Does this bother anyone else?

[Christian Graus]

Well, it's an interesting question, why tobacco was historically not banned and dope was. Subsidies are just an example of the corruption inherit in the US system of government. Here, the money goes in to health directly, AFAIK.

Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )

[John Carson]

Rob Graham wrote:

If there were any real concern for the welfare of smokers, they would abolish the industry by making the growth of tobacco, the manufacture of tobacco products, and the importation of tobacco products all illegal.

Sure. After all, prohibition worked a treat.

John Carson

[Yusuf]

fred_ wrote:

the revenue they raised isn't going to smokers. It goes to health benefits

in some states it does not go into health benefits at all. How about that? :omg:

Yusuf Oh didn't you notice, analogous to square roots, they recently introduced rectangular, circular, and diamond roots to determine the size of the corresponding shapes when given the area. Luc Pattyn[^]

[John Carson]

Rob Graham wrote:

The only problem with the present tax increase, is that does absolutely nothing to alleviate the burden to the health system posed by smokers.

A buck is a buck. This tying of revenue to specific expenditure is largely pointless. Unless the tied expenditure amounts to more that the total that would be spent on something in the absence of tying (and thus compels an increase in total funding), there is no guarantee that the tying will increase expenditure at all: other sources of funding can be reduced as an offset. Equally, spending money from a cigarette tax on something not smoking-related could free up money from funding that other thing, making more money available for caring for sick smokers. Or it may be that, say, the cost of lung cancer treatment has caused other areas to be starved of funds in the past, and so spending cigarette taxes on them now is just making up for the past displacement of funds to smokers. Tying or not tying is largely window dressing.

John Carson

[Oakman]

Chris Austin wrote:

I'll just blame the people who voted for the doorknobs in congress and probably buy a few acres and start growing my own.

Then the DEA will swoop down in Blackhawks, arrest you, and burn your crops in the field. :omg:

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Chris Austin]

For growing hops and barley?

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

[Gary Kirkham]

fred_ wrote:

is your respose based on religios beliefs?

No. I was answering your question: "Isn't that taxation without representation?"

Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read

[Tim Craig]

John Carson wrote:

Sure. After all, prohibition worked a treat.

Not to mention that kind of policy also keeps pot, cocaine, heroin, meth,.... off the market in the US. :rolleyes:

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[Tim Craig]

fred_ wrote:

Am curious to know out of all the responders how many are opposed to smoking and if so do you feel you can be objective in this discussion? and visa-versa

Pretty obviously, you smoke and you can't.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

[fred_]

Oakman wrote:

It shouldn't. It should to the non-smokers who are forced to breathe the same air

Isn't that the reason public smoking is mostly banned? Isn't going to those people either.

[fred_]

Christian Graus wrote:

why tobacco was historically not banned and dope was

Assume you mean marijuana? If so that was the reefer madness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reefer_Madness[^] which had origins in the fears of black people that were generally we too poor to afford alcohol or banned from it.

[fred_]

Generally I agree about tying. However the smokers are demonized by this tax. And in my experience in this state ( cannot speak for all as I haven't researched it ), I can be treated for smoking related issues using ( I have private) insurance, but smoking-cessation treatments aren't covered. There really is no benefit flowing back to that payer of the tax

[Rob Graham]

And you don't and you can't. ;P

[Oakman]

Chris Austin wrote:

For growing hops and barley?

Tax evasion

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

And you don't and you can't.

And I did (4 packs a day) and I don't even try.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

fred_ wrote:

Isn't that the reason public smoking is mostly banned?

Ever see Mommie light up in the car when she has two kids strapped down in the back seat? Ever get called into the boss's private office and put up with him lighting up while he discusses something important to you?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

fred_ wrote:

I can be treated for smoking related issues using ( I have private) insurance,

And collecting on it for your self-induced problems drives the rate up for everyone.

fred_ wrote:

but smoking-cessation treatments aren't covered.

You want to quit? Quit. Don't worry about the insurance. I went from 4 packs a day to zero at noon on April 12, 1993 without asking my insurance company to pony up a nickle.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Tim Craig wrote:

Not to mention that kind of policy also keeps pot, cocaine, heroin, meth,.... off the market in the US

You betcha. It's much easier to find it in the schools than the supermarkets.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

modified on Saturday, April 4, 2009 5:40 PM

[Chris Austin]

:laugh:

Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long Avoid the crowd. Do your own thinking independently. Be the chess player, not the chess piece. --?

[Vikram A Punathambekar]

Chris Austin wrote:

My nephew's father lives off the money he is paid for not farming his high dollar land in Iowa

Umm, what? Mind explaining?

Cheers, Vıkram.

Carpe Diem.