smokers tax

[jbcjr14]

I think the tax on cigarettes is a bad idea. It will create a HUGE blackmarket in this country (already exists and will get bigger). We must remember that most people that smoke are ADDICTED to the nicotine! I am not a smoker, but I am addicted to another form of nicotine (chewing tobacco). It is extremely difficult to stop. Call it willpower, call it whatever. Those that are addicted to nicotine, such as those addicted to other drugs will find a way to get their "fix".

Currently there are ways to not pay tax on tobacco products via the internet. I am not going to digress, but this certainly will become a much bigger marketplace should they start taxing the crap out of cigarettes.

[SmootSmack]

I thought cigarettes were an appetite suppresant, therefore preventing you from eating that fast food, clogging your arteries, getting a heart attack and dying.

So...cigarettes are clearly good for you

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I thought cigarettes were an appetite suppresant, therefore preventing you from eating that fast food, clogging your arteries, getting a heart attack and dying.

So...cigarettes are clearly good for you

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

Obviously, I don't advocate people dying young or smoking cigarettes. But, I wonder if the social utiliarians (i.e., those who advocate taxes on smokes because smokers take away tax dollars) are truly utilitarian and would support tax breaks for cigarette smokers if the above study was proven correct. If the study was proven correct and the social utiliarians still believed that the federal government should tax smokes, they are really basing their support of such taxes on "I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

That reminds me of the "argument" that was presented in that movie "Thank You for Smoking"

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

That reminds me of the "argument" that was presented in that movie "Thank You for Smoking"

I'll try to find a link to the study.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

That's a very interesting point. Although while I do think they would save money from that, the cost of those people in treatment for cancer / or other related illness would be very high.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

Obviously, I don't advocate people dying young or smoking cigarettes. But, I wonder if the social utiliarians (i.e., those who advocate taxes on smokes because smokers take away tax dollars) are truly utilitarian and would support tax breaks for cigarette smokers if the above study was proven correct. If the study was proven correct and the social utiliarians still believed that the federal government should tax smokes, they are really basing their support of such taxes on "I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

SGG, when you think about that, and I haven't read the article, it makes some sense.

Smoke hard good chance of dying young...? On the other hand the number of long term cancer patients or related illness, with or maybe without insurance, would be very costly.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

"I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

Do you think it's that or it's the fact that MANY (if not the vast majority) of people would support banning smoking permanently and the government is just seeing this as a way to make a buck AND please the masses?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

Do you think it's that or it's the fact that MANY (if not the vast majority) of people would support banning smoking permanently and the government is just seeing this as a way to make a buck AND please the masses?

I think the majority of the public would support a ban, the government wants to make a buck off of easy targets (smokers aren't too popular), AND the underlying reason why the public supports a ban is that they do not care for smokes and want to dictate how others should live their lives. I keep hearing economic justifications for taxing cigs, but I don't think the supposed tax burden of cigs is the real reason for most everyone's desire to see an end to cigs.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I think the majority of the public would support a ban, the government wants to make a buck off of easy targets (smokers aren't too popular), AND the underlying reason why the public supports a ban is that they do not care for smokes and want to dictate how others should live their lives. I keep hearing economic justifications for taxing cigs, but I don't think the supposed tax burden of cigs is the real reason for most everyone's desire to see an end to cigs.

I think this is a fundamental difference in a lot of people's thinking on a lot of issues. I think that in all things when one person's rights violates another person's that when is there is a problem. I think that as long as smoker's have a place to smoke that will never EVER let the smoke reach the lungs of someone who doesn't want it, they'll be fine and the non-smokers will be fine.

I don't think it's people wanting to dictate how other's live their lives. I'm sure most people couldn't give two craps if a perfect stranger dies from lung cancer. People are rightfully selfish when it comes to their own health and something that is proven to have a harmful effect, those people should be able to go to public places like anyone else and not have that right violated by those who smoke.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Maybe I am more conservative than I think, but I generally do not like the idea of the federal government using its power to tax to legislate for or against certain lifestyles or freedoms. The ability to smoke or do with one's body whatever one pleases is a significant freedom. The notion that taxes should be used to promote certain lifestyles or to kick certain choices is, IMHO, a fundamentally "unconservative" notion.

As for obesity, some people definately have a genetic pre-disposition to become obese. However, statistics show that over the past 40 years obesity has been skyrocketing due to personal choices (e.g., not exercising and poor diet). Rapidly increasing rates of cardiovascular disease among the general public (which is largely due to poor diet and lack of exercise) has overtaken lung cancer as the #1 killer in America and costs American taxpayers more every year than smokes. I am not for a "fat tax," but I don't really see how people can support a cigarette tax and not be for a fat tax.

[JoeRedskin]

Soylent Green is People.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Soylent Green is People.

Sage wisdom

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Here is one such study I referenced earlier. It was authored by a member of the Congressional Research Service.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Here is one such study I referenced earlier. It was authored by a member of the Congressional Research Service.

Schneed, check this study out. We went over this argument a few pages ago, but basically, some believe that cigarettes actually save the government money because smokers often die before they get their social security checks, before they use a lot of medicare payments, etc. While cancer treatments aren't cheap, nursing home care is ridiculously expensive.