Cigarette Taxes In Chicago Up To $6.67 Per Pack

[Carfax83]

So what you are saying is that minorities have no rights as long as the majority says so.

I already said, you have the right to smoke. But, you don't have the right to pollute the air for non smokers.

Do you know how annoying or offensive it is as a non smoker to have to smell or breathe in that disgusting second hand smoke?

I truly feel for the children of smokers, as they are exposed to that shit on a daily basis and they can't do anything about it.

 

[Pohemi]

Feds should just legalize pot, eliminate most of the black market for it, and tax the hell out of that. It'd sell as well or better than cigarettes, I'd bet.

 

[PokerGuy]

Since we know for a fact that the poor tend to have much higher smoking rates than the wealthy and this is thus an extremely regressive tax, when we can we look forward to hearing the media blaring out stories about the "democrat party war on the poor"? Our unbiased media would surely treat the dems the same as the gop right? (we all know the answer to these questions already of course).

 

[PokerGuy]

And you can tax alcohol to kingdom come for all I care, as I don't drink.

A prime example of the idiotic attitude I referenced in my earlier post. Whether it affects you personally should not be relevant to whether you are OK with the government arbitrarily taxing it.

I'm guessing you wouldn't be a big fan of that concept if they decide your web surfing is a useless waste of time and thus need to levy a $100 a month tax for your internet access.

 

[Carfax83]

A prime example of the idiotic attitude I referenced in my earlier post. Whether it affects you personally should not be relevant to whether you are OK with the government arbitrarily taxing it.

I'm guessing you wouldn't be a big fan of that concept if they decide your web surfing is a useless waste of time and thus need to levy a $100 a month tax for your internet access.

If your reading skills had been up to par, you would know that I wasn't the one that suggested greater taxation for alcohol. That was BoomerD.

Personally, I'm not in favor of greater taxation for alcohol, but if it does happen, I wouldn't give a damn :hmm:

Alcohol must be an acquired taste, because to me, it tastes like piss..

 

[PokerGuy]

If your reading skills had been up to par, you would know that I wasn't the one that suggested greater taxation for alcohol. That was BoomerD.

Personally, I'm not in favor of greater taxation for alcohol, but if it does happen, I wouldn't give a damn :hmm:

Alcohol must be an acquired taste, because to me, it tastes like piss..

Apparently your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. It doesn't matter who suggested it, my point is (and you confirmed it again with this post), apparently whether you oppose some arbitrary punitive tax depends on whether you like or engage in the behavior being taxed. You don't drink alcohol, so you don't care if they put some big tax on it. That's a terrible attitude to have.

I don't smoke and I find smoking disgusting, but I'm opposed to government levying some big arbitrary tax on it for no particular reason.

 

[Carfax83]

Apparently your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. It doesn't matter who suggested it, my point is (and you confirmed it again with this post), apparently whether you oppose some arbitrary punitive tax depends on whether you like or engage in the behavior being taxed. You don't drink alcohol, so you don't care if they put some big tax on it. That's a terrible attitude to have.

Why is it a terrible attitude? Is alcohol something to be cherished? Alcohol is basically a toxin, a dangerous substance to the human body that only fools and the weak minded drink; particularly with abandon.

Why should I in any way support the consumption of alcohol, knowing what it is?

 

[WelshBloke]

No one cares if you get offended by smoking...if we're going to pass sin taxes, let's go after those sinful activities that actually harm people. Yes, tobacco is harmful...mostly to those who use the product, but alcohol can be destructive.

Maybe you gave the reason in that post.

Tobacco is harmful, alcohol can be harmful.

You can't really smoke responsibly with respect to your health. You can drink responsibly without harming yourself.

 

[WelshBloke]

It's $11 a pack now.

Most people I know are 2 pack a day smokers which is $154 a week, nearly $7,300 a year.

Almost half of my salary for the year blown up in smoke, incredible.

If you're spending half your salary on smoking you're an idiot.

If your friends are spending half their salary on smoking then they are idiots.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's $11 a pack now.

Most people I know are 2 pack a day smokers which is $154 a week, nearly $7,300 a year.

Almost half of my salary for the year blown up in smoke, incredible.

Wow, you make slightly above $14,600 a year? No wonder you're so full of hate. Were I work we have junior mechanics with little or no experience making $36,000 a year.

 

[hans007]

Fat people kind of make my eyes hurt when I see the can we tax sugar?

 

[WelshBloke]

Fat people kind of make my eyes hurt when I see the can we tax sugar?

We could just tax fat people on how much they weigh?

 

[PokerGuy]

Why is it a terrible attitude? Is alcohol something to be cherished? Alcohol is basically a toxin, a dangerous substance to the human body that only fools and the weak minded drink; particularly with abandon.

Why should I in any way support the consumption of alcohol, knowing what it is?

Sigh.. you miss the point yet again. It doesn't matter if it's alcohol, tobacco, drugs, soft drinks, internet access, clothes, guns etc.

You're taking the position that if they put a tax on something you approve of, you're against it, but if they put a tax on something you don't like or it doesn't affect you, then you don't care and it's fine. That's the terrible attitude. In every case, whether you like whatever behavior or thing that's getting taxed or not, you should ask "is there a rational justification for this tax? Does it make sense and does it accomplish what it sets out to do? Does it have any unintended consequences? Are there alternative ways of achieving the stated goals?". Not "do I care about <insert item here>?"

 

[sm625]

This is one of those rare situations where government intervention via punative taxation is a very good thing. We've known about the adverse affects of smoking for a long time now. It has been an open and shut case for 50 years! With the heavy taxation we are moving to vaporizers en mass. So cigarette tax revenue will drop off but public health in general will increase. I like these types of solution because the government isnt trying to get involved in the free market's solution (E-Liquid). Now when uncle tax man tries to stick his nose into e-liquid I will be pissed off. Especially since there is no tar or any of the other 867 carcinogens in e-liquid that you find in tobacco smoke. Thus there is no reason to punatively tax it. It would be just another mindless tyrannical money grab.

 

[Matt1970]

If your reading skills had been up to par, you would know that I wasn't the one that suggested greater taxation for alcohol. That was BoomerD.

Personally, I'm not in favor of greater taxation for alcohol, but if it does happen, I wouldn't give a damn :hmm:

Alcohol must be an acquired taste, because to me, it tastes like piss..

You (and most smokers) may not care whether I'm personally offended by smoking, but the point is, a LOT of people are offended by smoking and there's power in numbers.

Smoking has gone from being cool to passé to finally being viewed as unhealthy and disgusting. Smokers are being increasingly shunned, and even on dating websites, people want to know if you smoke.

And you can tax alcohol to kingdom come for all I care, as I don't drink.

hmmmmm

 

[PokerGuy]

This is one of those rare situations where government intervention via punative taxation is a very good thing. We've known about the adverse affects of smoking for a long time now. It has been an open and shut case for 50 years!

We've known about the adverse effects of watching tv for 50 years, it's an open and shut case. We've known about the adverse effects of eating meat for 50 years, it's an open and shut case. We've known about the adverse effects of unprotected sex for thousands of years, it's an open and shut case. We've known about the adverse effects of drinking sugary drinks for decades..... and on and on and on.

The whole point of freedom is that people make the choices (good or bad) for themselves, as long as they are not infringing on someone else's rights. I for one don't think it makes sense to have the government make choices as to what is good and what isn't, and then creating taxes to punish behavior it doesn't like. That concept flies in the face of freedom.

 

[Jeffg010]

Sigh.. you miss the point yet again. It doesn't matter if it's alcohol, tobacco, drugs, soft drinks, internet access, clothes, guns etc.

You're taking the position that if they put a tax on something you approve of, you're against it, but if they put a tax on something you don't like or it doesn't affect you, then you don't care and it's fine. That's the terrible attitude. In every case, whether you like whatever behavior or thing that's getting taxed or not, you should ask "is there a rational justification for this tax? Does it make sense and does it accomplish what it sets out to do? Does it have any unintended consequences? Are there alternative ways of achieving the stated goals?". Not "do I care about <insert item here>?"

Why don't we put it up for a vote and let the majority decide if they want to increase the tax on smoking is that not what America was built on? I'm pretty sure I know what that outcome will be. Face it most people don't like smoking and this tax is something that most people would want.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why don't we put it up for a vote and let the majority decide if they want to increase the tax on smoking is that not what America was built on? I'm pretty sure I know what that outcome will be. Face it most people don't like smoking and this tax is something that most people would want.

That simply goes back to a popularity contest of the item, which is completely against the notion of freedom. Taxes are not supposed to be a tool to punish those who do something we don't like. They are a way to raise money for the government to function.

People should be free to make their own choices, not have the 'good' and 'bad' choices dictated to them by way of taxation. If you think smoking infringes on someone elses rights, then make that argument to ban it from locations where that's the case (which we've already seen in many places). However, putting in a punitive tax on it is exactly what we've seen in this thread, just taking advantage of the "hey, it doesn't affect me, what do I care" attitude.

I'm against smoking in general since it's disgusting to me, but I'm against punitive taxation of choices out of principle. It doesn't matter if its smoking or internet use or tv watching or eating a burger. People should make their own choices.

 

[KMFJD]

Pack of cigarettes is around $20 in Australia....

 

[Matt1970]

It's funny how people are all in favor of taxing stuff untill it comes time to tax something they use.

 

[Carfax83]

You're taking the position that if they put a tax on something you approve of, you're against it, but if they put a tax on something you don't like or it doesn't affect you, then you don't care and it's fine.

That's an oversimplification for something that is way more complicated.

Honestly, this topic has now evolved to what it was truly about in the first place; the extent to which personal liberties should be tolerated when they conflict with the well being of the person(s) and Society at large.

Smoking, over eating and alcohol abuse are inherently destructive habits that have far reaching consequences for the people performing them, and in many cases, for people that have no personal involvement with said habits.

For example, smokers, over eaters and alcohol abusers are at a much greater risk of mortality than people that don't engage in these acts, simply by virtue of their habits. Also, the family members of these people are also placed at a greater risk for being in the same locality and potentially picking up these bad habits.

Now, if these habits only affected the person doing them, then maybe your talk of personal freedom would have more gravitas. But obviously, this isn't the case.

Instead, the combined economic impact of smoking, abuse of alcohol, over eating etc costs Society billions of dollars each year in medical and productivity costs, a long with the impact of personal loss that affects the individuals involved.

Now knowing all of this, is it unreasonable for any government to attempt to dissuade people from engaging in these destructive habits by levying high taxes against them? Particularly when this hasn't always been the case?

You see, not everyone is sensible or strong of will . A lot of people are seemingly incapable of making the right decisions, or lack the strength of will to refrain from over indulgence. If their bad decisions or weak mindedness affected them alone, then perhaps I would agree with you.

But it doesn't. We live in a Society so we're all interconnected one way or another. Your personal liberty should extend only so far as that it does not affect someone else's quality of life.

 

[umbrella39]

Fat people kind of make my eyes hurt when I see the can we tax sugar?

LOL watch it... fears no evil might have to fire his alt up and make his food addiction somehow the libs fault.

 

[xj0hnx]

What I find disgusting is the people who seem to think it's OK for the government to levy ridiculous tax on something just because they don't like it.

For the record, I don't smoke, never have and I find it absolutely disgusting. However, just because I find something disgusting doesn't mean I'm fine with the government arbitrarily taxing it to get more revenue. You could make the same argument about any and everything, which destroys the concept of personal choice and liberty.

It topics like this that really brings out the hypocrites huh? Consistency is something that is severally lacking in a lot of arguments here.

 

[Ausm]

What I find disgusting is the people who seem to think it's OK for the government to levy ridiculous tax on something just because they don't like it.

For the record, I don't smoke, never have and I find it absolutely disgusting. However, just because I find something disgusting doesn't mean I'm fine with the government arbitrarily taxing it to get more revenue. You could make the same argument about any and everything, which destroys the concept of personal choice and liberty.

What about Holy Rolling Rightists who want to ban legal abortions and contraception because they don't like it? :biggrin:

 

[Matt1970]

What about Holy Rolling Rightists who want to ban legal abortions and contraception because they don't like it? :biggrin:

Maximum power to the deflectors Captain.