Poor smokers would pay for health bill

[kurth]

Poor smokers would pay for health bill
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer

Congressional Democrats have chosen an unlikely source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in children's health coverage: people with relatively little money and education. The program expansion passed by the House and Senate last week would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue.

Democrats, who wrote the legislation and provided most of its votes, generally portray themselves as champions of the poor. They do not dispute that the tax plan would hit poor communities disproportionately, but they say it is worth it to provide health insurance to millions of modest-income children. All the better, they say, if higher cigarette taxes discourage smoking. "I'm very happy that we're paying for this," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in an interview Friday, noting that the plan would not add to the deficit. "The health of the children is extremely important," he said. "In the long run, maybe it'll stop people from smoking."

Congress probably will revisit the cigarette tax issue soon because President Bush has pledged to veto the proposed $35 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The decade-old program helps families buy medical coverage if their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid. Bush has proposed a more modest growth for the program, and both political parties seem inclined to pay for it through a tax on an unpopular group, cigarette smokers.

By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics. The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate. Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non-Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_go_co/cigarette_tax;_ylt=ArmV9YegNoimy9xYSnq8322s0NUE

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What if everyone quit smoking?

[Moderate Dem]

1. The nanny state run amok...

Let it be known that if cigarette taxes are raised to "punish" me for a personal choice, I will have no qualms at all about buying black market smokes.

The government can take its moralistic, invasive bullshit and stuff it.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

34. You can by online from eastern Erupean companies for $15 USD a carton.

Hell, if you buy a couple, they'll even take off the shipping.

[dajoki]

86. My friend...

just got nailed with a $3000 excise tax bill for buying smokes from an Indian Reservation. He was told by Revenue dept. that they would put a lien on his house if he doesn't pay.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

88. Ouch. . .

That's gotta hurt. . . But if you buy 200 cartons, you still would have spent less money :)

[dajoki]

160. That happens to be near...

the amount they got him for.

[wuushew]

35. How exactly do tobacco black markets operate?

How would one advertise said product? What would be the cash flow requirements and business model?

Would there be a few small business operators per a town of a few thousand or would the dealers operate out of larger regional cities?


What kind of savings could one expect forgoing paying sales tax but dealing with a less efficient supply chain?

[depakid]

60. That sure didn't take long!

Whenever someone proses a reasonable public health measure- it's sure to draw out a nanny state meme.

Usually, it's a little further into the thread, though.

[ProudDad]

115. You sound just like I would have sounded

back when I was an addict...that's the addiction talking...

A better response would be to quit.

You'd kill two birds with one stone.

You'd deprive them of the tax money...and do your body good...

[LanternWaste]

135. And I'll probably quit the filthy habit.

And I'll probably quit the filthy habit. Been saying that for twenty years, and since my will-power alone isn't strong enough, maybe this will finally get the job done.

Unlike you, I really don't feel punished-- except by myself for actually picking up the habit. I realize that there is no absolute good in smoking, that it directly affects my health in a negative manner and indirectly affects those around me.

I guess I'm in the minority-- smokers backing additional restrictions for the sake of health and environment.

[glowing]

2. I would have found another source... Health= others dying.

[Sukie1941]

3. Maybe those living in poverty

can include the cost of their smokes as one reason they are in that predicament.

I quit smoking in 1980 because I had just graduated from university and didn't have a pot to pee in.
I was working on my third pack per day. I have asthma as a result and who knows what next. But it was the cost that stopped me.

I saw four boys in a car the other day, all puffing away. Maybe age 18......they know the score, so why do they go ahead and smoke?

No sympathy here.

[movonne]

7. I agree...smoking is a choice and it cost money to smoke..when

you can't feed you family, then it is time to give it up...it's really is a luxury...I know it is hard, I have been there...

[Breeze54]

9. Smoking is not always a 'choice'.

Nicotine is highly addictive.

[movonne]

22. but it can be stopped....many addictive people have stopped...

[Breeze54]

23. So says you.

You agree with targeting low income people. The very people with the
least access to health care and medical remedies to counter their habits.

Do you drink alcohol or coffee, eat fatty food, go out in the sun? Do you have any vices?

I say lets tax them all! Why single out one economic group?

[LostinVA]

41. Yup -- I smoked two+ packs a day for over a decade

I quit cold turkey... 12 1/2 years ago. I did it for my health, but I would have quit soon any way, because of the expense.

[JeanGrey]

153. Me too. The first week I thought I'd die. After that it got better

Now I can't even stand to smell it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. That First Cigarette was most certainly a "choice". n/t

[Breeze54]

99. .....

Nobody in the public knew anything about cigarettes back then. So, I disagree.
But the point is that one group should not be targeted to pay for everyone else's health care.

[ProudDad]

116. You're right

it's regressive...

A better idea is to pass Universal Single-Payer like HR676...

Everyone pays according to their means for everyone's health care...

[JeanGrey]

154. And if you are buying say three packs a day at $3 dollars a pack,

$270 a month - how much insurance would that buy?

My son is ALWAYS complaining about being broke. He smokes three packs a day and drinks almost every day as well. He could buy a house with what he spends.

[JeanGrey]

152. Of course it is. It is still a choice. You can "choose" to quit.

Millions have done it. So have I. You just have to decide that is what you want.

[Jed Dilligan]

130. Oh yeah, that's how it works.

People are poor because of the things they buy.


:sarcasm:

[Arugula Latte]

134. I can never understand it when I see people under the age of, say, 50, smoking

Older folks ... Okay. They probably started in a different era, when it was more the norm. But the young guys? :wtf:

I mean, come on. We've known the consequences for years. Why do young people start? I don't get it. I know they don't think about the future, they think they're immortal, they think it's cool or something ... but, still. To purposely pick up a stinky cancer-causing, emphysema-causing, wrinkle-causing, yellow teeth-causing stick and start puffing on it when you're a teen ... Why? WHY?

[Warpy]

4. How many smokers are poor?

I see a lot of butt fiends in the financial district. I see them gathered outside every business in smoky and shivering groups. Don't forget Cheney was a smoker even after his bypass operation. It's why he needed the stents.

Anything that encourages smokers to smoke less or quit entirely is a good thing. Anything that discourages teenagers from smoking enough to get addicted is a great thing.

It's legal. I never want to see it banned--I know how ugly you guys can get at 2 AM when you're out--but sometimes restricting it by price can be a good thing.

You get to complain.

[AZBlue]

57. The media is making it sound like a high percentage of those living in poverty smoke. It's not true.

Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.

The American Heart Association reports that 35 percent of people with no more than 11 years of schooling are smokers. Those with 16 or more years of formal education smoke at a 12 percent rate.

Non-Hispanic black men smoke at slightly higher rates than do non-Hispanic white men. But the reverse is true among women.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070930/cigarette_tax.html?.v=1


Nonetheless, the poor are more likely to smoke than the rich. But the majority of the poor don't smoke.

[TahitiNut]

110. "smoking among Medicaid recipients is approximately 39% higher than that observed in the US overall"

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547649

[Deep13]

131. If social classes are examined,...

...the bulk of smokers are "lower class", few are middle class and none are upperclass.

[Breeze54]

161. What a crock!

The upperclass? You mean the fat asses that are using up more
of the health care system than smokers, the elderly and drinkers?!

[Rosemary2205]

5. poor people can afford cigs?

I'm middle class and I can't afford cigs (not that I'd want to) - those suckers are EXPENSIVE. If jacking up the taxes on them puts them out of reach of "poor" people then I say good for that.

[EFerrari]

6. Yeah, because you know those poor people need you

to make their choices for them. :sarcasm:

[Breeze54]

13. Raising the 'sin taxes' as a way of social engineering doesn't work.

People will just buy elsewhere and then where will the state be then?
After all, the states benefit from and authorize the sale of cigs!!

Just take a look at Tennessee!!

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/27/cigarette-surveillance-program-begins-today/">Cigarette surveillance program begins today
Motorists bringing large numbers of smokes into state will be charged (with a felony!!)

By Tom Humphrey (Contact)
Thursday, September 27, 2007

NASHVILLE —

Starting today, state Department of Revenue agents will begin stopping Tennessee motorists
spotted buying large quantities of cigarettes in border states, then charging them with a
crime and, in some cases, seizing their cars.

Critics say the new “cigarette surveillance program” amounts to the use of “police state”
tactics and wrongfully interferes with interstate commerce......

[Rosemary2205]

17. I wonder about that.

NYC started charging up the yoohoo to bring a vehicle in and bingo, "problem" solved. The jobs haven't left - people just figured out a cheaper way to get to work rather than clog up the streets with one person per car.

Georgia is considering a big fat tax on new development on Jekyll Island as a way to stop overdevelopment. My guess is it will work to some degree.

Another example - tax laws that favor investors over workers, and dividends over capital growth. There's no doubt it's changed people's behavior in a big way -- and not for the better.


IMHO, if it's done right, jacking up the price of "sins" to make them only affordable to the wealthy is not really a bad thing. Hell, let the Cheney's get all the bypasses in this country. The poor have it bad enough already without having to figure out how to buy heart surgery with no insurance.

Just my 2 cents.

[Breeze54]

20. What are your vices? Are you 'sinless'?

Let's just raise taxes on all the lazy, fat (cats) motorists too!
I mean, being over weight can also cause cancer!

:eyes:

[Rosemary2205]

32. What's with the rude attitude?

I have always been civil to you. I deserve the same.

I simply have no problem with this. I understand you disagree with me. Why that gives you the right to be rude, I have no idea.

[Breeze54]

36. I'm pointing out the flaws

in your "lets target the poor for sin, with taxes" philosophy.

My comment wasn't rude.

Deciding to economically target one group is though, imho.

[Rosemary2205]

39. I never said we should target the poor.

I simply pointed out that it COULD have end up having a positive affect for the poor. You had to twist what I said in order to make it mean "target the poor".

The "sin" tax doesn't target the poor. It targets smokers. Very few poor people I know smoke. They simply can't afford it. --- which I do believe is where I started. I live in a suburb of Atlanta populated mostly with families living at or near the poverty level. The AJC recently informed me that 75% of the households in my part of this county are below 200% of the poverty level. It's rare to see someone smoking or smell smoke. Even at the county hospital, where I go 3-5 times a week for rehab either for myself or my husband, about the only people I've ever seen out there on the smoker's patio are doctors. As far as other "sins" - we do have a 2 or 3 "package" (beer/wine/liquor) stores, but even those had to branch off into selling lottery tickets to even get any traffic in the place.

My sin is ice cream. Once a month I'll buy a pint of something high end or I'll take the husband to the fancy ice cream store and we'll splurge. It's bad for us, I know it's bad for us, and quite frankly if they taxed ice cream up the yaahoo I'd probably figure out a way to save $5-10 a month someplace else so I could get my ice cream fix - but if it just got too expensive then I'd give it up.

And yes, you were rude.

[Breeze54]

40. Your comment about poor people is rude.

"poor people can afford cigs?"

[Rosemary2205]

42. I don't agree.

no surprise. :)

peace.

[renie408]

78. psssttt...I don't agree either :) n/t

[Clark2008]

37. There are already groups here planning to purchase

more than two cartons of smokes and bring them in the state so they can sue. That arcane law will NOT hold up under the Interstate Commerce regulations.

Cigarettes are a legal product. They cannot be contraband if purchased for personal use (I'm not talking about selling them, that can and is regulated).

[lligrd]

119. Agree With You But Just Curious

According to the chart you posted below Tennessee has one of the lowest taxes on cigarettes. Why would anyone go out of their way to go to another state to buy cigarettes in that case?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

127. yes because clearly you should be making these decisions for other people

[EFerrari]

8. I have to hide this thread because the way posters are talking

about people living in poverty is DISGUSTING.

[Breeze54]

14. They should be raising taxes on food, the elderly and sunlight too, while they're at it!

:sarcasm:

Cancer Risk Factors

http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer_causes/article.htm

* What are cancer risk factors?

o Growing older
o Tobacco
o Sunlight
o Ionizing radiation
o Certain chemicals and other substances
o Some viruses and bacteria
o Certain hormones
o Family history of cancer
o Alcohol
o Poor diet, lack of physical activity, or being overweight

[The River]

10. They Should Tax It $5 A Pack

I just recovered from a cigarette induced cancer.
If they go to $10 a pack then maybe fewer kids will start.
Hell, make it illegal and drive tobacco underground.
When people have to buy tobacco from street corner dealers
at $300 an ounce, a lot fewer people will die from it.

[JitterbugPerfume]

11. smoking is a serious health hazard PERIOD

and it has no respect for rich or poor. I quit years ago but there are people who I love dearly who smoke and any incentive to quit is OK by me.

I lost a friend recently who told me before he died that although he had quit , he quit to late. I would give the world to have my friend back.

[Occulus]

106. Doesn't that make funding programs off of tobacco taxes a BAD idea?

I mean, if one of the reasons to raise the taxes is to get people to quit, doesn't that negate the effect funding these programs with those taxes will have?

It's almost robbing Peter to pay Paul, with a twist- we take away Peter's job and make him live on welfare, which we then cut.

(I don't like the analogy either, but it was the only one that came to mind.)

[snappyturtle]

12. Yeah let's go after the smokers because they're responsible

for the ills of the country and are easy targets. :sarcasm:

I think everyone should stop and think for a moment. If the government was all that concerned about our collective health status wouldn't we have a national health care program? The drugs that many use to get off cigarettes are as expensive as cigarettes! And the other reason I think the gov't. isn't concerned with our health is our lousey food inspection program of foreign goods coming into this country.

What I take from this is that the gov't. is using smokers for this issue and will find another group to focus on in the future. They then can use the compliance of smokers to their regulations as precedent for issuing demands on the next group.

The health care cost of SCHIP should be shared by all. imho

[charlie]

16. It will have to be shared, eventually

Onerous sin taxes have the built in disadvantage of diminishing returns, as people turn to the black market or quit.

[snappyturtle]

18. Agreed. nt

[TahitiNut]

24. Yep. But how would we enable those addicted to self-righteous antipathy?

After all, it's a "two-fer" ... self-righteousness on steroids. And it has the added "benefit" of not costing the self-righteous anything at all! Such a deal!

It's just not enough for 'liberal' sociopaths to contemplate the suffering and early death of smokers. Nope, that's just not enough punishment! Make 'em pay through their tobacco-tainted noses!! (It's just nicer that the tobacco Nazis get even MORE benefits for being so 'enlightened' by not paying themselves, right?)

That anyone who calls themselves a 'liberal' or 'progressive' would advocate a monstrously REGRESSIVE tax is just insane.

[Naturyl]

92. Agreed. Regressive is regressive.

Having a fit of self-righteousness and a feeling of ENTITLEMENT to make choices on behalf of poor people (who aren't "real" people to most of them anyway) does not make it any less regressive.

[Kajsa]

71. I agree!

n/t

[SOS]

15. End the Iraq occupation.

That'll free up $200 billion a year.
$35 billion for s-chip with $165 billion left over.

If people are genuinely concerned with the well-being of smokers (which is doubtful) the government could use some of the extra money
to fund anti-smoking initiatives and buy every smoker a $50 pack of patches.

[ProudDad]

117. End the participation of for-profit leeches in the health industry

HR676 - Universal Single-Payer would pay for itself...

Then we wouldn't need SCHIP -- the kids would be included in Universal Single-Payer...

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. tax the shit out of smokers,

if that is the stick that encourages some poor smokers to quit, all the better.

[Breeze54]

21. You ought to practice what you preach, imho,

as I'm reading your sigline. :eyes:

[renie408]

26. Fascist doesn't mean what you think it means.

Fascist-(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

It isn't fascist to tax smokers to pay for healthcare. You may not agree with it, but it isn't fascist.

[Breeze54]

33. severe economic and social regimentation

are among the definitions.

See: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/sep/27/cigarette-surveillance-program-begins-today/">Cigarette surveillance program begins today

“cigarette surveillance program” amounts to the use of “police state” tactics

The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid
and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population,
especially by means of a secret police force which operates above the normal constraints
found in a liberal democracy.

[renie408]

43. Did you READ that article?

It said that 'critics' said that Tennessee is using police state tactics. 'Critics' could be...you. That hardly supports your completely false supposition that taxing cigarettes is fascism. And the article is about people moving large amounts of cigs over state lines illegally.


Try again.

[ProudDad]

118. Facism is already here

and it's more nuanced than the definition you posted. For one you don't need a dictator or the blatant power to forcibly suppress opposition...

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to (sic) media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[charlie]

27. Ouch

:)

[High Plains]

45. Your name is most appropriate.

I've got a stick for you.

[Kajsa]

65. Oh yeah,

That works so well with addictive drugs, legal and illegal.

Wow- a gram just went up 40%!
That's it- I quit!


For some it works,
for many others, it doesn't.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

105. having spent most of my life around recreational drug users...

an increase in the price of their drug of choice results in them using it less, and an increase in price is also a very effective barrier to entry for potential drug users. Much more so that those stupid anti-drug ads.

[Kajsa]

122. But it does not deter those

who are addicted.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs around.
Big Tobacco increased the amounts, so cigarettes now
are more addictive than ever.

[bluestateguy]

25. Then they are encouraged to quit smoking

nt

[focusfan]

28. Raising prices will not discourage smoking

People that smoke will still buy them no matter how expensive they get,they will just spend less on food or clothing.Don`t think that I approve of smoking I DON`T!I hate the smell I hate the way it burns my eyes it just plain stinks.When I get home from work I stink like an ashtray and I have never smoked in my life.No one will agree with me ,but I believe smoking makes far more polution that any car or truck built in the last 20 years,if you don`t believe me sniff an exhaust then get next to someone smoking!

[BlooInBloo]

54. That's just plain false; likely based on a 4th grade understanding of demand elasticity.

[SOS]

59. Does demand elasticity

account for organized crime running bootleg operations with fake tax stamps?

[renie408]

29. I am torn on this.

I can see both sides. I don't smoke and consider smoking a bad habit. I have seen all the studies on second hand smoke, the cost in loss of production due to smoking and the expense to society from smoking (health issues, etc). So, from that line of thinking, taxing smokers an extra .61 a pack to pay for healthcare for children doesn't seem like a bad idea.

But then again, I also see where taxing cigarettes is a regressive tax and punishes poor people, who can least afford and who probably most need something to make life a little more pleasent, disproportionately compared to wealthier people.

I am leaning toward saying, "What the fuck ever, quit smoking if you can't afford it." But I must say, I can see the other side.

[DaveJ]

30. It might encourage Good people to smoke more!

I say good people, because selfish people couldn't care less about it.

But, knowing that every pack of cigarettes helps provide healthcare to children sounds motivating.

[NoPasaran]

44. Good point!

My friends and I started smoking more when our state stuck another dollar on the price of a pack to help pay for education. After all, in the end, it's all about the children, isn't it?

[DaveJ]

55. Now I know why we have no assistance to stop smoking

If the government really considered smoking such a health crisis they would provide funding for smoking cessation. Even if they are providing it, I haven't found any around here. Now they have even less reason to want folks to quit. If everyone did quit, kids would lose their health insurance apparently.

[TahitiNut]

31. Since when should TAXATION be regarded as a PUNISHMENT???

This is the point that too many seem to ignore. The whole notion of "sin taxes" is morally bankrupt, imho. The LAST THING any 'democrat' or 'progressive' should wnat is to perpetuate the meme that a 'tax' (paying for our own self-governance) is a penalty - a PENALTY for having a government?? On what fucking planet?

Shit ... no wonder people succumb to the horseshit about "death taxes" and "punishing the wealthy". It's fucking insane to perpetuate this crap.

[TransitJohn]

85. Very rational point lost in the thread.

Thanks. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

125. I think too many are so completely buried in the meme of "sin taxes" ...

... that they cannot step back far enough to comprehend the damage we do to ourselves by equating taxation to punishment ... like there's a PENALTY for paying for self governance.

A REGRESSIVE tax on a minority is like running out on a check at a restaurant and expecting the waitress to pick up the tab. It's theft.

[Naturyl]

94. That's an excellent point...

And I agree with you. BUT... it's sure going to feel like punishment when I have to pay way more for cigarettes on the pittance I get from our generous SSI system. I agree with taxes in general, but we do need to make a distinction between progressive and regressive taxation.

[Mythsaje]

38. At what point does it simply become the exploitation of addiction? n/t

[VP505]

48. It already is!

There's a whole range of companies and government that benefit from that addiction.

[Mythsaje]

120. Yeah, and it ain't just the tobacco companies...n/t

[Mojorabbit]

46. It is like

what mike moore said in sicko. We have to decide who we are as a country. From a lot of posts on this board we are perfectly happy to fund children's health care as long as we don't have to pay for it, let the people who are addicted pay for it. I find it disgusting to read this on a progressive board.

[stranger81]

47. So many sanctimonious comments here -- none of them explaining

why smokers are the only people who should bear the burden of providing children's health care? If you truly hope and believe that an additional tax will encourage smokers to quit, then you defund the health care program.

Shouldn't this be an important enough national priority that we're ALL prepared to chip in for it, instead of just patting ourselves on the back for not being dirty smokers and watching while the government robs Peter again to pay Paul? Why not take the tax money all of us spend each day to pay for, say, 5 US depleted uranium bullets destined for Iraq, and throw that in the program?

[sandnsea]

52. We need a new source

We're going to lose voters over this, especially in states where they are proposing a separate increase as well. In Oregon, it will be a $1.46 a pack, on top of a very high tax as it is. We need to tax sugar and beef, and cigarettes and alcohol, that's what we need to do.

[Rosemary2205]

58. I'm torn

I don't really have a problem with taxes targeted to changing behavior if it actually works without the "unintended" results we've seen - for instance with the cut in dividends taxes (unintended my butt)

My real problem with the say things are set up is that too many times a spending program is tied to a specific tax. IMHO that's asking for trouble. Seems to me it would just be better to throw everything in one big pile and then decided what we can afford to pay for.

[stranger81]

63. The only time a specific tax tied to a specific program makes sense to me

is if there's some substantial relationship between the two. An additional tax on cigarettes to fund antismoking programs, anti-tobacco advertising, enforcement of more stringent smoking regulations -- all of those things make sense to me. But taxing cigarettes to fund a general children's health care plan, education, the war in Iraq, whatever, seems like an unfair burden on a class not responsible for the problem being addressed.

[loser_user]

49. How selfish it would be of me to quit smoking ?

I shall continue to smoke to save the children. In fact, I shall double the amount I smoke to save the children, considering at least the children have a happy future, cause I wasted mine.

[renie408]

51. That's the spirit!! Give, give til it hurts!! n/t

[sandnsea]

50. SCHIP - .61; Oregon - .85

On top of what smokers already pay. 25% of the population should not be paying for health care for all the children in the country.

[Breeze54]

61. Agreed! Here's a state by state breakdown.

STATE EXCISE TAX RATES ON CIGARETTES
(January 1, 2007)
STATE TAX RATE
(¢ per pack)

http://www.taxadmin.org/FTA/rate/cigarett.html


-------------

"Obese individuals spend more on both services and medication than daily smokers and heavy drinkers.
For example, obese individuals spend approximately 36 percent more than the general baseline population
on health services, compared with a 21 percent increase for daily smokers and a 14 percent increase
for heavy drinkers. Obese individuals spend 77 percent more on medications. Only aging has a greater
effect--and only on expenditures for medications."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549/index1.html

------------

It figures that the 'fat cats' would find a way to tax anyone but themselves!

[depakid]

62. Unfortunately, that's probably the only way to get it done

and to look at the deceptive commercials out there- it's pretty clear who's opposing this.

Frankly, I'd rather that the legislature deal with this another way- but since Republicans have blocked it (along with other responsible reforms) the initiative is the next best choice.

[sandnsea]

66. alcohol, fats, sugar

I bet a 1% tax would provide health care for everybody.

[depakid]

73. Not to mention the stupid "kicker" or the paltry corporate tax

I haven't actually run the numbers- but every bit would help.

[sandnsea]

76. We have to figure out something

Cigarette taxes is just not going to work, in the long run. I think I will run the food related numbers this week some time. I truly am worried we will lose votes if both these cigarette taxes pass, I've thought that for a long long time, has nothing to do with the tobacco companies. I don't smoke either, I just think that particular tax isn't sustainable.

[Jed Dilligan]

53. What a sleazeball way of doing business

"Our position on it is it's bad, and anyone who does it is stupid and deserves to be punished. But we won't make it illegal, because that way we can keep milking the addicts as cash cows for our programs to make ourselves more popular."

[Breeze54]

56. The Health Risks of Obesity: Worse Than Smoking, Drinking, or Poverty!!

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549/index1.html">The Health Risks of Obesity: Worse Than Smoking, Drinking, or Poverty

Obesity is widely recognized as a health risk. The negative effects of obesity and other known health risks, such as smoking, heavy drinking, and poverty, have been well documented. But until now, no one has compared them. Is one problem worse than another? Or are they all equally risky?

Two RAND researchers, health economist Roland Sturm and psychiatrist Kenneth Wells, examined the comparative effects of obesity, smoking, heavy drinking, and poverty on chronic health conditions and health expenditures. Their finding: Obesity is the most serious problem. It is linked to a big increase in chronic health conditions and significantly higher health expenditures. And it affects more people than smoking, heavy drinking, or poverty.

Although obesity is a recognized health risk, there have been relatively few public policies designed to reduce its prevalence. Drs. Sturm and Wells note that "Americans haven't given obesity the same attention as other risks, like smoking, but it is clearly a top health problem and one that is on the rise in all segments of the population. More effective clinical and public health approaches are urgently needed."
Obesity Is Linked to Higher Rates of Chronic Conditions Than Are Smoking, Drinking, or Poverty

Sturm and Wells examined data from Healthcare for Communities, a national household telephone survey fielded in 1998. Approximately 10,000 respondents participated in the survey, which was designed to be nationally representative. Among other questions, the survey asked respondents to self-report on 17 chronic health conditions (including diabetes, hypertension, asthma, heart disease, and cancer), height, weight, poverty, smoking status, problem drinking, health-related quality of life, and a variety of demographic factors. The study reveals that obesity is linked to very high rates of chronic illnesses--higher than living in poverty, and much higher than smoking or drinking.





more....

--------------

http://blogs.bnet.com/intercom/?p=901">The Weight’s Over: Should Fat People Pay More for Health Insurance?

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3442">Fat Tax Acolytes Are Taxing Our Patience

[bluestateguy]

82. I really don't understand the argument many on this thread are making

Didn't everybody want this bill? It's not like the tobacco tax increase was hidden.

People here seem to be obsessed with finding something to bitch about.

[Jed Dilligan]

91. If to you, "everybody" includes the assholes in Congress only

I don't know where to begin.

[cgrindley]

64. Good start... smokers and others like them should bear the burden

there's no good reason why they shouldn't. From each according to his sin to each according to his need.

[stranger81]

67. last I checked, self-righteousness wasn't a virtue. Maybe we should tax that --

seems like there's an awful lot of it to go around.

[cgrindley]

70. I smoke (nt)

off and on, now, since I was 26 (I'm now 41). I'm not adverse to having the shit taxed out of me on this issue. Make smokes 20 bucks a pack. Make them 50 bucks a pack. It would be fair.

[stranger81]

72. Maybe they could set up a special fund for your contribution, then,

and leave the other smokers out of it.

Oh, and make it a REAL national priority. Tax EVERYONE for children's health insurance.

[Breeze54]

77. Obese people should bear the burden!

They cause highest costs of health care compared to smokers, drinkers and the elderly!

link posted below in my other reply.

[cgrindley]

87. Of course they should

and they should be forced to lose weight before the system pays for certain procedures (they do this in the UK).

[stranger81]

68. For all you Air America listeners, Sam Seder is on this subject right now . . . . n/t

[Breeze54]

74. Thanks! I didn't

realize he had a show on Sundays! ;)

[stranger81]

75. "Seder on Sundays" -- it's great!

And he fills in quite a bit for Malloy and Hartmann when they're gone -- bonus Seder :applause:

[Breeze54]

79. But he's not talking about this 'tax on smokers only' crap anymore.

:( I missed it.

Can you summarize what he was saying?

They're now talking about Rush's 'phony' excuses about his 'phony' comment.

[Kajsa]

69. Shouldn't everyone contribute to

a children's healthcare bill?

[NC_Nurse]

80. Don't forget alcohol.

Cigs and alcohol are the two costliest vices in terms of healthcare today.
Why not tax them to help with kids' care?

[Breeze54]

81. Nope.

Obesity is the costliest!

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4549/index1.html

[NC_Nurse]

83. Twinkie tax!

Yeah, baby! :D

[Breeze54]

162. Tax them by the pound over their normal wgt!

Better yet? :P

Tax all the dessert foods, ice cream, soda, french fries!



All that crap except vegetables, fruit and grains! ;)

Have the fatties weigh in and then start taxing them for every pound they are over weight.

They'll have to get a note from their doctor to attach for verification on their tax forms too! :rofl:

[THUNDER HANDS]

95. can't tax aalll-keee-haaawwllll, why I drink that!

Remember, only smokers are bad.

Drinkers are fine.

because being drunk is oh-so-attractive.

[SOS]

84. How about a 50 cent tax on every bottle of beer?

Would raise $39 billion a year.

(Of course, the liquor lobby would not permit Congress to do it.)

[Kajsa]

89. That's right.

But you'll never see that happen
for the reason you mentioned.

[Naturyl]

90. Cigarette taxes are completely regressive

This is another attack on people who "don't matter." Thanks a bunch. I already pay almost 20% of my monthly income for cigarettes, but instead of asking millionaires to pitch in, I have to do this, too. I've tried to quit a number of times and I will certainly be trying again in light of this.

[dflprincess]

97. If you're ready to quit smoking, let me recommend Chantix

(I notice they've been advertising it a lot the last few days). I'm using it and I haven't had a cigarette (not even a drag of someone else's) for 4 weeks. I lost count of the number of times I've tried to quit - but it looks like it's going to work this time.

[Breeze54]

100. The starting price for a pack is $139.00!!!

The poster said they're on SSI.

How do you propose poor people pay for that? :shrug:

[Naturyl]

102. Medicaid might cover it. but then again...

The way my state has been dropping drugs from Medicaid, there's no telling. $139 out of pocket would be out of the question. I don't have that kind of money.

SSI currently pays $632 a month. I have support myself and another family member on that ridiculous sum. That's why I've attempted repeatedly to quit smoking. It's very difficult, though. Non-smokers have NO idea. Currently we are borrowing money to pay the bills, and I'm restricting myself to outdoor smoking only in order to cut down.

[Breeze54]

104. If you have a doctor and health care, which

I'm assuming you do, why not ask your Dr. about getting some help to quit?

Quit Smoking Action Plan

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=117062

Introduction

The American Lung Association developed the Quit Smoking Action Plan under the guidance of a team of experts on cigarette smoking It offers specific recommendations for selecting a personalized plan to free yourself of cigarettes and stay that way.

To help you better understand your options, the material is presented in the following 3 Steps of a Quit Smoking Action Plan, along with charts to guide you through each step.

Step 1 - Preparing to Quit

Step 2 - Using Medications

Step 3 - Staying Smoke-Free

Conclusion

Additional American Lung Association Resources

CMS Home > Medicare > Smoking Cessation > Overview
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/SmokingCessation/

In March 2005, CMS determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Medicare coverage
for smoking and tobacco use cessation counseling for beneficiaries who have smoking-related illnesses,
or who are taking medications that are affected by tobacco use.
Medicare's prescription drug benefit will also cover smoking cessation treatments prescribed
by a physician beginning in January 2006.

What Medicare covers:

Medicare covers 2 types of counseling:

* Intermediate cessation counseling is 3 to 10 minutes per session; and
* Intensive cessation counseling is greater than 10 minutes per session.

Medicare will cover 2 quit attempts per year.
Each quit attempt may include a maximum of 4 intermediate or intensive counseling sessions,
with the total annual benefit covering up to 8 sessions in a 12-month period. The health care
provider and patient have the flexibility to choose between intermediate and intensive counseling.

To be eligible to receive this benefit, a beneficiary must have a condition that is adversely affected
by smoking or tobacco use, or that the metabolism or dosing of a medication that is being used to treat a
condition the beneficiary has is being adversely affected by his or her smoking or tobacco use.

In addition, Medicare Part D will also cover smoking cessation treatments prescribed
by a physician beginning in January 2006. However, over-the-counter treatments, such as
nicotine patches or gum, will not be covered.

Other helpful information:

In addition to Medicare's smoking cessation counseling benefit, the Department of Health
and Human Services launced a national telephone counseling quitline for all smokers in
the U.S. The toll free number 1-800-QUITNOW (1-800-784-8669, TTY 1-800-332-8615) is a
single access point to the National Network of Tobacco Cessation Quitlines. Callers are
routed to a state-run quitline for assistance. If there is no state-run quitline, they
are routed to the National Cancer Institute's quitline.

[TahitiNut]

109. "smoking among Medicaid recipients is approximately 39% higher than that observed in the US overall"

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547649

So much for the claim it's not monstrously regressive. :shrug:

[Naturyl]

112. Yes, and Medicaid recipients are among the poorest Americans

Medicaid is not Medicare. There is a huge difference. Medicaid is only for people with very low incomes. Most Medicaid recipients are disabled adults or poor children.

I know how regressive this tax is because I'm soon going to be paying it. And the best part is, all the children who will benefit from my contribution will be from families who have too much income to qualify for Medicaid. In other words, people a lot more well-off than me.

It doesn't get any more regressive than that, folks.

[dflprincess]

145. My insurance covers it so I wasn't sure what it would cost without it

On the other hand, I was spending just under $160/month on cigarettes.

[Mojorabbit]

103. Have you ever googled

Chantix and depression or Chantix and joint pain. I became depressed and then suicidal on it and I have never had any problems with depression in my life. The trials were only on 4500 people.

[originalpckelly]

108. No one *needs* to smoke.

I could understand it if this was food, or it was a compulsory income tax, but no one needs to smoke. In fact, they'd be far better off if they didn't smoke than if they did.

[BlackVelvet04]

157. Nobody NEEDS to drink or eat

fatty sweet food but they do.

Nobody NEEDS to be a self-righteous asshole but they still are.

[PDenton]

96. the tax is not proportionate and unsustainable

People who smoke do not necessarily cause sick children. There is no clear cause and effect realtionship cycle you would expect of a usual "sin tax".

No, this is more like vampirism- "Look!.. a vulnerable victim with some blood left in them. Let's feed!"

Plus, in the long term this tax is not sustainable revenue. What if the number of smokers suddenly drops... what if people start evading the tax? (more crime? Is that what the Dems want? I don't think so).

[CRF450]

98. Good! I hope they tax the shit out of ciggs!!

Two of my family members over 3 years ago died, and it was mostly from years and years of smoking. I dont know how people get started in it (which alot of them are young teens) its nasty, very bad for your health and it just fucking stinks!

My dad started whe he was 15 and right at 15 years later he just quite like it was nothing. He is now 70 and is still in really good health for his age. Meanwhile, the others I know who have smoked for 35+ years are physically unfit, have no stamina, and cough alot. People just dont realise what it does to them later in life. Most teens are like "I dont give a fuck". Yeah, keep saying that when you start making trips to the hospital...

[snappyturtle]

101. Having read all these replies I think the most equitable tax would

be 5 cents a gallon gasoline tax. That way most people would be involved in the S-Chip program and maybe it would help with some conservation and cleaner air for all. It is estimated (see link) that the U.S. uses 146 billion gallons of gasoline per year. That should be enough to pay for the S-Chip program. If we go with the obesity or tobacco tax that excuses normal weight non-smokers from any responsibility with the healthcare of needy children. Is that fair?


http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm

The revenue for this program needs to come from everyone....not just a selected few.

[originalpckelly]

107. I was po. Sorry about not being able to spell the word in full...

but we was so po we couldn't afford them there last two letters, and hell, we couldn't afford an apostrophe either!

I can't imagine how much worse it would have been if I'd been a smoker.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

111. i'm a smoker and i would pay....gladly...that's how it is done for in canada

[whoneedstickets]

113. Great! Improves public health two ways!

If the increase in cost gets people to quit great. I just lost a family member who fought a year long battle with lung cancer.

[ProudDad]

114. I believe that it would be GREAT if everyone quit smoking

I believe that there should be a Federal Law banning all smoking from public places...

I believe that they picked a lousy funding source...

it IS INDEED regressive as hell and discriminatory against a group of poor addicts.


I think that the spineless shits should have passed HR676 and if bush wouldn't sign it, impeach and remove him, then if cheney wouldn't sign it, impeach and remove his ass, and if Pelosi wouldn't sign it, impeach and remove her ass -- etc. until it was signed and the law of the land -- Universal Single-Payer Health care...

Wouldn't have to fuck around with this piece-meal shit...


In the interest of full disclosure -- I smoked for 27 years and quit 22 years ago, thank Dog, and I realize how hard it is to quit...but everyone should do it!

[High Plains]

140. I think we have enough totalitarian federal laws already, thank you.

Remember when people used to say "don't make a federal case out of it"? Ah, the good old days.

[ProudDad]

163. For everyone's sake

smoking in public places should be banned.

It already is (thank Dog) in the state I live in -- and pretty much everyone's damn glad it is...

Nothing wrong with a federal ban on a Carcinogenic substance being sprayed around in public...

This is a HEALTH issue not a "granny state" issue.

People shouldn't be allowed to engage in activities that have been proven to kill innocent people not involved in that activity...


I'm 100% with you on ending the phony "war on drugs".

It's the phony "war on drugs" that causes much more damage to people and society, including the innocent, than allowing people to indulge without supporting a gangster infrastructure (and I'm talking about the criminal-injustices system as well as the "dealers").

[RamboLiberal]

121. Sorry no sympathy here

I'd love to see this nasty habit become unaffordable, one way of stopping kids from staring and perhaps a way of getting the addicts to finally rethink their habit and quit. Frankly I don't know how people even afford it any more. What's the price of a pack or carton now?

I think it's a great idea for the health costs cigarettes cost this country that at least some of it is going back to pay for kid's insurance. And you know some of these smoker's cause their kid's asthma and other health problems in the first place.

Believe me it was no fun being raised with two smoking parents and I wonder what they cost me in my health.

[devilgrrl]

123. Where's the money come from should people decide to quit?

What a joke.

Now, I'm jump into my gas guzzling SUV to drive down to the corner and buy some soda pop!

[halobeam]

124. Alcoholism is just as much an addiction,, so why not tax alcohol?

maybe the alcoholics will find it too expensive to drink, and just quit then? It'll be better for them. Somehow I have a problem with this way of thinking, on many levels.

Yeah, smoking kills and so does alcoholism. I think alcoholism effects many more family members than smoking does, but thats just my opinion.

Consider a smoker who doesn't smoke in their house, not affecting the health of their loved ones. Their smoking may upset and understandably frighten the family members with so much worry about their health. It is terrible, and they may one day lose their loved one from the effects of smoking. Then consider a drunk, they may drink on the porch, but they certainly bring it back in with them. They also may one day lose their loved one to this addiction, the worry and fear is no different. The only difference I see, is that alcohol alters the mind and body more immediately, and changes the person so very much each time they are drinking, affecting those around them more often and more profoundly, WAY more than cigarettes alters the minds of the smokers in that way.

just a thought.

[TahitiNut]

126. A tax should not be regarded as a PENALTY.

Taxes are the mechanism by which we PAY for what we BUY in self-governance. People who rationalize REGRESSIVE taxation on those least benefited from the very system of governance by which some become appallingly WEALTHY are tyrants - and I don't give a flying fuck whether they call themselves Republican or Democrat. There is nothing equitable about burdening the least benefited with the costs incurred by the most benefited.

The notion that those whose habits lead to their own suffering and death are not yet punished enough and must therefore perform more "community service" to atone for their 'sins' is an appallingly corrupt blame-shifting. It's ethically identiacl to running out on a check at a restaurant and expecting the waitress or waiter to pick up the tab. Fucking corrupt! Theft.

Shit. Even a drunkard knows this - as demonstrated by any discussion of raising taxes on booze or bringing back prohibition. We even have people who advocate for the 'rights' of children to bathe their brains in toxins. Well, it seems that brain damage is far more extensive than imagined.

[Bassic]

128. Agreed.

While smoking is certainly a great public health problem, a measure such as this is just another means of getting poor and middle-class people to pay for something that the rich don't want to pay for through taxes. It is easy to demonize someone because of their habits, and much more appealing for politicians than pissing off their rich buddies.

[halobeam]

132. totally agreed

perhaps I should've tagged my comment w/ the sarcasm tag, and additionally noted my first question as rhetorical, if not, completely sarcastic.

I can see where you thought I felt taxing alcohol was a better answer. I do not. I was trying (and apparently, didn't do a good job) at showing the ridiculous notion of taxing ANY addict, and as you state penalizing them (using alcoholism as an example, my finding that it's even more harmful to society.. yet shouldn't be taxed.)

my post wasn't as clear as I would've like it to be.

[TahitiNut]

139. Understood. I've done the same -- and the subtle sarcasm is completely missed.

Too many take it seriously ... actually getting into 'discussions' regarding the lists of social lepers 'deserving' of such penalties. It's really weird, on a "progressive" forum, no less.

[RamboLiberal]

142. There's a lot of taxes already on alcohol as well

In my area the bars are bitching cause of a 10% drink tax to pay for mass transit. Don't know how they relate except maybe the drunks can have a bus to take home.

[ProudDad]

164. Alcohol kills about 50,000 per year

cigarettes 400,000 per year.

More tax on alcohol would be a good idea if the money were used for treatment on demand...

Just as a tax on cigarettes is reasonable if used for effective smoking cessation treatment on demand...

I'm against this tax on smokers. Linking health care and a sin tax is sick...

HR676 is the answer, not this regressive tax...

[Ganja Ninja]

129. If they would legalize pot I would gladly pay that tax. n/t

[Deep13]

133. Seems like a logical symmetry.

Activities that increase the cost of health care should be taxed so that those who indulge in those activites pay the real cost of it. It is unfair to those who choose to be careful to pay for the bad choices of others. I'm all for taxing the industry itself which conspires to draw people into addiction.

[TahitiNut]

143. Except that tobacco taxes MORE than pay for such alleged costs ...

... and that doesn't account for the suffering and early death that such people are already incurring. I find this "train of thought" very interesting ... since it ignores the fact that such taxes DON'T actually go to those who incur the majority of such costs: the smokers themselves. There's some pretense that a "reserve" is created when, in fact, it's merely using the tax system to impose a penalty on folks who engage in behaviors the majority don't.

Folks cling to some of the most specious rationalizations when excusing such REGRESSIVE taxation. Fascinating.

[Deep13]

147. I doubt that it pays for it.

Money is fungible, so whether the actual dollar paid is used for Medicare or some other public purpose is immaterial.

It is only regressive if the tax is paid. One may avoid paying the tax simply by not buying the product.

[TahitiNut]

148. Excise (consumption) taxes are inherently regressive. Period.

I don't know what kind of hallucination creates the surreal notion that the nature of such a tax is altered merely by an individual choosing not to (or UNABLE to) buy the particular item taxed ... but that's just nonsense. By that kind of 'reasoning' we can just increase taxes on ALL consumables and price the poorest out of any consumption what soever. The idea that the poor are thereby priced out of the market and unable to buy goods does NOTHING to make such a tax less REGRESSIVE. Hell, that would make enormous taxation of consumption LESS regressive? Total nonsense.

The observation that "money is fungible" is an example of an over-reaching claim. While one might say that somewhat accurately regarding taxes overall, that does NOT mean that it applies with regards to all the alleged costs being targeted. Furthermore, there is no discernible direct offset whatsoever for those who bear the greatest costs. Indeed, that's the case when it comes to health care - since the tax system is only very loosely coupled to the health care system, despite our desire that it be otherwise.

[Deep13]

151. Calling something nonsense does not mean it is not true.

I'm reading a lot of ideological hyperbole, but not may facts. I pay nothing in tobacco taxes. I don't buy tobacco. I do pay gasoline taxes. Someone has to pay for the roads and it might as well be those who use them. Besides, the mere fact that a tax is regressive does not end the argument. Discouraging a cause of health care costs and human suffering generally is a legitimate governmental function.

[TahitiNut]

155. But things that aren't true ARE nonsense.

And I briefly provided the reason it's not true. Read much?

One more time about taxes: It's a corruption of the ethics of democratic self-governance to treat taxes as a PENALTY.

It's like eating in a co-op restaurant. Dividing the check evenly among people, one of whom has a small salad and another who eats filet is both regressive and inequitable. Walking out on the check and expecting the waitress to pay is theft ... and that's what a "sin tax" does.

If one refuses to comprehend that ethical issue, I really don't know what to say.

[Deep13]

156. I disagree with your philosophical conclusion. nt

[ProudDad]

165. I agree with your philosophical conclusion

If it truly were a government of, by and for "We the People", we would think of taxes as the common pool of resources we contribute to ourselves to accomplish goals we cannot accomplish individually...

Like Universal Health Care!!!

[KansDem]

136. This isn't new: Policy enforced by "people with relatively little money and education"

I worked as a bartender for a couple of years in the 1990s. I was always amused out how much "responsibility" bartenders had for assuring drunks stayed off public streets. In every "what a bartender needs to know" class I took, it was made clear that bartenders and the owners of the bars can be held liable if a drunk left the bar and was involved in an accident. There was no way around it: upon arresting a drunk driver, the police ask him/her where they have been. If your bar was named, then the DA, lawyers, and insurance companies can come down on you big time. I thought, "Public officials who make 6-figure salaries pass laws requiring a $5-an-hour bartender (less tips) to enforce. We were suppose to assess a drinker's capabilities by watching their behavior, motor and speech skills. If we concluded that he/she was too drunk to drive, we had to cut them off. Have you ever denied a drink to someone who you think is "too drunk?" (I'm not talking about someone is falling down drunk, but someone who might have had "one too many"--we don't know where they were before coming into our bar). Try it sometime!

The same way with tobacco sales. Six-figure salaried public officials decide to lower the boom on under-aged cigarette sales. So what do they do? Pass laws making minimum-waged workers responsible to enforce. I wouldn't think the clerks who work 7/11 stores make that much, yet they are on the front lines of tobacco-sales law enforcement. Let a minor buy a pack of cigarettes and see what happens to the clerk if the law finds out...

[Beelzebud]

137. Land of the Free, Home of the Brave**

**May not be available in all states, some restrictions may apply.

[Burma Jones]

138. This is fine, I would also suggest Junk Food taxes as well

Nothing wrong with charging an extra quarter for a McDonald's Burger.........

[Romulox]

141. State as drug dealer

If taxes on smoking really encourage people to quit, they would not work as revenue enhancers! Basic logic.

Just as with drug dealers, the idea is to maintain the addicts' supply at the absolute highest cost the addict can bear. It's called exploitation.

[RB TexLa]

144. So now the Surgeon General will encourage kids to smoke, to make up for lost revenue

as older smokers die.

[TahitiNut]

150. It's only a matter of time before the Girl Scouts sell cigarettes instead of cookies ...

... in order to raise funds for poor kids' health care. :silly:

(There's a lot less hyperbole in that than one might imagine.)

[CT_Progressive]

146. There is no such thing as a "poor smoker"

If you can afford a regular cigarette habit, you aren't "poor".

Lower class? Sure.
Poor? Nope.

[TahitiNut]

149. Yeah ... the affluent are such 'experts' on what 'poor' means.

... and ignorance is bliss, too. :eyes:

[JVS]

159. Is that from the Heritage Foundation with their report on "poor" people with color TVs?

[BlackVelvet04]

158. I wonder how many

red state voters the Dems will lose with this one?

Quite a few I would think and it serves them right.