patrick.net

tvgnus says

But many smokers think smoking restrictions in public places are justified •  In some areas, the taxes are higher than the price of a pack of cigarettes itself Many smokers take exception to at least one anti-smoking policy -- higher taxes, according to polling by Gallup Inc.

We don't want to be just. We want to be healthy.

Strategist says

We want to be healthy.

You do realize there are people out there who are spending the babies milk and diaper money on the outrageous price of GPC cigarettes and PBR beer, don't you?

Or did you expect these people with deep addiction, emotional and other disorders that dictates that drink and smoke, stop smoking and drinking because Simon says "Stop Smoking".

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

We want to be healthy.

You do realize there are people out there who are spending the babies milk and diaper money on the outrageous price of GPC cigarettes and PBR beer, don't you?

Yup. They should have their children taken away from them.

CaptainShuddup says

Or did you expect these people with deep addiction, emotional and other disorders that dictates that drink and smoke, stop smoking and drinking because Simon says "Stop Smoking".

I don't feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for the school kids who get enticed into smoking. $10.00 per pack ought to discourage them.

You would think so, but a pack of chips and a soda is damn near $10.00 so a kid getting $10.00 a day is not that today. Especially now, kids could afford to support a pack a day habit more so than ever in the History of the US.
And Mom and Dad paying for and have no idea.

CaptainShuddup says

You would think so, but a pack of chips and a soda is damn near $10.00 so a kid getting $10.00 a day is not that today. Especially now, kids could afford to support a pack a day habit more so than ever in the History of the US.

And Mom and Dad paying for and have no idea.

You are right, let's make it $20.00

Strategist says

You would think so, but a pack of chips and a soda is damn near $10.00

Hey a bag of chips and soda is not $10.00. Besides, they should not be eating that junk anyway.

In 1997, a group of scientists at Erasmus University in Holland famously showed that smokers have lower total life-time health-care expenditures than non-smokers. Smokers do cost a lot more per year of life, but because their lives are so much shorter on average, the non-smokers end up with higher costs in the long run.

http://healthland.time.com/2009/08/04/does-prevention-really-cut-health-care-costs/

Japan's baby boom (born 1947-1950) smoked like chimneys, so maybe they'll all just keel over now.

Or not.

It took my mom 20 years to quit. She says it was the hardest thing she ever did. She's been smoke-free for two decades, now, but she really struggled.

I appreciate the attempt to motivate smokers to quit using economic pressure, but I don't think it actually achieves what they are hoping.

My mom couldn't have been any less addicted to cigarettes than a heroin addict is to heroin. Seriously, I remember her "quitting"; wetting the pack; throwing it in the trash; and then catching her outside digging through the trash trying to find a dry cigarette. For many years, I don't doubt that she would have spent whatever you asked so she could get her fix.

Bellingham Bill says

In 1997, a group of scientists at Erasmus University in Holland famously showed that smokers have lower total life-time health-care expenditures than non-smokers. Smokers do cost a lot more per year of life, but because their lives are so much shorter on average, the non-smokers end up with higher costs in the long run.

http://healthland.time.com/2009/08/04/does-prevention-really-cut-health-care-costs/

Japan's baby boom (born 1947-1950) smoked like chimneys, so maybe they'll all just keel over now.

Or not.

Why don't we just put slow poison in the water supply so that nobody lives past 55. That would really save a bundle in health care costs, and the MillXYers would be behind it 100 percent, or at least until they turn 55.

They don't seem to take into account effects of secondary smoke, or other social costs surrounding cigarette smoking. Tobacco use is also associated with much higher rates of alcoholism and much higher levels of mental depression.

Tobacco used to be so expensive, only the wealthy could afford habitual addiction, and so only they suffered the majority of the health problems. The mass production and distribution of cigarettes in the early 1900s lead to the higher levels of morbidity in the general population.

If it weren't for higher cigarette taxes, all those people in Detroit would have been able to afford their water bills.

Why is this news? Nobody likes a tax that singles out their group, and they never think it is just.

Smoking taxes do reduce the amount of smoking as intended.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTETC/0,,contentMDK:20365226~menuPK:478891~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376601,00.html

Cigarette taxes save lives.

Indeed so Liberals taxing vices, is them doing the Lords work.

When is the Liberal bible meet, so we can shame all of the sinners in the congregation.

CaptainShuddup says

Indeed so Liberals taxing vices, is them doing the Lords work.

When is the Liberal bible meet, so we can shame all of the sinners in the congregation.

Someone has to. The Lord certainly isn't doing his work.
This kind of thinking in this day and age, "The Lord shall provide" "the will of God" is highly destructive to our well being.

Strategist says

tvgnus says

But many smokers think smoking restrictions in public places are justified •  In some areas, the taxes are higher than the price of a pack of cigarettes itself Many smokers take exception to at least one anti-smoking policy -- higher taxes, according to polling by Gallup Inc.

We don't want to be just. We want to be healthy.

If you wanted "we" to be "healthy", you'd be railing against sugar consumption

The usfedgov FORCES children to attend their schools, and will imprison the parents otherwise. And then they innundate them with crap, bad info, and the unhealthiest of foods all day every day

errc says

Strategist says

tvgnus says

But many smokers think smoking restrictions in public places are justified •  In some areas, the taxes are higher than the price of a pack of cigarettes itself Many smokers take exception to at least one anti-smoking policy -- higher taxes, according to polling by Gallup Inc.

We don't want to be just. We want to be healthy.

If you wanted "we" to be "healthy", you'd be railing against sugar consumption

The usfedgov FORCES children to attend their schools, and will imprison the parents otherwise. And then they innundate them with crap, bad info, and the unhealthiest of foods all day every day

Not educating a child is child abuse plain and simple. Feeding them crap comes close to child abuse. I fully support a sugar tax, fat tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax., fossil fuel tax, and pollution tax. If we tax the crap, we don't have to tax income.

komputodo says

So you are of the belief that americans are so stupid that they need the govt. to save them from themselves? That's quite a commentary on your fellow citizens..

I'm of the belief that external laws and rules can save lives through influencing behavior. That doesn't even make them right. It's a statement of fact.

For example,
Seat-belt laws save lives.
Other car-safety laws save lives.
Building codes save lives.
Vaccination rules save lives.
Speed limits save lives.
Smoking, drinking, and drug laws/rules can save lives.
etc.

It's not that people are stupid. People often make decisions that are not in their best interest or at least are not in the interest of keeping them alive. Sometimes, that is because they don't have all of the facts. Other times, they just don't act rationally.

As a matter of opinion, I believe that many of these laws and rules including taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are helpful. I do not like rules banning alcohol purchase before noon on Sunday or preventing the sale of alcohol in supermarkets.

Just to point out the obvious.

We as a society must make judgments about the trade-offs regarding personal freedom and personal safety and societal safety.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing.

I am in favor of a tax on cigarettes. How does being in favor of a tax on cigarettes lead one to believe that we should make it illegal to be 20% or more overweight? A more sensible analogy would be to put a tax on foods that have little nutritional value but are shown to contribute to obesity. You're analogy, while not the 'definition of stupid,' makes no sense.

What laws on the books today would you like to see repealed?

komputodo says

YesYNot says

It's not that people are stupid. People often make decisions that are not in their best interest or at least are not in the interest of keeping them alive. Sometimes, that is because they don't have all of the facts. Other times, they just don't act rationally.

To me that is the definition of stupid... political correctness aside

we should make some more laws then:

A law against people buying stuff on credit that they can't afford

A law against people being 20% or more overweight

A law against people injecting ink into their skin and silicone bags into their breasts, etc..

Or what about taxing or outlawing sex outside of marriage. Many folks then could justifiably say that we would reduce society having to pay for STD treatment, abortion, and welfare/food stamp benefits provided to single mothers who could never afford a baby in the first place.

komputodo says

YesYNot says

It's not that people are stupid. People often make decisions that are not in their best interest or at least are not in the interest of keeping them alive. Sometimes, that is because they don't have all of the facts. Other times, they just don't act rationally.

To me that is the definition of stupid... political correctness aside

we should make some more laws then:

A law against people buying stuff on credit that they can't afford

A law against people being 20% or more overweight

A law against people injecting ink into their skin and silicone bags into their breasts, etc..

The point is, if you must have tax, why not have it on vices, instead of on income and other productive activities?

It's surprising that there are still smokers in united states. People should know the dangers by now and honestly I don't understand what's so rewarding about it. Personally, I think caffeine is way more addictive than nicotine. Smoking belongs in a "developing world" where they are still trying to mimic the west like back in 1980s.

Even in the absence of a tax, smokers save Medicare, Social Security, pension funds a total of $0.32 per pack.

If you're concerned about the deficit and the solvency of pensions, you will support my awareness campaign: Get America Smoking.

komputodo says

with just taxing cigarettes..tax all the bad behavior to save the lives of people that make

I already gave a calm and logical answer to this and asked you to elaborate your beliefs. Since you cannot respond to that more intellectual line of thinking, here is a response more fitting of your rhetorical nature:

Are you so stupid that you can't comprehend the analogous argument? If you oppose a tax on cigarettes, why not get rid of all laws designed to enhance safety?

Why not get rid of all rules regarding automobile safety and speed limits. Why not get rid of OSHA rules for work safety? Why not let all drugs and all medicines be legal over the counter? Why not allow people to commit suicide? Why not let people buy whatever weapon they want and take it wherever they like?

^That's a stupid argument, but it is the same argument that you are making.

I'm of the mind to think that had tobacco been discovered today it would be banned. Its about the most additive thing you can put in your body. I know because my brother, who started smoking when he was 15 CAN'T quit no matter what. He is like most other smokers and really, really wants to quit, he knows its really bad for him and it also causes all sorts of diseases. But he just. can't. do. it.

Tobacco leaves also have a tendency to hold a lot of minerals pulled from the ground. So not only is the act of smoking tobacco potentially carcinogenic, but doing so also puts a lot of heavy metals in your body and in particular, Cadmium which is also a carcinogen. So basically the stuff is nasty.

As far as taxes, like I said- those who are hooked aren't going to be dissuaded from buying them. It does raise an awful lot of money for the state, that's for sure. I think perhaps the most effective thing that has caused smoking to dwindle in the US is that its now a social taboo versus back in the day when everyone smoked everywhere: in restaurants, airplanes, stores and church. Now that it is not ok to do so and generally frowned upon that has probably caused generations of potential young people to not consider it.

dhz said: Personally, I think caffeine is way more addictive than nicotine.
The latest research suggests that nicotine: 1. Isn't that addictive 2. Is some kind wonder drug (preventing Parkinsons and acting as "the most reliable cognitive enhancer that we currently have" according to Jennifer Rusted, professor of experimental psychology at Sussex University in Britain ) . Whodathunkit? Certainly not me... (And yes, cigarettes ARE extremely addictive).

komputodo says

Strategist says

The point is, if you must have tax, why not have it on vices, instead of on income and other productive activities?

The real question is: must we have another tax?

Trust me, I want no taxes at all, but you know what they say about death and taxes.

It took me a while to quit. During that time, I wished cigarettes cost $20/pack. I made them more expensive by promising to myself that every time I bought a pack, I'd smoke 2 cigarettes and give away the rest. That made it more expensive, and prevented the smoke 'em cause you have 'em thinking after the first two. Plus, if cigarettes were $20/pack, people would be less likely to give them away, making it harder to get hooked.

komputodo says

stupid, i think that der is a diferense between TAXING (to raise

Well, you would apparently prefer a law preventing you from doing something than a tax that makes it slightly more expensive to do it. So, maybe you hate freedom? Maybe you are so idealistically against taxes that you would cut off your nose to spite your face? It's hard to know, because your debating skills are about as good as Costanza's dating skills.

cigarette tobacco is already taxed to high hell. If we're looking to improve the quality of life for the citizenry via higher taxes to discourage use of something that is obviously harmful, where are all the cries for alcohol prohibition? For raising taxes on alcohol ten fold?

We all know that alcohol is highly toxic. We all know the massive costs to society that consuming alcohol brings about. So why then are so many dumb fucking Statists so quick to cry for higher tobacco taxes, yet nary a peep about banning alcohol a/o ten fold increase on alcohol taxes?

Id wager its because its the same simple simon motherfucks that argue in favor of cig taxes, are they themselves, the same people that habitually consume the toxin alcohol. They're probably the same people that sit by without protest while the government imprisons people and enables 100x markups, on a substance with no harmful effects, and a bevy of positive attributes,,,in marijuana

errc says

We all know that alcohol is highly toxic. We all know the massive costs to society that consuming alcohol brings about. So why then are so many dumb fucking Statists so quick to cry for higher tobacco taxes, yet nary a peep about banning alcohol a/o ten fold increase on alcohol taxes?

Moderate drinking is healthy. One or two glasses of wine a day is very good for you. Tobacco is never good for you.
Nevertheless, I would support higher taxes for alcohol as long it is a substitute for income taxes.

Call it Crazy says

errc says

on a substance with no harmful effects, and a bevy of positive attributes,,,in marijuana

Ha Ha... Let's see, you claim smoking one type of dried plant matter (tobacco) causes harmful effects but smoking a different type of dried plant matter (marijuana) doesn't cause any harmful effects...

What, your lungs don't like tobacco but love pot??

Really??

You surely don't mind putting your ignorance on display, do you?

Not only have studies shown that smoking marijuana doesn't damage the lungs in any way comprable to tobacco, but I didn't say anything about SMOKING marijuana. I said CONSUMING marijuana. Topically as with a salve, or orally when paired with a fat for with the compounds to be soluble with, after decarb'ing, or vaporizing, or,,,,,

Or it probably doesn't matter because you choose to be ignorant

Strategist says

errc says

We all know that alcohol is highly toxic. We all know the massive costs to society that consuming alcohol brings about. So why then are so many dumb fucking Statists so quick to cry for higher tobacco taxes, yet nary a peep about banning alcohol a/o ten fold increase on alcohol taxes?

Moderate drinking is healthy. One or two glasses of wine a day is very good for you. Tobacco is never good for you.

Nevertheless, I would support higher taxes for alcohol as long it is a substitute for income taxes.

That sounds more like flim flammery, than science

Or more likely, the excuses of an addict

errc says

That sounds more like flim flammery, than science

Or more likely, the excuses of an addict

Here you go....
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you

"Alcohol does not benefit the heart, claims new study"

Apparently, a study not subsidized by the alcohol lobby. As far as calories go, drinking alcohol is the next best thing to sipping pure fat. Alcohol is also the next best thing to a water soluble, full body toxin you can ingest. It just happens to be a toxin that we can metabolize fairly rapidly.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/279480.php

edvard2 says

I know because my brother, who started smoking when he was 15 CAN'T quit no matter what.

My Dad smoked from 12 to 21. His doc told him it would kill him, so he quit cold turkey. I also quit cold turkey. Your brother can quit; he just won't.

Ceffer says

Alcohol is also the next best thing to a water soluble, full body toxin you can ingest. It just happens to be a toxin that we can metabolize fairly rapidly.

The thing about alcohol is that its a blood thinner and on top of that tends to effectively dissolve plaq deposits in blood vessels and also helps to prevent cholesterol from "sticking". Basically if your body was like an engine, then wine would be sort of like pouring in a bottle of carb cleaner: it removes a lot of the crap that can build up in your arteries. Red wine also has a lot of antioxidants.

You should see how long a lot of those old winemakers live. As in quite a few are making well into their 90's. Not to absolutely claim that it must have been the wine, but who knows?

The old saying goes that too much of anything can be bad and that goes for alcohol, exposure to various environmental toxins ( natural and man made ), fatty or salty foods, and so on.

komputodo says

Obviously no smoker wants higher taxes on cigarettes. But why do non smokers approve?

I would like to propose a Bob tax. This will be an additional 3% income tax on anyone named Robert or living in a household in which the head is named Robert. In turn, everyone not named Robert will have their tax burden lowered by 0.04%.

Pretty sure this tax would pass if allowed to go to vote.

In the case of cigarette taxes I'm sure some non-smokers approve because of the health effects yadda yadda. But most are just looking out for themselves. Tax someone else? Sounds good! Cigarettes are smelly anyways, I hate them!

I like how some people pretend that taxing of cigarettes is a way to quell the appetite of the tax monster. As if his appetite is satiable. The tax monster is both relentless, and ravenous.

They probably claim that cig taxes go to fund education (for da kidz!) And to help promote healthier choices or some such nonsense. Lol.

And when politicians complain about the lack of tax revenue from smoking due to people quitting, they will go after the things that help them quit.

Just like California is considering taxing vehicle miles driven because cars are too efficient these days, and they are getting less tax revenue from gas.