Tax hike on tobacco takes hold

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There are people that have smoked 2 packs a day for most of their life and lived to be well over 100.

Which says nothing about how many MORE people would have lived longer and enjoyed a better quality of life for those years if they hadn't smoked.

Most doctors will also admit that a cig or two a day is not really detrimental to your health.

I doubt that. Got proof?

Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."

Maybe they didn't want to live longer. Not everybody wants to live forever Harvey.

And who the fuck are you to decide for everyone else? :shocked:

Aren't you the one doing the deciding?

With respect to the OP's topic, no, smokers decide for themselves whether they want to continue smoking. If so, the tax measure funds health insurance for kids, which is a remedy to the problems their smoking causes. No need to repeat all of the specifics already posted in the rest of the thread.

And watch you're language with me.

If it means that much to you, you can watch it for yourself.

It just seems that your language is rather juvenile for a moderator. But then this is Anandtech so I'm not surprised.

 

[MithShrike]

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."

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...79POSG0&show_article=1

SCHIP was around long before Obama. Luckily much of what went through this year was not nearly as bad as it could have been, especially for the cigar companies.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There are people that have smoked 2 packs a day for most of their life and lived to be well over 100.

Which says nothing about how many MORE people would have lived longer and enjoyed a better quality of life for those years if they hadn't smoked.

Most doctors will also admit that a cig or two a day is not really detrimental to your health.

I doubt that. Got proof?

Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."

Maybe they didn't want to live longer. Not everybody wants to live forever Harvey.

And who the fuck are you to decide for everyone else? :shocked:

says the authoritarian trying to stop people from smoking...

 

[nakedfrog]

Shouldn't we be taxing people based on the amount of emissions from their cars too, then? You know, figure out how much they're putting out and their mileage for the year and slap them with a big fat punitive tax for dumping poison into the air?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Shouldn't we be taxing people based on the amount of emissions from their cars too, then? You know, figure out how much they're putting out and their mileage for the year and slap them with a big fat punitive tax for dumping poison into the air?

Gasp!

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Shouldn't we be taxing people based on the amount of emissions from their cars too, then? You know, figure out how much they're putting out and their mileage for the year and slap them with a big fat punitive tax for dumping poison into the air?

Yeah thats a great idea... If we just figure out a way to measure how much they are emitting. Perhaps if we measure it indirectly by what they are consuming, and tax that so those who consume more pay more in taxes? Also, since we are measuring emissions indirectly, we will need some sort of system of inspections and standards so that vehicles are not putting out a disproportionate amt of pollution for thier level of consumption. Obviously there will be fees assoc w/ this.

Obviously we will be generating a lot of revenue from these consumption taxes and want it to be used for a socially beneficial cause, so I propose we use the funds to build and maintain roads and bridges which are critical to providing the infrastructure to support a strong and efficient economy.

Not only that, the taxes should have a dissuasive effect on over-consumption and encourage efficiency, so should also have the beneficial effect of reducing overall pollution levels. I'm writing my congressman now. I propose you all do the same. Maybe we should start another thread w/ a poll or something.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Bitek

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Shouldn't we be taxing people based on the amount of emissions from their cars too, then? You know, figure out how much they're putting out and their mileage for the year and slap them with a big fat punitive tax for dumping poison into the air?

Yeah thats a great idea... If we just figure out a way to measure how much they are emitting. Perhaps if we measure it indirectly by what they are consuming, and tax that so those who consume more pay more in taxes? Also, since we are measuring emissions indirectly, we will need some sort of system of inspections and standards so that vehicles are not putting out a disproportionate amt of pollution for thier level of consumption. Obviously there will be fees assoc w/ this.

Obviously we will be generating a lot of revenue from these consumption taxes and want it to be used for a socially beneficial cause, so I propose we use the funds to build and maintain roads and bridges which are critical to providing the infrastructure to support a strong and efficient economy.

Not only that, the taxes should have a dissuasive effect on over-consumption and encourage efficiency, so should also have the beneficial effect of reducing overall pollution levels. I'm writing my congressman now. I propose you all do the same. Maybe we should start another thread w/ a poll or something.

My sarcasm meter just blew a fuse

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There are people that have smoked 2 packs a day for most of their life and lived to be well over 100.

Which says nothing about how many MORE people would have lived longer and enjoyed a better quality of life for those years if they hadn't smoked.

Most doctors will also admit that a cig or two a day is not really detrimental to your health.

I doubt that. Got proof?

Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."

Maybe they didn't want to live longer. Not everybody wants to live forever Harvey.

And who the fuck are you to decide for everyone else? :shocked:

says the authoritarian trying to stop people from smoking...

Everyone knows I'm strongly opposed to tobacco, but that's not what this thread is about, and it's not what I've said in it. I said I favor the tax on tobacco because the revenues are designated to be used to provide health care, which means the funds are directly addressing the damage done by smokers smokers will pay into the fund in direct proportion to the harm they do, and it will act as an incentive for smokers to quit.

In the post you quoted, my question was a direct response to ManyBeers' absurd statement, "Maybe they didn't want to live longer. Not everybody wants to live forever..."

I can't dictate that anyone MUST quit smoking. In your case, I wouldn't even try. Please show us how your trolling is responsive to the post you quoted or where I tried to impose "authoritarian" rule to force others to stop smoking in this thread, or please ingest an extra large helping of STFU.

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Shouldn't we be taxing people based on the amount of emissions from their cars too, then? You know, figure out how much they're putting out and their mileage for the year and slap them with a big fat punitive tax for dumping poison into the air?

Actually, we already do. :thumbsup:

What is the Gas Guzzler Tax?

The Energy Tax Act of 1978 established a Gas Guzzler Tax on the sale of new model year vehicles whose fuel economy fails to meet certain statutory levels. The gas guzzler tax applies only to cars (not trucks) and is collected by the IRS.

The fuel economy figures used to determine the Gas Guzzler Tax are different from the fuel economy values provided on this web site and in the Fuel Economy Guide. The tax does not depend on your actual on-the-road mpg, which may be more or less than the EPA published value. The purpose of the Gas Guzzler Tax is to discourage the production and purchase of fuel inefficient vehicles. The amount of any applicable Gas Guzzler Tax paid by the manufacturer will be disclosed on the automobile's fuel economy label (the window sticker on new cars).

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

There are people that have smoked 2 packs a day for most of their life and lived to be well over 100.

Which says nothing about how many MORE people would have lived longer and enjoyed a better quality of life for those years if they hadn't smoked.

Most doctors will also admit that a cig or two a day is not really detrimental to your health.

I doubt that. Got proof?

Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."

Maybe they didn't want to live longer. Not everybody wants to live forever Harvey.

And who the fuck are you to decide for everyone else? :shocked:

says the authoritarian trying to stop people from smoking...

Everyone knows I'm strongly opposed to tobacco, but that's not what this thread is about, and it's not what I've said in it. I said I favor the tax on tobacco because the revenues are designated to be used to provide health care, which means the funds are directly addressing the damage done by smokers smokers will pay into the fund in direct proportion to the harm they do, and it will act as an incentive for smokers to quit.

In the post you quoted, my question was a direct response to ManyBeers' absurd statement, "Maybe they didn't want to live longer. Not everybody wants to live forever..."

I can't dictate that anyone MUST quit smoking. In your case, I wouldn't even try. Please show us how your trolling is responsive to the post you quoted or where I tried to impose "authoritarian" rule to force others to stop smoking in this thread, or please ingest an extra large helping of STFU.

Yes, let's just ignore everything you've ever said or done outside of this thread so you can pretend that you're not an authoritarian...:roll:

It provides an incentive to tobacco users to quit and an incentive to non-users, especially impressionable kids, not to start in the first place. As I also said, the only losers are the tobacco producers, the fine, upstanding folks who have bribed and lied to our legislators and pimped their death to our people, especially our kids, for generations for no other reason than to line their own pockets.

Save the kids. Save the people. FUCK THE TOBACCO KILLERS! Sounds like a winning proposition all the way around.

You can use cute words like "incentive" as much as you'd like, that doesn't change the fact that you're trying to force people to quit smoking.

Text

Originally posted by: Harvey
It won't have gone far enough until it's banned in every public space. Smokers can insist on killing themselves with their addiction. They have no right to inflict their toxins on others.

Trying to ban smoking in a private business/club/bar is about as authoritarian as it gets.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

You can use cute words like "incentive" as much as you'd like, that doesn't change the fact that you're trying to force people to quit smoking.

You're obviously vocabulary challenged so I'll say it again in words with three or less syllables:

1. Yes, I have railed against tobacco companies in other threads.
   
2. I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.
   
3. I can argue that tobacco SHOULD BE outlawed. I can argue that tobacco company execs are criminals. I can't force anyone to quit smoking.

Text

Originally posted by: Harvey

It won't have gone far enough until it's banned in every public space. Smokers can insist on killing themselves with their addiction. They have no right to inflict their toxins on others.

Trying to ban smoking in a private business/club/bar is about as authoritarian as it gets.

That's utter bullshit. Yes, I favor banning smoking in every public space. So does the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the AMA and every other health-oriented organization in the nation. The evidence is overwheming and conclusive that second hand smoke is harmful to everyone, not just the smokers. It kills and sickens people, including children and the elderly and anyone else who is forced through work or for other reasons to be in a smoke polluted environement. Furthermore, it raises total health care costs and reduces productivity in the workforce.

Rights have limits and responsiblities. What kind of brain dead turd would argue with EVERY major health-oriented agency, including the U.S. and state governmental agencies, that the minority who are still stupid enough to smoke have the right to pollute everyone else's common space? They don't.

My posts other threads don't change the fact that my posts IN THIS THREAD have been on topic and responsive to the issue of the proposed tax on tobacco products. Beyond what I allow in my own home and workspace, I have NO AUTHORITY over anyone's smoking habits so, by definition, I can't be "as authoritarian as" ANYTHING gets. :roll:

In other words, you're full of shit, and you're rant has nothing to do with the discussion of the OP's topic.

Thanks for trollling. :frown:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

You can use cute words like "incentive" as much as you'd like, that doesn't change the fact that you're trying to force people to quit smoking.

You're obviously vocabulary challenged so I'll say it again in words with three or less syllables:

1. Yes, I have railed against tobacco companies in other threads.
   
2. I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.
   
3. I can argue that tobacco SHOULD BE outlawed. I can argue that tobacco company execs are criminals. I can't force anyone to quit smoking.

Text

Originally posted by: Harvey

It won't have gone far enough until it's banned in every public space. Smokers can insist on killing themselves with their addiction. They have no right to inflict their toxins on others.

Trying to ban smoking in a private business/club/bar is about as authoritarian as it gets.

That's utter bullshit. Yes, I favor banning smoking in every public space. So does the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the AMA and every other health-oriented organization in the nation. The evidence is overwheming and conclusive that second hand smoke is harmful to everyone, not just the smokers. It kills and sickens people, including children and the elderly and anyone else who is forced through work or for other reasons to be in a smoke polluted environement. Furthermore, it raises total health care costs and reduces productivity in the workforce.

Rights have limits and responsiblities. What kind of brain dead turd would argue with EVERY major health-oriented agency, including the U.S. and state governmental agencies, that the minority who are still stupid enough to smoke have the right to pollute everyone else's common space? They don't.

My posts other threads don't change the fact that my posts IN THIS THREAD have been on topic and responsive to the issue of the proposed tax on tobacco products. Beyond what I allow in my own home and workspace, I have NO AUTHORITY over anyone's smoking habits so, by definition, I can't be "as authoritarian as" ANYTHING gets. :roll:

In other words, you're full of shit, and you're rant has nothing to do with the discussion of the OP's topic.

Thanks for trollling. :frown:

When all else fails, appeal to authority. How'd that work out for you earlier in the thread Mr. "60 MILLION Americans die every year"? :laugh:

I called you an authoritarian because of your posts and actions outside of this thread. I've already shown you which posts I consider authoritarian, and your actions speak for themselves. It's also already been pointed out to you that the revenue from this tax goes towards children's healthcare, not anything having to do with smokers.

And please, you complaining about someone going slightly off topic is a joke. I can't count how many times you've brought up GWB and his lying band of murderous whacko criminal cabalists :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|:thumbsdown: :|:thumbsdown: :| in threads having nothing to do with him. Yea, you've never strayed off topic....:roll:

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Biggest U.S. tax hike on tobacco takes effect

Smokers are gasping at higher cigarette and cigar prices as the largest federal tobacco tax increase in history takes effect.

"Oh my gosh," Bernardo Torres said Tuesday when a clerk at a CVS Pharmacy in Falls Church, Va., told him the new price, which went up in anticipation of the tax increase. Torres wanted to buy his aunt two cartons of cigarette-size cigars, but he walked away empty-handed after hearing the new price: $134. The tax on little cigars went from 4 cents to $1.01 a pack.

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

Cool, looks like it's working. I don't think the point of this tax is to make people quit because it's good for their health. Those people would have quit already. Now this is going to get some more to quit for economic reasons.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: JD50

When all else fails, appeal to authority.

Huh? Please explain what that means to this topic in some coherent language. :roll:

How'd that work out for you earlier in the thread Mr. "60 MILLION Americans die every year"? :laugh:

Actually, that worked out quite well. When I was first asked about that number, my specific reply was, "I have no idea, and it doesn't really matter," and "... regardless of the totals, tobacco the percentage of deaths attributable to tobacco will be great enough to know that there would be fewer deaths if tobacco was not part of the equation."

At the time, I had to run out, but I returned with a more complete reply when I got back:

Revisiting the question now that I'm not in a rush to be elsewhere. Sorry I couldn't give you a better answer earlier.

I found the original document that is the source for the quote. It's from 1999, and the full quote says:

Newsletter

Tobacco Hits America in Its Pocketbook

The effect of tobacco use in America is extraordinary?both in the number of lives that are lost and in financial costs as well. Without a doubt, the number of people who die or suffer illness because of its use best measures the cost of tobacco to society. One in five Americans die each year from tobacco use. The annual American death toll from tobacco is estimated at 438,000.

Tobacco use also drains the U.S. economy of more than $167 billion in health care costs and lost productivity. Health care expenditures caused directly by smoking totaled $75.5 billion in 1998. This translates to $1,623 in excess medical costs per adult smoker in 1999.

For each pack of cigarettes sold in 1999, $3.45 was spent on medical care due to smoking and $3.73 was lost in productivity, for a total cost to society of $7.18 per pack

I said, last time, I didn't know how they determined their "one in five" stat. The full quote makes it clear that this means 438,000 deaths are one fifth of around 2.2 million deaths. Your link to stats for 2005 list the number of deaths at 2,448,017, which is in line with the stats from the ACS.

Other info from the previous page also makes the case;

Adult Material

E-Mail - inserts

• In the US, cigarette smoking alone causes at least 30% of cancer deaths. If you smoke, the best way to lower your chances of developing the disease is to quit. To double your chances of quitting successfully, call the American Cancer Society at 1-800-ACS-2345. Resources are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
  
• Quitting smoking is hard to do and often takes more than one quit attempt. Research indicates that smokers are most successful in quitting permanently if they have help from a combination of methods, including nicotine replacement therapies, counseling, and a network of family and friends. For more information about these options, contact the American Cancer Society at 1-800-ACS-2345 or www.cancer.org.
  
• Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. An estimated 161,840 people will die from the disease this year. Cigarette smoking is by far the most important risk factor in the development of the disease. If you use tobacco, talk with your doctor about your risk for cancer and how quitting may reduce that risk. For more information, contact your American Cancer Society at 1-800-ACS0-2345 or visit www.cancer.org.
  
• Did you know that more than 90% of adult smokers surveyed were already smoking by age 18? Talk to your kids today about the dangers of smoking and tobacco use. For tips, contact the American Cancer Society at
  1-800-ACS-2345 or visit www.cancer.org.
  
• Even if you don?t smoke, you may still be vulnerable to smoking-related illnesses. Secondhand smoke contains numerous carcinogens and causes heart disease and respiratory infections. To reduce the chances that secondhand smoke will affect your health or your family?s, get involved in smoke-free community efforts. To find out more, call the American Cancer Society at 1-800-ACS-2345 or visit www.cancer.org.

This data is ten years old so obviously, the totals have changed, but the message is still the same, and it's the same message every other credible source presents -- Stopping smoking saves lives and money.

In the context of the OP's topic of the tobacco tax bill, the measure is a clear winnner. It provides sorely needed revenue that will be used to provide health insurance for kids, it provides a financial incentive to smokers to quit, those paying the tax are clearly a major cause of the problems at which the revenues and incentives are targeted, and the amount they pay is proportional to their contribution to those problems.

Thanks for proving you really are reading and mouse challenged and far more interested in attacking me than posting anything meaningful, let alone relevant to the topic..

I called you an authoritarian because of your posts and actions outside of this thread. I've already shown you which posts I consider authoritarian, and your actions speak for themselves.

You can call me whatever you like. That doesn't change the fact that I have no AUTHORITY to force anyone to quit smoking so, by definition, I CAN'T be "authoritarian."

It's also already been pointed out to you that the revenue from this tax goes towards children's healthcare, not anything having to do with smokers.

It's also already been pointed out to you that your statement is blatantly false. Tobacco use is a blatant source of disease in every segment of the population, including children, and children's health is part of the problem of the lack of adequate overall health care. Assigning the revenues from this tax to children's health insurance is absolutely a case of taxing the source of a problem and using the revenues to address those problems for one of the more needy and otherwise helpless segment of the population.

And please, you complaining about someone going slightly off topic is a joke. I can't count how many times you've brought up GWB and his lying band of murderous whacko criminal cabalists :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown: :|:thumbsdown: :|:thumbsdown: :| in threads having nothing to do with him. Yea, you've never strayed off topic....:roll:

Thanks very much for refreshing everyone's mind about that, but I didn't post it in THIS thread; YOU did. I didn't know you cared enough to do it. Keep it up! :thumbsup:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.

So what if they didn't smoke? Would you be angry at oxygen? Want to tax the air we breathe? This may sound sarcastic and insensitive to your friends, but honestly they were going to go one way or another and so will we all. The tax will not bring them back.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.

So what if they didn't smoke? Would you be angry at oxygen? Want to tax the air we breathe? This may sound sarcastic and insensitive to your friends, but honestly they were going to go one way or another and so will we all. The tax will not bring them back.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you blithering about? :roll:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.

So what if they didn't smoke? Would you be angry at oxygen? Want to tax the air we breathe? This may sound sarcastic and insensitive to your friends, but honestly they were going to go one way or another and so will we all. The tax will not bring them back.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you blithering about? :roll:

You don't want it to make sense because it blows your argument out of the water.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.

So what if they didn't smoke? Would you be angry at oxygen? Want to tax the air we breathe? This may sound sarcastic and insensitive to your friends, but honestly they were going to go one way or another and so will we all. The tax will not bring them back.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you blithering about? :roll:

You don't want it to make sense because it blows your argument out of the water.

It doesn't blow anything. In fact, it's working in the other direction. It totally sucks for meaning or relevance.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.

So what if they didn't smoke? Would you be angry at oxygen? Want to tax the air we breathe? This may sound sarcastic and insensitive to your friends, but honestly they were going to go one way or another and so will we all. The tax will not bring them back.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you blithering about? :roll:

You don't want it to make sense because it blows your argument out of the water.

It doesn't blow anything. In fact, it's working in the other direction. It totally sucks for meaning or relevance.

Harvey, you are smart enough to reason but you choose not to. So why not? Gotta be it hurts your argument.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Harvey, you are smart enough to reason but you choose not to. So why not? Gotta be it hurts your argument.

It's obvious you haven't read my posts on the OP's topic or anyone else's, or you'd know how piss poor meaningless your posts are. I'm won't waste my time reposting them yet again or replying to you at all until you do.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: JD50

When all else fails, appeal to authority.

Huh? Please explain what that means to this topic in some coherent language. :roll:

How'd that work out for you earlier in the thread Mr. "60 MILLION Americans die every year"? :laugh:

Actually, that worked out quite well. When I was first asked about that number, my specific reply was, "I have no idea, and it doesn't really matter," and "... regardless of the totals, tobacco the percentage of deaths attributable to tobacco will be great enough to know that there would be fewer deaths if tobacco was not part of the equation."

At the time, I had to run out, but I returned with a more complete reply when I got back:

WRONG

When TSA questioned that statistic you went off on one of your usual foaming at the mouth rants. Unfortunately for you, all someone has to do is go back and read the thread to see that you're LYING.

As for the rest of your post....:roll:

Things that happen outside of a thread are certainly relevant to a posters credibility. You attack plenty of posters in one thread because of their posts and beliefs in other threads.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Harvey, you are smart enough to reason but you choose not to. So why not? Gotta be it hurts your argument.

It's obvious you haven't read my posts on the OP's topic or anyone else's, or you'd know how piss poor meaningless your posts are. I'm won't waste my time reposting them yet again or replying to you at all until you do.

I guess if you wanna play ignorant then play ignorant. So be it.

 

[brandonb]

I don't liike the tax. I don't smoke currently and haven't for over 4 years.

For some reason, the thing that bothers me is we are going to end up in a bubble wrap society. Where the only thing we're allowed to do is work and pay our taxes. Do anything else and its taxed to hell because its unsafe, or its unfair, or pushes an agenda on someone.

There's going to be nothing left for humans to do to enjoy themselves. I can't go to the bar and have a drink with my friends because I'm afraid of the nut cop who's going to pull me over and give me a reckless driving because I had some alcohol and was under the legal limit (has happened to me before)... I don't smoke or chew tobacco because its 10 dollar a tin or 6 a pack, and I'll probably have to listen to some sissy about how 3rd hand smoke is going to kill them or it makes their shirt smell.

What happened to our gonads?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
They're financing healthcare for children with the money raised by the tax hike. Good or bad?

Shortsighted. It's an unsustainable source of revenue.

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.

Logical fallacy. Somewhere out there in this country, 2 or more "kids as young as 10" already smoke and drink.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
A lot of you "liberals" are acting more like authoritarians. You scare me.

Nothing new here. It's a simple political fact (IMO) in this country that the 'liberals' are rarely liberal, and the 'conservatives' are almost never conservative.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]I personally hate the tobacco companies because their products killed my friends, and they have lied and bribed to keep their products on the market.

So what if they didn't smoke? Would you be angry at oxygen? Want to tax the air we breathe? This may sound sarcastic and insensitive to your friends, but honestly they were going to go one way or another and so will we all. The tax will not bring them back.

Your post makes absolutely no sense. WTF are you blithering about? :roll:

You don't want it to make sense because it blows your argument out of the water.

It doesn't blow anything. In fact, it's working in the other direction. It totally sucks for meaning or relevance.

Harvey, you are smart enough to reason but you choose not to. So why not? Gotta be it hurts your argument.

Everybody will die at some point Harvey, what about letting people do what they -enjoy-?

Most smokers enjoy smoking, shocking, I know. But that warm inhale, going through the lungs, giving a few seconds of relief, and reigning in some mental clairty, all before a passionate, enjoyable, exhale...rinse and repeat.

Taxing a minority who is made of mostly of America's less affluent and seeking to deprive them of one of the few joys they may have is morally reprehensible.