Cigarette Taxes (U.S.)

[Raziaar]

Cigarettes don't literally go out and kill people. They aren't going around killing all your workers indescriminately. Cigarettes cause harm to whoever smokes them.
Smoking increases the chance of cancer etc we all know this.
Cigarettes are taxed heavily, the issue is not about cigarettes being taxed, it's the way that in Illinois they want to increase the tax even further for no other reason than extra monetary gain. Specifically taking advantage over the addictive nature of nicotine. Overall smoking trends will hardly be affected, the only outcome is more money to the government and less for the working class.

Well, I didn't read the thread, just the title.

And I wasn't implying that cigarettes are killing people indiscriminately. I'm saying that as a whole, in the country, cigarette related cancer is a leading cause of death in the united states, and that with all those nearly half a million people each year that adds up to a lot of lost potential workforce.

Anyway, as I was lazy and didn't even view any posts in the thread before replying, I thought the thread, based on the title, was strictly about cigarette taxes in general.

 

[Warped]

Well, I didn't read the thread, just the title.

And I wasn't implying that cigarettes are killing people indiscriminately. I'm saying that as a whole, in the country, cigarette related cancer is a leading cause of death in the united states, and that with all those nearly half a million people each year that adds up to a lot of lost potential workforce.

Anyway, as I was lazy and didn't even view any posts in the thread before replying, I thought the thread, based on the title, was strictly about cigarette taxes in general.

i wonder why that is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Worldwide_nuclear_testing.svg/700px-Worldwide_nuclear_testing.svg.png

 

[Vegeta897]

Raised taxes on alcomahol would cause a giant fuss, yet it just happens that alcohol is the more sanctioned drug.

You can drink responsibly. You can't smoke responsibly.

 

[kineaesth]

You can drink responsibly. You can't smoke responsibly.

Do you mean 'you' as in 'me' or 'you' as in 'people'? Because I can.

 

[Eejit]

the amount of people that die from nuclear tests far outweigh that of cigarette smoke, just imagine how much radioactive crap is out there, including toxic satellite debris like those that crashed together. imagine if many nuclear powered satellites crashed into each other and slowly released toxic material into the air and then landing into the food supply and waterways.

in fact we coat our bullets now with nuclear material so that the enemy not only gets hurt badly but those who take the bullet out

Shenanigans!

 

[Raziaar]

i wonder why that is:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Worldwide_nuclear_testing.svg/700px-Worldwide_nuclear_testing.svg.png

You can't blame nuclear radiation on cigarette caused cancers. You just can't.

 

[Vegeta897]

Do you mean 'you' as in 'me' or 'you' as in 'people'? Because I can.

Smoking is harmful to your health no matter what. That was my point.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh and also, Warped... depleted uranium isn't used to injure combatants more or the people helping them. It's used because it's incredibly dense and has uses both in armor plating and armor penetration because of this density.

 

[kineaesth]

Smoking is harmful to your health no matter what. That was my point.

Therefore it should cost more!

 

[Raziaar]

Yes, because you need to suck up all the money you can out of your citizens before they croak due to stupid causes.

 

[Tagaziel]

Smoking is harmful to your health no matter what. That was my point.

It also feels extremely ****ing good.

 

[Raziaar]

Only because you're addicted to the nicotine. When I tried a cigarette it tasted like ****ing shit and so I didn't start it again. Peer pressure be damned. I'd rather eat dirt.

 

[kineaesth]

[anecdotal evidence]

When I started smoking it tasted bad for the first cigarette. After that it was all pretty much delicious. Suck it Cowman, cigarettes are great and all the cool kids are smoking.

 

[Raziaar]

If it's so delicious, grind it all up and eat it! Suck on it and treat it like chew!

 

[Jintor]

Seriously though, smoking is the one vice I'll never get. And by get, I mean understand, as opposed to be subjected to.

Hey guys! America is the land of freedom. For that freedom, pay $1 more on ciggies.

As far as I'm following this, freedom isn't free?

 

[Raziaar]

To me, the effects of the pleasure would not be desirable when compared to the effects of withdrawal due to chemical addiction.

That's why my drug of choice, if any, would be marijuana.

 

[Jintor]

I'm only really addicted to caffine...

 

[Raziaar]

I'm addicted to foooood. Makes me a cow.

EDIT: Oh wow, in this page = me.

I better stop posting.

 

[Solaris]

I can see how they justify taxes if they have to provide extra healthcare because it will likely make you ill. However, as you have no national healthcare system then it does seem retarded.

 

[Tagaziel]

To me, the effects of the pleasure would not be desirable when compared to the effects of withdrawal due to chemical addiction.

That's why my drug of choice, if any, would be marijuana.

In both cases is a psychological addiction primarily.

 

[Raziaar]

In both cases is a psychological addiction primarily.

Cigarette's psychological effects are due to the nicotine primarily though(as well as some other bogus feelings). And the nicotine is chemically addictive.

 

[Tagaziel]

And marijuana's effects are due to... what?

 

[Raziaar]

From what I have learned, marijuana is not habit forming and it isn't chemically addictive. There are no withdrawal symptoms like there are with the chemical addiction of nicotine or other drugs.

I'm talking about addiction here, not the effects. Marijuana is obviously psychoactive.

Both affect the body chemically due to their components, but nicotine is the one that is actually addictive for a reason other than people just liking what it does for them. And when they are separated from it they experience withdrawal symptoms.

 

[repiV]

"Cigarettes are bad!!!111"

"Put more tax on them so people will give up and save lives."

Aren't we missing the point just a tad here? It is not, and should never be, the role of government to influence the personal life choices of its citizens. And tax should never, ever be used as an instrument to affect this change. If somebody wants to smoke it's none of your damn business or anyone else's.

That being said, I've never tried a cigarette in my life and don't plan to.

Shall we just tax everything that people enjoy doing that might be harmful in some way (most fun things ARE harmful in some way), until we're all good compliant citizens with no independent thought whatsoever?

First they came for the smokers,
And I did not speak out because I was not a smoker...

And then they came for the gamers...

 

[Dynasty]

Im sorry but it IS my business when you bring that shit within smelling distance of me. As far as im concerned, if I can smell your smoke, im telling you to ***k off away from me. That is MY right. ANd now I finally have the law on my side.

'Oh they're addictive', yeah and they kill you, so ban them please. Or raise Taxes atleast.

 

[repiV]

Im sorry but it IS my business when you bring that shit within smelling distance of me. As far as im concerned, if I can smell your smoke, im telling you to ***k off away from me. That is MY right. ANd now I finally have the law on my side.

Not in the street, you don't.

'Oh they're addictive', yeah and they kill you, so ban them please. Or raise Taxes atleast.

Food kills you.
Alcohol kills you.
Motorcycles kill you.
Cars kill you.
Watching TV kills you.
Working at a desk kills you.
Mountain biking may seem healthy, but that can kill you pretty good too.

Why don't we just throw caution to the wind and ban life? It's clearly suicidal to live, it kills everyone in the end. Abort all babies to avoid death.

I think you need to grow the **** up and live and let live.

 

[Eejit]

I'd rather the government taxed a luxury than a necessity honestly.

 

[repiV]

They should just stick to income tax and leave it at that. I don't see why I should be taxed two or more times on the same income. The amount of tax that we just accept these days is outrageous, just for 99% of it to be pissed up the wind on all sorts of useless shit. For example, the government is the biggest spender on TV advertising. ADVERTISING! What the hell is the government doing in the first place using my money in order to tell me how to think?

 

[CptStern]

meh bunch of whiners, a pack of smokes in ontario canada costs $10.50. repiv taxes collected from tobacco sales helps pay for healthcare. shouldnt the government recoup some of their money that will be used to care for smokers? banning it outright would seem to be most effective but unrealistic. regulating it's sale through age restrictions and taxes is better than letting the market decide what's more important; profit or the well being of citizens. any 1st year business student would tell you profit is king in business

 

[repiV]

meh bunch of whiners, a pack of smokes in ontario canada costs $10.50. repiv taxes collected from tobacco sales helps pay for healthcare. shouldnt the government recoup some of their money that will be used to care for smokers?

Should anyone who lives a riskier lifestyle then the next person have to pay more in taxes to fund the health system? Where does it end? A sliding tax scale on food depending on fat content? Ice hockey tax? Motorcycle tax? Old age tax? That really defeats the point of having universal healthcare, which should be for everyone equally without prejudice. If it gets to the point that our lifestyles and freedoms must be determined by the needs of the healthcare system, then that's an unaccpetable infringement and we should scrap the whole idea. It's either for everyone equally, or for noone at all.

banning it outright would seem to be most effective but unrealistic. regulating it's sale through age restrictions and taxes is better than letting the market decide what's more important; profit or the well being of citizens. any 1st year business student would tell you profit is king in business

Effective in what sense? People have the right to make up their own minds about their choices in life, whether someone else would consider it unwise or not. Funny how it seems the more developed and "civilised" a country is, the more restrictive life seems to become in every aspect.

In this country particularly, every single thing has to be defined as either legal or illegal. "You have to draw the line somewhere", people say. Well, actually...no. A more liberal attitude towards the law and the interpretation of the law would do such wonders for quality of life.

 

[Raziaar]

I don't understand how people are willing to fuel their addictions for that kind of money. That shit is more expensive than a gallon of milk, which is more expensive than a gallon of gas(but then again, with gas you're never really buying just one gallon at a time).

Jesus ****.

 

[CptStern]

Should anyone who lives a riskier lifestyle then the next person have to pay more in taxes to fund the health system?

there is no distinction based on lifestyle. it's their choice to spend money on smokes

Where does it end? A sliding tax scale on food depending on fat content?

slippery slope ..a lot can be justified this way since you're speculating based on a "worst case" scenario which you have no way of proving

Ice hockey tax?

oh come on now you're being down right ridiculous. the canadian parliament would be in flames and the leaders heads mounted on poles should there ever instate a hockey tax

Motorcycle tax?

yes, you're already taxed: emissions, gas, licensing, etc

Old age tax?

perhaps we should install a red ruby on everybody's hand so that they can be terminated once they hit the age of 30

That really defeats the point of having universal healthcare, which should be for everyone equally without prejudice.

it is, I dont see where you're getting the idea that it isnt ...just because they pay taxes of cigarrettes? you're being alarmist

If it gets to the point that our lifestyles and freedoms must be determined by the needs of the healthcare system, then that's an unaccpetable infringement and we should scrap the whole idea. It's either for everyone equally, or for noone at all.

you're going to have to prove that the healthcare system shapes and molds our lifestyle and freedom which I suspect will be difficult as it's such a silly notion

Effective in what sense? People have the right to make up their own minds about their choices in life, whether someone else would consider it unwise or not. Funny how it seems the more developed and "civilised" a country is, the more restrictive life seems to become in every aspect.

all because smokers have to pay taxes on their cigarrettes? oh the humanity, come on you're yet again using something inconsequential and unrelated to get on your tired "big government is bad" soapbox

In this country particularly, every single thing has to be defined as either legal or illegal. "You have to draw the line somewhere", people say. Well, actually...no. A more liberal attitude towards the law and the interpretation of the law would do such wonders for quality of life.

oh come on talk about making a mountain out of molehill. really all this because cigarrettes are taxed? btw I'm a smoker

 

[repiV]

there is no distinction based on lifestyle. it's their choice to spend money on smokes

Their choice is being curtailed if they have to pay a special tax to fund the health system.

slippery slope ..a lot can be justified this way since you're speculating based on a "worst case" scenario which you have no way of proving

Yes, a lot can be justified this way, so why start with tax on cigarettes? And why is that any more fair than an obesity tax?

oh come on now you're being down right ridiculous. the canadian parliament would be in flames and the leaders heads mounted on poles should there ever instate a hockey tax

Yes, it's a ridiculous idea. As is taxing cigarettes for healthcare reasons.

yes, you're already taxed: emissions, gas, licensing, etc

Motoring taxes are outrageous anyway, but you miss the point since I don't pay a special tax on motorcycling in order to fund the healthcare system, which you seem to think is acceptable in the case of smokers.

it is, I dont see where you're getting the idea that it isnt ...just because they pay taxes of cigarrettes? you're being alarmist

If those taxes supposedly are to pay for the costs of smoking to the healthcare system, then no it is not really an equitable system.

you're going to have to prove that the healthcare system shapes and molds our lifestyle and freedom which I suspect will be difficult as it's such a silly notion

Again, you miss the point. It could do, and punitive "sin taxes" are the first step along that road. For what it's worth, the motorcycle helmet law is an unjustifiable attack on freedom that is upheld on the basis of the potential costs to the NHS of people riding without helmets.

all because smokers have to pay taxes on their cigarrettes? oh the humanity, come on you're yet again using something inconsequential and unrelated to get on your tired "big government is bad" soapbox

FFS, you completely miss the point. Why is it ok to punitively tax smokers because of the health effects, but ridiculous to tax unhealthy food or anything else which can result in health problems? It's the same principle!

 

[CptStern]

Their choice is being curtailed if they have to pay a special tax to fund the health system.

who said they have to pay a special tax? all taxes collected are thrown into the same pot

Yes, a lot can be justified this way, so why start with tax on cigarettes?

falsely justified yes. how can speculation based on nothing at all lead to a sound conclusion

And why is that any more fair than an obesity tax?

and how do you propose they tax obesity? "excuse me sir, you look like a fat lard, please use your reaching wand to deposit $43.59"

Yes, it's a ridiculous idea. As is taxing cigarettes for healthcare reasons.

and who said that? I didnt

Motoring taxes are outrageous anyway, but you miss the point since I don't pay a special tax on motorcycling in order to fund the healthcare system, which you seem to think is acceptable in the case of smokers.

you're putting words in my mouth, I never said smokers should pay a special tax to fund healthcare. all I said was that taxes on tobacco help cover healthcare costs ..but so does a lot of other taxes like sales and income tax.

If those taxes supposedly are to pay for the costs of smoking to the healthcare system, then no it is not really an equitable system.

again, no one but you has claimed this

Again, you miss the point. It could do, and punitive "sin taxes" are the first step along that road.

speculative steps down the road. you're guessing

For what it's worth, the motorcycle helmet law is an unjustifiable attack on freedom that is upheld on the basis of the potential costs to the NHS of people riding without helmets.

give me a ****ing break. ffs riding a motorcycle isnt a right, it's a priveledge, abide by it's rules or take public transportation. it's really that simple

FFS, you completely miss the point. Why is it ok to punitively tax smokers because of the health effects, but ridiculous to tax unhealthy food or anything else which can result in health problems? It's the same principle!

I'm not missing your point because I never said it was ok to use taxes on the sale of cigarettes for healthcare programs. YOU DID

 

[repiV]

who said they have to pay a special tax? all taxes collected are thrown into the same pot

falsely justified yes. how can speculation based on nothing at all lead to a sound conclusion

and how do you propose they tax obesity? "excuse me sir, you look like a fat lard, please use your reaching wand to deposit $43.59"

and who said that? I didnt

you're putting words in my mouth, I never said smokers should pay a special tax to fund healthcare. all I said was that taxes on tobacco help cover healthcare costs ..but so does a lot of other taxes like sales and income tax.

Yes you did!

repiv taxes collected from tobacco sales helps pay for healthcare. shouldnt the government recoup some of their money that will be used to care for smokers?

The practicalities of taxing obesity or anything else are utterly irrelevant, the point is it's the same principle as taxing smokers to pay for healthcare and that principle is wrong regardless of how you choose to apply it and to whom. You find one ridiculous, why not the other?

give me a ****ing break. ffs riding a motorcycle isnt a right, it's a priveledge, abide by it's rules or take public transportation. it's really that simple

Actually, riding a motorcycle is a right. So long as you ride it on private land.

Why should you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle on the public road? It is of no concern whatsoever to anyone except the rider. We have laws covering the use of the roads in order to protect public safety, not to protect people from themselves (otherwise we'd have laws covering sporting activities too). Helmet laws and seatbelt laws do not serve this aim, they are illogical and unjust.

I'm not missing your point because I never said it was ok to use taxes on the sale of cigarettes for healthcare programs. YOU DID

You defended the practice of taxing smokers extra to pay for their healthcare. It's right above you in bold.

 

[No Limit]

Why should you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle on the public road? It is of no concern whatsoever to anyone except the rider. We have laws covering the use of the roads in order to protect public safety, not to protect people from themselves (otherwise we'd have laws covering sporting activities too). Helmet laws and seatbelt laws do not serve this aim, they are illogical and unjust.

So when you crack your skull open because you didn't think wearing a helmet was cool who has to pay for that treatment? And that's kind of a side point, one of the functions of government is to protect it's people. I would think you of all people would be for laws governing helmets; were you wearing one when you wrecked? Would you have been wearing one if the law didn't require you to?

 

[CptStern]

Yes you did!

no I did not

repiv taxes collected from tobacco sales helps pay for healthcare. shouldnt the government recoup some of their money that will be used to care for smokers?

I said it helps pay for healthcare not that special taxes from cigarettes funds healthcare programs. all taxes help fund healthcare programs

The practicalities of taxing obesity or anything else are utterly irrelevant, the point is it's the same principle as taxing smokers to pay for healthcare and that principle is wrong regardless of how you choose to apply it and to whom. You find one ridiculous, why not the other?

again I never said it funds healthcare, I said it helps fund healthcare, all taxes do; they're thrown into a pot

Actually, riding a motorcycle is a right. So long as you ride it on private land.

and do you have to wear a helmet? as with bike helmet laws they exclude things like private driveways etc

Why should you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle on the public road?

it's the law; you're using municipal funded roads, you abide by the regulations or you take public transport. why should you get special consideration?

It is of no concern whatsoever to anyone except the rider.

oh ok that makes sense, just let everyone drive whatever the hell they want on public roads because "it's no ones concern" ..well yes it is, it's public roads

We have laws covering the use of the roads in order to protect public safety, not to protect people from themselves (otherwise we'd have laws covering sporting activities too). Helmet laws and seatbelt laws do not serve this aim, they are illogical and unjust.

using this logic we should do away with warning labels on household bleach or on electrified fences; they're illogical and unjust! hell I should be able to buy a flamethrower because the government has no right dictating how I live my life

You defended the practice of taxing smokers extra to pay for their healthcare. It's right above you in bold.

nope, you just read it that way. not my fault you misinterpreted what I said

 

[repiV]

So when you crack your skull open because you didn't think wearing a helmet was cool who has to pay for that treatment?

The same people who pay when someone who chose to wear a helmet crashed and died anyway. Everyone has their own personal level of risk that they are willing to accept - why, logically, should that line be drawn at a helmet? They are of marginal benefit anyway - you will always survive an accident that you don't have in the first place. A sensible rider in shorts and t-shirt is going to survive far longer than a moron in a power ranger suit.

Why should I have to pay for head injuries picked up through skiing, or any other number of dangerous activities which are not regulated in the same way that motorcycling is?

It's a stupid argument. Either healthcare is for everyone, or noone at all. First helmets, then smokers, what next? Mandatory calorie limits?

I would think you of all people would be for laws governing helmets; were you wearing one when you wrecked? Would you have been wearing one if the law didn't require you to?

Yes I was, and yes I would have been. I was also wearing full race-quality leathers, boots and gloves. None of these things saved my life. No amount of protective equipment is capable of saving your life in a serious motorcycle accident, it just lessens non-life threatening injuries. Leathers will stop you losing your skin, but they won't stop you breaking your bones or dying of internal injuries. A helmet will protect you from knocking your head on the ground as you slide, but it will do absolutely nothing for you if you hit your head on anything solid at speed. As it happens, it would have made no difference in my case whether or not I was wearing a helmet. It offered the least protection in that accident of all the gear I was wearing that day.

If I wasn't wearing all of the above, I would have had a greater sense of my own mortality and wouldn't have been crashed in the first place because I would never dream of riding in such a fashion without wearing all that kit.

It's people on sportsbikes who die by far the most often - those same riders who tend to be all geared up from head to toe. Cruiser riders are at far, far less risk of injury or death, and yet they ride around in a bandana.

 

[repiV]

no I did not

I said it helps pay for healthcare not that special taxes from cigarettes funds healthcare programs. all taxes help fund healthcare programs

again I never said it funds healthcare, I said it helps fund healthcare, all taxes do; they're thrown into a pot

Then what is this, if you are not condoning the practice?

shouldnt the government recoup some of their money that will be used to care for smokers?

You clearly are suggesting that the government has every justification to tax smokers excessively in order to fund their healthcare.

and do you have to wear a helmet? as with bike helmet laws they exclude things like private driveways etc

Yes. I shouldn't have to wear a helmet at any time, because it doesn't affect anyone else.

it's the law; you're using municipal funded roads, you abide by the regulations or you take public transport. why should you get special consideration?

What on earth does the wearing of helmets have to do with anyone other than the people who are or are not wearing them?

oh ok that makes sense, just let everyone drive whatever the hell they want on public roads because "it's no ones concern" ..well yes it is, it's public roads

Back to square one. The sole reason we have laws applicable to the public roads is to stop the actions of one person putting another at risk. That's it. Helmet laws are an infringement of personal liberty, they do not protect anyone from the actions of another, they mandate what someone should wear for their own personal protection. Which is completely irrelevant to the purpose of road traffic law, and a fine example of "feature creep" where the law crosses the line between protecting the innocent into nannying people.

Running a red light puts other people at risk, that's why it's illegal. Exceeding the speed limit *supposedly* puts other people at risk (that this is not necessarily the case is irrelevant), that's why it's illegal. Wearing a helmet or a seatbelt, on the other hand, is a matter of personal preference that has nothing to do with anyone else.

using this logic we should do away with warning labels on household bleach or on electrified fences; they're illogical and unjust! hell I should be able to buy a flamethrower because the government has no right dictating how I live my life

Yet again, you confuse the issue of public safety with that of personal choice.

 

[No Limit]

You can't possibly be serious that not having a helmet on would have prevented you from having an accident. Come on dude, let's try to stick to logical arguments. If you think that the reason you can ride unsafely on a bike is the helmet you are waring maybe you shouldn't be riding at all?

And lets say I buy your argument that the helmet didn't do anything to save your life. But lets say that it helped from giving you some kind of disfigurement for the rest of your life. Worth it, no?

Finally, if you would have been wearing the helmet anyway then why do you even care about this law? You would agree that there are people that do wear it only because the law says they have to, right? So if that law saves lives, without costing the government anything why shouldn't it be on the books? One of the responsibilities of government is to protect it's citizens, this law does that by protecting stupid people from themselves.

We don't have a law on the books here that requires you to wear a helmet, only some form of eye protection. I wonder how many lives would be saved if we did have one.