Tax hike on tobacco takes hold

[Corn]

Originally posted by: eleison
My aunt is in the hospital. The doctors think she has stage 4 lung cancer. I say, 'F' it; tax cigs to the max to the point of banning it. If you want to smoke, sorry, tough shiet. If you need to smoke (drug dependency), government should give you patches instead.

So is it the government's fault your aunt has cancer? Another question, if your aunt couldn't, or shouldn't have been trusted to do what is in the best interest of her health, what other decisions should the government have made for her?

.....and I'm sorry to hear about your aunt. My mother recently passed away from cancer, it is a terrible disease.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Let's slippery slope the other way.

Government lowers taxes on tobacco and alcohol to almost nothing. Supply is through the roof. Kids as young as 10 start smoking and drinking developing emphysema and cerosis of the liver before their twenties. Society is in ruins. But, at least it was in the interest of personal freedoms.

Doesn't work that way. There are already laws regarding minors and the purchase/use of tobacco products. Besides, it's clear your slippery slope is not happening in any way shape or form whereas we are migrating toward my slippery slope. Taxes ARE being used in this case to enforce behavior and it comes close to being a form of monetary punishment to those who do use tobacco products.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Let's slippery slope the other way.

Government lowers taxes on tobacco and alcohol to almost nothing. Supply is through the roof. Kids as young as 10 start smoking and drinking developing emphysema and cerosis of the liver before their twenties. Society is in ruins. But, at least it was in the interest of personal freedoms.

This is happening with beer/liquor? I mean, go to any party store, looks like there is plenty of "supply" for alcohol. Where's all the kiddies with "cerosis"?

I think you missed the point.

Read my previous post to eleison.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Let's slippery slope the other way.

Government lowers taxes on tobacco and alcohol to almost nothing. Supply is through the roof. Kids as young as 10 start smoking and drinking developing emphysema and cerosis of the liver before their twenties. Society is in ruins. But, at least it was in the interest of personal freedoms.

This would require a complete breakdown of societal norms.

Just like your proposition. Point being both what you presented and what I presented are ridiculous, though mine was in jest.

Look again, I didnt propose the slippery slope. However Tasteslikechicken's slippery slope has more basis in reality than yours.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Let's slippery slope the other way.

Government lowers taxes on tobacco and alcohol to almost nothing. Supply is through the roof. Kids as young as 10 start smoking and drinking developing emphysema and cerosis of the liver before their twenties. Society is in ruins. But, at least it was in the interest of personal freedoms.

Doesn't work that way. There are already laws regarding minors and the purchase/use of tobacco products. Besides, it's clear your slippery slope is not happening in any way shape or form whereas we are migrating toward my slippery slope. Taxes ARE being used in this case to enforce behavior and it comes close to being a form of monetary punishment to those who do use tobacco products.

I think we've seen the damage deregulation does in other areas.

 

[ranmaniac]

I'm surprised we don't have a fast food tax yet. Didn't NY try to tax soda?

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87
If your daughter wants to smoke she will no matter how much you oppress a segment of society. For all the taxation you levy on people smoking a legal substance chances are high she will try an illegal substance before the dreaded cigarette anyways. That wonderful drug war we wage using the same logic has made the school system a haven for drug transactions.

The numbers disagree. There is a clear path in decreased teen smoking when cigarette taxes go up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Let's slippery slope the other way.

Government lowers taxes on tobacco and alcohol to almost nothing. Supply is through the roof. Kids as young as 10 start smoking and drinking developing emphysema and cerosis of the liver before their twenties. Society is in ruins. But, at least it was in the interest of personal freedoms.

Doesn't work that way. There are already laws regarding minors and the purchase/use of tobacco products. Besides, it's clear your slippery slope is not happening in any way shape or form whereas we are migrating toward my slippery slope. Taxes ARE being used in this case to enforce behavior and it comes close to being a form of monetary punishment to those who do use tobacco products.

I think we've seen the damage deregulation does in other areas.

What does any of this have to do with deregulation?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87
If your daughter wants to smoke she will no matter how much you oppress a segment of society. For all the taxation you levy on people smoking a legal substance chances are high she will try an illegal substance before the dreaded cigarette anyways. That wonderful drug war we wage using the same logic has made the school system a haven for drug transactions.

The numbers disagree. There is a clear path in decreased teen smoking when cigarette taxes go up.

There has been a drastic cut in smoking in general due to societal trends. But my point still stands that if she wants to smoke she will and it doesnt matter how much you oppress your neighbor.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Corn
No, you said this was going to finance health care for children, not for smoking related illness.

I said no such thing. But if I had, I'd mention that health care for children needs financing b/c costs are high. If costs were lower across the board, there wouldn't be a need to subsidize childrens care as much, thus offsetting the reduced tax revenue.

Originally posted by: Genx87
Do you really believe this when the majority of our costs are at the end of our lives? Everybody dies and we all spend a shit load of money living an extra few weeks or months.

Besides hasnt it already been proven smokers die early and thus dont incur the same medical costs as somebody living to 80-90?

Smokers, on average, die 13-14 years earlier. In those years, they're being treated for lung disease, cardiovascular disease, reproductive problems, bladder cancer, esophageal cancer, lung cancer, mouth cancer, throat cancer, emphysema, and bronchitis. The illnesses do kill them faster, and they avoid the 'end-of-life' costs, but they replace them with different costs. And unlike old people, smokers affect the health of those around them.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Genx87
If your daughter wants to smoke she will no matter how much you oppress a segment of society. For all the taxation you levy on people smoking a legal substance chances are high she will try an illegal substance before the dreaded cigarette anyways. That wonderful drug war we wage using the same logic has made the school system a haven for drug transactions.

The numbers disagree. There is a clear path in decreased teen smoking when cigarette taxes go up.

There has been a drastic cut in smoking in general due to societal trends. But my point still stands that if she wants to smoke she will and it doesnt matter how much you oppress your neighbor.

But not if I can oppress him by making cigarettes cost a ton of money

 

[Wreckem]

Hookah shisha went up $3 per 250g can

Alot of states have bills pending that would ban flavored cigerettes(excluding cloves and menthol) and cigars. They are trying to put one together in the US Reps, but I think flavored cigars arent going to be banned in it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
But not if I can oppress him by making cigarettes cost a ton of money

Then you daughter will just spend more money for them or turn to pot if it is cheaper.
The drug war has been a complete an utter failure to wipe out drug use. Taxing cigarettes into submission will have the same effect.

The best thing you can do is to teach her smoking is a disgusting habit.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


What does any of this have to do with deregulation?

You slippery-sloped to authoritarianism, I slippery sloped to anarchy.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Looks like I'm going to quit.

Good, it's better for your health.

 

[Red Dawn]

I wonder how long before Black Market Cigs hit the market and how long before someone gets killed over it? Truck carrying them are now big targets for hijackings. Bumming a smoke will also be a thing of the past.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


What does any of this have to do with deregulation?

You slippery-sloped to authoritarianism, I slippery sloped to anarchy.

When we have a thread reporting on how the government has drastically slashed taxes on tobacco you will have a valid argument and slippery slope too.

Till then...

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder how long before Black Market Cigs hit the market and how long before someone gets killed over it? Truck carrying them are now big targets for hijackings. Bumming a smoke will also be a thing of the past.

Well, all one would have to do is go to an indian reservation(depending on what state) and stock up. I forsee the OK indian reservations getting hit up by alot of Texans because the state raised its tobacco taxes by around $1.00 in addition to the Fed increase.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder how long before Black Market Cigs hit the market and how long before someone gets killed over it? Truck carrying them are now big targets for hijackings. Bumming a smoke will also be a thing of the past.

There is already a black mark for cigarettes.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. :thumbsup:

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

That's a bit simplistic as well as wrong. Unless you haven't read or heard any news for months, you know we're in a financial meltdown, and our government needs money from from some source to provide the services we demand of it.

Tobacco is the single greatest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the nation so reducing tobacco use would reduce health care costs. Those users who can quit won't be paying anything under the new tax. Meanwhile, those addicts who can't modify their behavior should and will pay more for to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause.

There's nothing unfair about it. Those who are the direct cause of the problem are the ones who will pay more.

 

[OCGuy]

Taxing the minority. What is new?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: newnameman
"I can make a firm pledge," Obama said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Smoking is optional.

If someone was a non-smoker during the Bush administration, and started smoking as soon as Obama took office, their taxes would be higher, too...due to their own choices.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. ;thumbsup;

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

That's a bit simplistic as well as wrong. Unless you haven't read or heard any news for months, you know we're in a financial meltdown, and our government needs money from from some source to provide the services we demand of it.

Tobacco is the single greatest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the nation so reducing tobacco use would reduce health care costs. Those users who can quit won't be paying anything under the new tax. Meanwhile, those addicts who can't modify their behavior should and will pay more for to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause.

There's nothing unfair about it. Those who are the direct cause of the problem are the ones who will pay more.

Actually poor diet is the single greatest preventable cause of diease and premature death. Also, your whole spiel is what the tobacco lawsuits were for. Oh wait, the states paid lawyers $1000 per hour and the vast majority of the tobacco lawsuit money was/is squandered.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Next is beer and alcohol. Then it will be fatty foods like hamburgers and pizza. After a while someone will decide that the internet is bad for your health, a proposition that can easily be reasoned since sitting on your ass and typing/clicking a mouse does nothing to promote your health, so they raise taxes sky high on internet usage.

After all, it's for your own good, people, and clearly the government should be able to tax the crap out of something legal to force you to do what they believe is in your best interests.

Reminds me of Demolition man ....
Everything that is deemed bad for you becomes illegal....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Looks like I'm going to quit. Not because I want to but because of principle and economic reasons.

What? You don't want to live longer and be healthier with the extra time? Too freaking bad. You're stuck with at least better odds for that outcome. ;thumbsup;

I guess its ok to tax tax trax until its unaffordable. I know many of you will say "Good its better for your health" but IMO, its not so much about health as it is about government over taxation.

That's a bit simplistic as well as wrong. Unless you haven't read or heard any news for months, you know we're in a financial meltdown, and our government needs money from from some source to provide the services we demand of it.

Tobacco is the single greatest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the nation so reducing tobacco use would reduce health care costs. Those users who can quit won't be paying anything under the new tax. Meanwhile, those addicts who can't modify their behavior should and will pay more for to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause.

There's nothing unfair about it. Those who are the direct cause of the problem are the ones who will pay more.

Obesity runs a very close second (Ironically enough, a study in 2000 claimed that iatrogenesis was the third largest cause of death in the US). Since obesity is such a big factor, do you also suggest we tax the crap out of foods the government decides is unhealthy for us all? After all, doing so would reduce health care costs too and the higher taxes would contribute to our coffers. After all, those fat ass food addicts that can't modify their behavior should pay more to offset the greater health related costs of which they are the direct cause. Right?