The War On Tobacco

[Colonel Olrik]

tax gas anyway. 3$ per liter would be ok.

Taking in account we pay 1$ per liter, and that the average portuguese receives 3 x less than the average american, that would make the price about right.

[Tsyroc]

As I said before:

You put cyanide in random cigarettes. And have a label on the pack that says "WARNING: ONE OR MORE OF THE CIGARETTES IN THIS PACK MAY CONTAIN CYANIDE!!"

You make the ratio of cyanide cigs/regular cigs high enough so there's an actual threat.

And you make some laws so it's all legal.

How well would something like that work?

Good idea. Explosives might work well too. They'd provide a more visual spectacle.

When I was in the Navy and stuck around a lot of smokers I used to go to a place in Berkley and buy cigarette loads. When people left their cigarette packs lying around the berthing (aka shipboard baracks) I would load up a few. The cigarettes would explode with the sides peeled back just like the exploding cigars in the old Looney Toons cartoons.

[RedImperator]

Well, in that case, rase the tax on gas too. Hit 'em both ways.

tax gas anyway. 3$ per liter would be ok.

I'll assume both of you are joking. You'd ass rape just about everyone who has to drive to work or school in the state of New Jersey (i.e., everyone) with a $3.00/litre gas tax. And that still wouldn't stop people in places like, say, Buffalo, who can take the bus to the Peace Bridge and buy their smokes duty free, nor would it prevent smuggling (it would probably make it much worse).

[salm]

Well, in that case, rase the tax on gas too. Hit 'em both ways.

tax gas anyway. 3$ per liter would be ok.

I'll assume both of you are joking. You'd ass rape just about everyone who has to drive to work or school in the state of New Jersey (i.e., everyone) with a $3.00/litre gas tax. And that still wouldn't stop people in places like, say, Buffalo, who can take the bus to the Peace Bridge and buy their smokes duty free, nor would it prevent smuggling (it would probably make it much worse).

bah, i´m not joking! high price of gas = demand for cars which spend less gas.
demand for these cars = these cars get invented

i´m not saying that the price should be raised over night but in steps. 50 cents per year or so. it gives the car industry time to build low gas cars and people time to get used to smaller cars.

it´s working here in germany. the gas prices went up rapidly and sudently they were able to build the 3 liter lupo. it´s a decent car if you use it for stuff like shopping, driving to school/work. you dont need a 25 liter wasting pick up monster just to show off in school.

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah you people are spoiled with cheap gas, cheap everything.
Tax it all! Tax it all to hell!

[Zoink]

You can ban tobacco w/o producing criminals. I can park as much as I like w/o paying the meter.... I'll just get a ticket if I do. You could make tobacco possession a fine. The people that end up in jail are the people who produce it.

Ultra-high taxes, enough to pay for *ALL* the health problems is an option. I just think further bans on tobacco is a more important concern. Taxes are of little consolation for the kids being subjected to second-hand smoke. I think its strange that someone could be labelled a bad parent for knowingly subjecting their kids to harmfull products and have their kids taken away... yet second-hand smoke is OK???

[RedImperator]

bah, i´m not joking! high price of gas = demand for cars which spend less gas.
demand for these cars = these cars get invented

i´m not saying that the price should be raised over night but in steps. 50 cents per year or so. it gives the car industry time to build low gas cars and people time to get used to smaller cars.

it´s working here in germany. the gas prices went up rapidly and sudently they were able to build the 3 liter lupo. it´s a decent car if you use it for stuff like shopping, driving to school/work. you dont need a 25 liter wasting pick up monster just to show off in school.

Except that there are tens of millions of cars already on the road that are expected to be running at least a decade from now which would become prohibitively expensive to run long before that, even with incremental increases. I'm not just talking about gas guzzling monsters like SUVs. I just bought a Dodge Neon that gets 30 mpg highway. I'm not part of the gas problem, but my fuel costs will triple or quadruple while the asshole with the 8 mpg Suburban can afford to buy a more efficient car. And unlike Europe, in most places in this country, there's no alternative to driving. This tax of yours is a classic regressive tax--it would take the most money, as a percentage of income, from those with the least earnings, while the wealthier drivers who have helped create the problem would be able to afford replacing their vehicle.

And if that weren't enough, the country's entire fleet of gasoline-fueled delivery vehicles would need to be replaced, everything from UPS trucks to the pizza delivery boy's car. If you supertax diesel, then you're looking at the entire American truck fleet needing to be replaced--or else everyone who ships anything in this country will have to pay double or triple what they're paying now.

Onward to the problems of creating such a tax in the first place: mainly, the first politician who proposed hiking gas taxes $3.00/gallon would be the first to lose his job the next time he's up for re-election. The environmentalist vote in this country isn't remotely large enough to pass something like that. Especially for the reason you've given here; "You don't need a gas guzzling truck to go to the supermarket." Reaction: "Who's this tree-hugging weenie to tell me what I do and don't need? I'm an American, Goddammit, and I can drive whatever I want." <yanks Republican lever next election> And it'll be a long time before the environmentalists can convince Americans to go green, unless they somehow learn to stop being sanctimonious crypto-communists. Considering the state of the American left (arrogant and completely out of touch), I don't consider this likely for some time.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Good idea. Explosives might work well too. They'd provide a more visual spectacle.

When I was in the Navy and stuck around a lot of smokers I used to go to a place in Berkley and buy cigarette loads. When people left their cigarette packs lying around the berthing (aka shipboard baracks) I would load up a few. The cigarettes would explode with the sides peeled back just like the exploding cigars in the old Looney Toons cartoons.

Cyanide is more frightening. That's the whole point. It's not to get laughs from watching smokers die, it's to inspire mortal fear in them.

[RedImperator]

You can ban tobacco w/o producing criminals. I can park as much as I like w/o paying the meter.... I'll just get a ticket if I do. You could make tobacco possession a fine. The people that end up in jail are the people who produce it.

Ultra-high taxes, enough to pay for *ALL* the health problems is an option. I just think further bans on tobacco is a more important concern. Taxes are of little consolation for the kids being subjected to second-hand smoke. I think its strange that someone could be labelled a bad parent for knowingly subjecting their kids to harmfull products and have their kids taken away... yet second-hand smoke is OK???

The taxes are already enough to pay for the health problems, especially if you consider smokers remove themselves from the public health system 7-10 years earlier than nonsmokers. And banning desireable products does not work. The prices will simply rise to the point that the potential profits of selling outweigh the risks for illegally producing and smuggling. Cuban cigars are a perfect example: they're illegal in this country, yet they're available for something like $200-$300 a box. Marijuana is another good one--you can go to jail for growing, distributing, or using it, yet it's widely available, albiet for more per ounce than gold.

All this doesn't even get into the debate as to whether or not the government has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot put in their own body. If I'm free, then I presumably own my body and can do what I wish to it (to pre-empt a potential counterargument, I'm in favor of drug legalization for the same reason) so long as I don't harm others. The secondhand smoke issue exists, especially with children of smokers, as you've mentioned, but I fail to see why I (childless) should be labeled a criminal for smoking out on the porch or at a bar because someone somewhere might potentially harm his child with secondhand smoke.

[tharkûn]

Now how many here who support taxes on cigs support them on other things, like say alcohol? Alcohol has high healthcare costs, especially when we considering motor vehicle, gun, etc. accidents where intoxication is the direct cause.

To me alcohol is almost as bad as cigarettes. Yes alcohol has redeeming qualities, however the number of alcohol inspired fatalities is nuts. Yes some people don't drink to excess, but likewise some smokers never develop cancer. Both get a high off their respective drug that makes life feel better.

Where is the line drawn? Should we legalize crack cocaine with a $400 tax? Or should a pint (emperial pint, not the crappy US pint) of beer run 6 bucks?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I'd support an alcohol tax.

But I can't drink it, anyway.

[Zoink]

The taxes are already enough to pay for the health problems

Really, you have a link for this? Each smoker that removes himself from the health system will require a sizable chunk of money before they die, with operations, chemo therapy, treatments, etc.

< The total cost of caring for people with health problems caused by cigarette smoking -- counting all sources of medical payments -- is about $72.7 billion per year, according to health economists at the University of California. >

But lets add:

Smokers miss more days of work than non-smokers which results in costs to society from work absenteeism ...

Other costs are related to decreased work productivity due to chronic smoke related illnesses and impairments, and workers taking time away from work for smoke breaks...

Society assumes costs for the care of burn victims...25% of residential fires are caused by smokers...

Direct property damage costs from fires caused by smokers.

Society assumes the cost of smoking cessation campaigns and prevention strategies

US government tobacco crop subsidies represent little known ways your tax dollar assists the tobacco industry

Tax deductions and shelters used by the tobacco industry for advertising and promotions lead to decreased IRS revenue to cover the costs of smoking to society.

why I (childless) should be labeled a criminal for smoking

Getting a fine doesn't make you a criminal. Its not a criminal offense to park in a no-parking zone.

All this doesn't even get into the debate as to whether or not the government has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot put in their own body.

No. Its much more complex. Its also about the right of a company to market a knowlingly harmfull product. Its about the right of non-smokers to avoid harmfull effects (health / money) from you making a descision that "only affects you".

If I'm free, then I presumably own my body and can do what I wish to it

That's right. You can kill yourself if you like.

The secondhand smoke issue exists, especially with children of smokers, as you've mentioned, but I fail to see why I (childless) should be labeled a criminal for smoking out on the porch or at a bar because someone somewhere might potentially harm his child with secondhand smoke.

If you remove the "at a bar" then:

First ensure that any and ALL future health costs related to smoking are paid for by you. Ensure they are not in ANY way subsidized by those who choose to not damage their health.

Also ensure that I will never EVER be exposed to your second hand smoke, unless its on your own property.

Also ensure that I will never be told: "To work at this establishment, you will be required to harm your health." Why? Because I refuse to allow this country to degrade to 3rd-world working conditions.

Then perhaps I'll agree with you. Because I'm tired of smoker telling me its just "their" choice...

[Darth Servo]

Taxing cigarettes out of the price range of regular smokers is an idiotic idea for at least three reasons:

1. Forcing up the price will make smuggling untaxed cigarettes lucrative enough to create a black market. This is already a problem in western New York, where cigarette taxes are high and there are a number of places where smokes can be purchased tax-free nearby (duty-free stores at border crossings and Indian reservations).

2. War on Drugs effect: the majority of robberies and thefts in the United States are for money to purchase drugs. This won't be as severe with high cigarette taxes, but could become a problem, especially in poorer areas.

3. Raising the prices high enough will encourage smokers to either quit (admittedly a good thing) or find another way to acquire cigarettes. In southern New Jersey, where I am, it's a 30 minute drive to Delaware, where cigarettes are about $25 a carton, compared to over $40 here. In many places, people can buy from Indian reservations. Driving smokers to quit or cross state lines to buy cigarettes would represent a major loss of revenue for 49 states (in Hawaii, smokers are kinda fucked). Considerng that pretty much all 50 are operating with huge budget deficits, this is a high price to pay for puritanism.

Simple solution: Federal tax on tobacco in all 50 sataes. Will you argue that smokers are so desperate for their noxious fix that they will go to Canada and/or Mexico to get them tax free?

[Zoink]

Simple solution: Federal tax on tobacco in all 50 sataes. Will you argue that smokers are so desperate for their noxious fix that they will go to Canada and/or Mexico to get them tax free?

Canada wouldn't be a tax-free solution. We already have a cigarrette tax. I think the packs are up to $7CDN=$4.50 US (I think, not a smoker myself, just listening to the rantings of my co-workers), how does that compare to the current US price?

I think they should be put it higher, to force more people to quit, and reduce teenage smoking. Put the tax *directly* into medicare and smoking related costs, instead of giving it to the government to "manage".

[Lord_Xerxes]

Simple solution: Federal tax on tobacco in all 50 sataes. Will you argue that smokers are so desperate for their noxious fix that they will go to Canada and/or Mexico to get them tax free?

Canada wouldn't be a tax-free solution. We already have a cigarrette tax. I think the packs are up to $7CDN=$4.50 US (I think, not a smoker myself, just listening to the rantings of my co-workers), how does that compare to the current US price?

Zoink, that's about the average price around here in NJ. Cig low end prices go from like 3.25, med to around 4.50, and top out generally at 5.19.

But I believe the point was, that if the prices are raised here in the US to say 10 dollars a pack, then Canada's prices would be far better in comparision.

What I would like to be considered, is, if say these prices were instituted nationall, and as both Red and I have brought up that the Black Market for cigs would be openned up, what would the costs/health costs be of the people trying to smuggle them over the boarders? Wouldn't the US have to increase security to counteract this smuggling, which could lead to other tax raises for all citizens, and not just smokers. And if this smuggling would become as lucrative as say drug running, would their be violent opposition to the security, and a violent response to that? Would this mean an increase in health car cost for those woudned in the line of duty protecting our boarders, or the cost of the smugglers injurred themselves?

[MKSheppard]

Well, in that case, rase the tax on gas too. Hit 'em both ways.

*Shep is about to blow......*

FUCK YOU, KELLY!

Half the fucking cost of gasoline is already TAXES, bitch! I don't want
to have to pay more at the fucking pump to fill up my car, bitch!

*explosion over*

Let me tell you a story, a story involving a eighty year old woman
who smokes about a pack a day, and still is going stong.....along
with a forty-year old woman who smokes too, and is still going strong...

Meanwhile, a fifty year old man has lung cancer, and has to have
surgery to remove cancer from his spine, and HE HAS NEVER SMOKED
A DAY IN HIS LIFE.....

Hell, I've probably inhaled all kinds of second hand shit in my life,
and I'm still going strong, with no signs of cancer....

[MKSheppard]

Simple solution: Federal tax on tobacco in all 50 sataes. Will you argue that smokers are so desperate for their noxious fix that they will go to Canada and/or Mexico to get them tax free?

Will never work, fool....

Why? Because a TAX has to be voted on in Congress, and the LOW TAX
states will never let that measure pass....they love it when their neighbors
raise taxes on cigs.

[His Divine Shadow]

Nicotine has a narcotic effect.

Well, it's addictive, but it does not give any highs or anything that I've ever heard of, I have read though that it increases the efficency of synapses in the brain, effectively giving someone a little "brain-boost" for a short while after smoking.

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't see the need for change, as Durandal has pointed out, tobacco smokers actually generate income for society, even with the cost of the medical help they'll need later on.

So, it generates money, thins out the population(wanna be carefull with overcrowding, and they are killing themselves)

What we should address is the tendency to throw cigarette buts everywhere and such.

[Darth Wong]

Shep, I can't believe you're using the "anecdotal evidence" method to disprove tobacco hazards. I never thought that you could be that moronic. There are people out there who have survived Russian Roulette too; does that makes it a good fucking idea? There are people who have never played Russian Roulette who got shot in the head while standing at a bus stop; does any of this contradict the argument that Russian Roulette is an idiotic activity? It's a matter of increasing the probabilities of a bad thing happening to you. Probabilities are, as most people recognize, not guarantees. Nevertheless, it is still remarkably stupid to risk them.

[His Divine Shadow]

Oh you americans have no right to complain about the gas price until it's about 4 times more expensive, then you're at our level.

Then you know what it's like to shelve ou 60-100$ a week in gas, and I am driving a nice little Mazda, not the 1973 3rd generation Corvette with the 5.7litre V8 I am longing to get.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, I can't believe you're using the "anecdotal evidence" method to disprove tobacco hazards. I never thought that you could be that moronic.

This is NOT anecedotal evidence.....The 80 year old woman is
my grandmother, and the 40 year old woman is my mother....
the 50 year old guy is a friend of ours, and it's been bad
with him lately - he's always in the hospital for one reason
or another now.

[MKSheppard]

Oh you americans have no right to complain about the gas price until it's about 4 times more expensive, then you're at our level.

Then you know what it's like to shelve ou 60-100$ a week in gas, and I am driving a nice little Mazda, not the 1973 3rd generation Corvette with the 5.7litre V8 I am longing to get.

Blame your government. Our government realizes that Gasoline Prices
are the bread for the masses.....so they will never really get insanely high
like yours....

[Darth Wong]

Shep, I can't believe you're using the "anecdotal evidence" method to disprove tobacco hazards. I never thought that you could be that moronic.

This is NOT anecedotal evidence.....The 80 year old woman is
my grandmother, and the 40 year old woman is my mother....
the 50 year old guy is a friend of ours, and it's been bad
with him lately - he's always in the hospital for one reason
or another now.

Jesus ass-fucking Christ, don't you know what anecdotal evidence is? It is irrelevant whether the personal story is true or not; the point is that it is a form of evidence whose application in this instance is based upon a hasty generalization fallacy. Are you getting dumber as you get older or something?

[MKSheppard]

Are you getting dumber as you get older or something?

Then please fucking explain to me how my grandmother, who smokes a fucking PACK of cigarettes a day, doesn't have lung cancer, or any of the
nasties associated with cigarettes, while my friend, who's never smoked in
his life, is now fighting lung cancer!