Does this bother anyone else?

Rob Graham

Christian Graus wrote:

2 - expecting someone other than smokers to accept the burden of smoking to the health system

The only problem with the present tax increase, is that does absolutely nothing to alleviate the burden to the health system posed by smokers. The proceeds of the tax will go to expand coverage for health care for uninsured Children. If they really gave a damn about the impact smokers have on the health care system they would stop subsidizing Tobacco farmers (to the tune of 530 million since 1997) and prohibit the sale of all tobacco products (as they do for other dangerous drugs).

Chris Austin

fred_ wrote:

Don't recall this coming up as a referendum

The only national referendum we have ever had in this country is when we choose our congress and to a lesser extinct our governors and state house and senate.

fred_ wrote:

If they financed it any other way the howls would have been much louder.

What? You don't think that if we continue down the road to a single payer system for health care that we aren't all going to be feeling it in the pocketbooks? This is just the opening shot because smokers are an easy target. Have you tried growing your own tobacco? I brew my own beer I save a lot of money that way and it is a fun hobby. I am sure that in the near future I'll see the price of hops and barley go up due to sin taxes as well. But, I wont start calling it taxation without representation. I'll just blame the people who voted for the doorknobs in congress and probably buy a few acres and start growing my own.

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. --?

Chris Austin

Rob Graham wrote:

If they really gave a damn about the impact smokers have on the health care system they would stop subsidizing Tobacco farmers (to the tune of 530 million since 1997) and prohibit the sale of all tobacco products (as they do for other dangerous drugs)

Thats a lot of money. I imagine it is just a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidizes the corn farmers get. My nephew's father lives off the money he is paid for not farming his high dollar land in Iowa. Shameful.

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. --?

modified on Friday, April 3, 2009 5:37 PM

Chris Austin

Mike Gaskey wrote:

Heard a guy from back east (Conn. or NY) say he'll now grow his own.

I like that. We need to get out of our consumer mindset in this country anyway. I would hope that growing your own tobacco (or veggies, or whatever) can be a first step for some people.

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. --?

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