smokers tax

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

While I do agree...I only agree to an extent.
This has never been "the land of the free" cause it has always cost us to live here. (granted out of context, I know)

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

I'm not sure this is taking away any freedoms... you'll still be able to smoke cigs, but you'll just have to pay a premium.

I'd like to fly to the moon, but it just costs more than any of us can afford.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I am a non-smoker. I am a non-drinker. I am sure I have other nons that elude me at the moment.
I would never support any such measure, as it is escalating to another freedom gone. If you do, the next time it may be something important to you.
We will live to regret the loss of our "Freedom's" in this country due to the actions of misguided zealots.
America, land of the..................used to be free, home of the brave?

We are still the GREAT AMERICA we were yesterday and yes HOME OF THE BRAVE & LAND OF THE FREE.

But that doesn't mean you lost any freedom, your just paying more for that freedom. If land were only free....hum....? Be nice!

There has always been a price for the freedoms we have like it or not, just look at your paycheck next time thats always a big reminder.

Wanna play gotta pay, can't pay can't play. NO MATTER WHAT THE GAME.

[saden1]

Equal treatment under the law and fairness is what this issue comes down to. The government can tax whatever the hell it wants under the constitution but that doesn't make it right to over tax cigarettes because the majority of society doesn't care for it.

As for being free and all that, I'd like a definition of what it means to be free.

[MTK]

Increasing taxes on cigarettes certainly can cause a decrease in the number of smokers.

ACS :: NYC Mayor Signs Law Upping Cost Of Cigarettes

Studies have shown that when the price of cigarettes increases, the number of youth who smoke decreases. One study the mayor cited said a 22% tax increase would reduce smoking among youth by 15%. That would mean roughly 70,000 less smokers, which will prevent more than 20,000 additional premature deaths, he said.

Economics of Tobacco - About this site

Myth 5: Tobacco addiction is so strong that simply raising taxes will not reduce demand; therefore, raising taxes is not justified

Reality: Scores of studies have shown that increased taxes reduce the number of smokers and the number of smoking-related deaths. Price increases induce some smokers to quit and prevent others from becoming regular or persistent smokers. They also reduce the number of ex-smokers returning to cigarettes and reduce consumption among continuing smokers. Children and adolescents are more responsive to changes in the price of consumer goods than adults-that is, if the price goes up, they are more likely to reduce their consumption. This intervention would therefore have a big impact on them. Similarly, people on low incomes are more price-responsive than those on high -incomes, so there is likely to be a bigger impact in developing countries where tobacco consumption is still increasing. Models developed for this report show that tax increases that would raise the real price of cigarettes by 10 percent worldwide would cause 40 million smokers alive in 1995 to quit and prevent a minimum of 10 million tobacco-related deaths.

I say tax the shit out of cigarettes.

[724Skinsfan]

My defintion of freedom:

-Going wherever I choose in this country without a government officials approval or requiring me to show them papers.
-Having the choice to purchase anything I want using multiple forms of payment (credit, check, atm card, cash, pennies, barter, etc).
-Buying land or personal property.
-Choosing the profession that I want provided I show I have the acumen or neceassary skill set.
-Voting for a public servant that I feel represents my values and societal expectations.
-Bitching about the government on an internet discussion forum and not being arrested for it.

I do feel the cigarette smokers have been picked on in recent years as far as excessive taxation goes. I wish everyone would stop buying them but that's just me having a hard time understanding people with chemical dependency.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I think this is a fundamental difference in a lot of people's thinking on a lot of issues. I think that in all things when one person's rights violates another person's that when is there is a problem. I think that as long as smoker's have a place to smoke that will never EVER let the smoke reach the lungs of someone who doesn't want it, they'll be fine and the non-smokers will be fine.

I don't think it's people wanting to dictate how other's live their lives. I'm sure most people couldn't give two craps if a perfect stranger dies from lung cancer. People are rightfully selfish when it comes to their own health and something that is proven to have a harmful effect, those people should be able to go to public places like anyone else and not have that right violated by those who smoke.

I can certainly understand the second-hand smoke argument. That said, if the cigarette tax is designed to bring an end to second-hand smoke, it is a relatively blunt and ineffective tool. It is blunt because there are better, more direct ways to eliminate the risk of second-hand smoke causing ill health effects without affecting someone's right to smoke a cigarette without affecting someone else. It is relatively ineffective because it is not going to stop dedicated smokers from smoking cigs in the presence of others.

I still have yet to hear an articulate and persuasive argument as to why cigarettes should be banned or heavily taxed if cigarettes do not create a net increase in tax burdens. If it is because they kill, should we still criminalize attempted suicide? I believe that if someone is dumb enough to intentionally kill themselves by smoking and that form of prolonged suicide does not create a net increase in tax burdens, they should be able to do so.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Increasing taxes on cigarettes certainly can cause a decrease in the number of smokers.

ACS :: NYC Mayor Signs Law Upping Cost Of Cigarettes



Economics of Tobacco - About this site



I say tax the shit out of cigarettes.

So you could make the argument, that taxing cigarettes save lives! Sweet.
I agree...tax the shit out of them.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Increasing taxes on cigarettes certainly can cause a decrease in the number of smokers.

ACS :: NYC Mayor Signs Law Upping Cost Of Cigarettes



Economics of Tobacco - About this site



I say tax the shit out of cigarettes.

Whith that logic I guess you would not have a problem with a $3.00 gas tax making gas aroung $6.00 a gallon.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Whith that logic I guess you would not have a problem with a $3.00 gas tax making gas aroung $6.00 a gallon.

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

[dmek25]

here we go again

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

I think he was trying to say that, if taxes can help kick a bad habit, we should tax the hell out of gas. After all, gas is the cause of wars, global warming, and the second-hand inhalation of toxic fumes.

I think gas is in a different category than cigarettes because our economy runs on it, but I see his point.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

What does gas have to do with cigarettes?

increasing taxes on gas will reduce the number of cars on the street. This will lead to less pollution and thus reduce respiratory problems?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

increasing taxes on gas will reduce the number of cars on the street. This will lead to less pollution and thus reduce respiratory problems?

The connection between the two is still a bit of a stretch. Nobody needs cigarettes, if you tax the shit out of them it's not going to negatively impact the economy, where if you double the price of gas it will definitely hurt the economy.

Sure, reducing the number of cars on the road will positively impact the environment, but it's not realistic. Alternative fuels and increasing fuel efficiency is the most realistic solution.

As for smokers, F 'em. If they're dumb enough to dig themselves an early grave then I have no pity for them no matter how high the prices of cigarettes go.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The connection between the two is still a bit of a stretch. Nobody needs cigarettes, if you tax the shit out of them it's not going to negatively impact the economy, where if you double the price of gas it will definitely hurt the economy.

Sure, reducing the number of cars on the road will positively impact the environment, but it's not realistic. Alternative fuels and increasing fuel efficiency is the most realistic solution.

As for smokers, F 'em. If they're dumb enough to dig themselves an early grave then I have no pity for them no matter how high the prices of cigarettes go.

While I totally agree with you, just to play devil's advocate, would you accept higher taxes on gas to fund research for alternative fuel sources?