risk. But smoking cigarettes, doing drugs, etc are victimless crimes as long as they are done in a responsible manner (obviously driving under the influence of a substance could create a victim, but I hope you get what I'm saying). I just believe that giving people the correct information regarding these practices and educating them is the right way to decrease use then regulating and taxing them.

So I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. We can at least agree that cigarettes are are not good and as a society we should put more effort into properly educating people of that fact, at the very least.

[Mercy Medical]

Fair enough. We can at least agree that cigarettes are are not good and as a society we should put more effort into properly educating people of that fact, at the very least.
I think education gets us a lot further then legislation, honestly. People need to know the in and out details (and factual and truthful ones) of WHY it's bad for you, not just that it's bad.

[suppyguppy]

I think education gets us a lot further then legislation, honestly. People need to know the in and out details (and factual and truthful ones) of WHY it's bad for you, not just that it's bad.

Agreed. Although legislation as well has decreased the amount of smokers in this country. Wouldn't you agree that to some degree, higher taxes and stronger restrictions on cigarettes have had an impact on the decrease of smokers in America? It may impede on your belief in civil liberties, but they are nonetheless, effective measures that have been taken to curb smoking.

[Mercy Medical]

Agreed. Although legislation as well has decreased the amount of smokers in this country. Wouldn't you agree that to some degree, higher taxes and stronger restrictions on cigarettes have had an impact on the decrease of smokers in America? It may impede on your belief in civil liberties, but they are nonetheless, effective measures that have been taken to curb smoking.
While they may have had an impact, I still don't agree with them. We're effectively forcing people to change their habits and it's relatively hypocritical that we are "forcing" these people to quit their habits while the tobacco industry is forking over money to the government. So now, not only is the tobacco industry continuing to make masses of money, the government is capitalizing on our bad habits as well. Yes, it may work, but regardless I will not agree with the methods.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Just legalize pot already. Fuck.

[Mercy Medical]

Just legalize pot already. Fuck.
Hahaha, I wonder how many people would stop smoking cigarettes if pot was legal...

[suppyguppy]

While they may have had an impact, I still don't agree with them. We're effectively forcing people to change their habits and it's relatively hypocritical that we are "forcing" these people to quit their habits while the tobacco industry is forking over money to the government. So now, not only is the tobacco industry continuing to make masses of money, the government is capitalizing on our bad habits as well. Yes, it may work, but regardless I will not agree with the methods.

Well again, I understand and agree with your idea that it is hypocritical, but we'll have to agree to disagree regarding the methods. In this case I have to say that the ends justify the means. If the measures taken stop people from smoking, and as a result save lives, I can tolerate a little hypocrisy and government coruption. It's not an ideal situation but anytime you save lives, you're doing something right.

[MyNameIsRoss]

Hahaha, I wonder how many people would stop smoking cigarettes if pot was legal...

probably more than one would think

[Mercy Medical]

probably more than one would think
I think it's gonna be a while before pot is ever legal, unfortunately...

[bung]

So what you're saying is the government should have absolutely no say in what a person can or cannot ingest? Do you support the legalization of heroin? What about PCP? Or food that is polluted/infected? Would you like to get rid of the FDA, because they do in fact control what you ingest. I know those examples are a bit more extreme in your mind but in my opinion cigarettes are right up there with those things. They are too addictive and destructive of a substance to be legal, but because of how much money is generated into the economy by the sale of them they will never be criminalized. The best thing we can do is restrict and regulate them which will both limit their consumption by those who choose not to pay extra for their smokes and deter future generations from picking up on such a destructive habit.

Yes, I support the legalization of all drugs.

As for food, I believe the FDA should have a role of overseeing products, saying that such and such a product has a high risk of being infected/polluted, with all food products requiring some type of warning to designate its potential harm. But ultimately the consumer should be able to decide what drug or food product they ingest, even if it carries a high risk.

[GregChambers]

But do you honestly believe this tax will make enough people stop smoking to make a significant impact on the environment or the people surrounding them who do not smoke and thus get second hand smoke?

I think some of the poorest will be forced to quit due to this tax or, like I said previously, they will make cuts in other areas. I honestly do not see this tax making a big enough impact to make a difference.

Honestly, if smoking is making THAT big enough of an impact on the environment and the health of others, they should just make it illegal. I see these increases in taxes as a bit of a cop out. "Oh, well it's still legal to smoke, but we're just going to tax the hell out of you!"

I was just stating that that's the theory behind it...an increase in tax, of any amount, should force some people to quit, but the amount of the tax determines the amplitude of the affect it has on cigarette consumption. I doubt there will be very many people who quit, but many will at least cut down on smoking or, like you suggested, make cuts in other areas. For most people, the new tax will just be viewed as a necessity and they'll just bitch about it and accept it.

[GeeBee]

Yes, I support the legalization of all drugs.

As for food, I believe the FDA should have a role of overseeing products, saying that such and such a product has a high risk of being infected/polluted, with all food products requiring some type of warning to designate its potential harm. But ultimately the consumer should be able to decide what drug or food product they ingest, even if it carries a high risk.

Seriously agree. I mean, really...do you know anyone who is just ITCHING to do heroin, but doesn't simply because it's illegal? Never happens. Those who want to do it, DO it. If you legalize it, license the dealers, require clean needles for renewal of licenses, and tax it...how is that any different than alcohol?

[GeeBee]

I was just stating that that's the theory behind it...an increase in tax, of any amount, should force some people to quit, but the amount of the tax determines the amplitude of the affect it has on cigarette consumption. I doubt there will be very many people who quit, but many will at least cut down on smoking or, like you suggested, make cuts in other areas. For most people, the new tax will just be viewed as a necessity and they'll just bitch about it and accept it.

When I tell Americans (who pay upwards of 5 bucks a pack) that in Europe, a pack of Camels (which carry the cost of importing and tariffs) costs literally pennies...they flip.

[Brand-new-123]

The problem with it is that if they increase taxes on tobacco products but in order to reduce consumption (which may work) the government will likely become dependent on the level of increased revenue. When consumption decreases spending will likely stay the same meaning the government will need a new source of income meaning increased taxes on something else. Gasoline maybe?

[x togepi x]

ya casue all "poor" people are addcited to tobacco and alcohol. :-|

for someone who seems to be making this about class warfare you sure have some negitive stereotypes for poor people

it's not based on stereotypes, it's based on the fact that it would disproportionately effect the poor. rich and upper middle class people would be able to afford them. specifically with alcohol, considering the fact that a large portion of homeless people are mentally ill and are probably using alcohol to self medicate as they can't afford care for their mental illness, more taxes on alcohol would hurt them even more.

nobody is claiming that all poor people are addicted to those things, merely that a law would only hurt them while allowing everyone else to continue their habits.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I know I posted the results the gallup poll showing i was wrong a couple posts later