Tobacco Taxes: Isn't this sort of the opposite of what we should be doing?

[NeedleCast]

So I heard on NPR today that the taxes on cigarettes are going up again, along with an additional tax on cigars. This seems like a really bad way to make tax money. The feds are making an addiction more expensive and at the same time, increasing our nations need to rely on these taxes to make ends meet. At the same time we're encouraging people to stop smoking, we're increasing the amount of tax dollars we generate from nicotene addicts. Isn't this a little bit like teaching your little brother swimming pool saftey by pushing him into the deep end?

It's also strikes me as yet another regressive tax. We've essentially turned smoking into something only the wealthy can afford to do without making budgetary sacrifices elsewhere. I smoke, on average, a pack a month, and sometimes not at all, so it doesn't really effect me, but I think last time I bought a pack of smokes here in Virgina it was over five dollars.

I know the ban brigade is probably happy to see this, but I wonder if they've really thought through all the ramifications. Lets face it, sooner or later (and probably sooner), smoking is going to become illegal. When that happens, how are we going to make up for the tax dollars lost, or, perhaps another way to ask is "what sin tax will we issue next?" Sugar? Salt?

This is why I wonder if we'd really gain anything from legalizing weed. It would just become the next sinful item that we'd regressivly tax. Not sure that's a good idea.

[notadmblnd]

1. I think we should tax fast food

Just imagine a few cents on that burger from Wendy's, McDonald's, Burger King, Rally, Checkers, Sonic, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken etc, the list goes on and on.

[NeedleCast]

2. Okay, that's massivly regressive

I understand what you're saying, but isn't this just another regressive tax? My point is that we need to move away from these "sin" taxes or any other taxed aimed at "keeping us healthy."

[notadmblnd]

4. i suspect we'll always have regressive taxes, I'd just like to see them distributed more evenly

I don't have a problem with paying taxes, I really don't. However, I think we need to tax fairly. Everyone, and I mean everyone eats fast food. It's just as damaging to health as smoking. Clogged arteries, obesity, diabetes is every bit as much of a burden on society as lung cancer. Maybe more?:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

6. Health Issues Asside, it would effect the poor much more than the wealthy

and we need to get away from these sort of taxes. Personally, I'd like to see ALL non-income taxes moved to the income tax. All these regressive taxes are a way for politicians to raise taxes without actually raising taxes. Whether it's toll roads or sin taxes or gas taxes. Move it all to income tax weighted more heavily towards taxing the wealthy.

I also have no interest in having the feds (or anyone else) decide what I can and cant eat via taxation.

You said in your post that you think we need to tax fairly, but admit you'd support what is essentially a regressive tax. Does not compute.

[Kalyke]

9. More now.

More people eat junk than smoke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7946290.stm

[JDPriestly]

31. The cancers and heart disease that cigarettes cause are expensive to treat.

The taxes do not begin to cover the externalities -- expenses that tobacco causes that are external to its production and sale. These taxes are not regressive. They hit everyone who smokes. I like them. If they discourage people, rich or poor, from smoking as much as they might if tobacco products were cheaper, then they are a great thing and achieving their purpose. Heavily taxing tobacco products is a better way to discourage young people from becoming addicted than prohibiting the sale of these products. And -- among those the high cost of cigarettes discourages from buying cigarettes are young people just getting addicted.

[Cid_B]

62. All examples of someone knowing "whats best for you"

It grinds my gears...

[NeedleCast]

63. You and me both n/t

[slackmaster]

27. Yes, let's hit poor people even harder and remove .gov's incentive to get people to eat better

:eyes:

[Xenotime]

80. tax sodas and energy drinks

[Kalyke]

3. In economics, it's called "The Point of Diminishing Returns."

Keep taxing "sins" and people will either quit or turn to the black market - both of which will result in fewer taxes collected for ____________(enter name of good service that will suffer here).

[Jackpine Radical]

5. I had exactly this discussion with my state senator at a county party meeting.

I pointed out that smoking is strongly associated with economic class, and with clinical depression. Although I don't smoke, having quit in 1984, I see tobacco taxes as horribly regressive. Tobacco addicts (God knows I was one) are much more likely to go without something else than they are to go without tobacco. Taxing tobacco takes food out of the mouths of poor kids.

[JDPriestly]

32. Taxing tobacco keeps tobacco out of the mouths of poor kids.

That's the point of the tax. That is why it is a good thing.

[NeedleCast]

44. So what do you do when you've dried up that tax stream?

No one seems to have an answer for this question. If we continue to increase tobacco taxes and decrease it's use, how do you pay for the programs you're currently funding with the tax stream tobacco is producing when it dries up?

[JDPriestly]

78. The stream of taxes from tobacco does not really pay for the costs

that smoking impose on government. Research on smoking-related diseases as well as treatment of those diseases for the indigent are two of the costs that smoking impose on the government.

[Jackpine Radical]

71. You're right that increasing taxes does reduce smoking among kids.

That is good, but it doesn't relieve the financial burden on smoking adults. This is one of those situations for which I really don't have a grasp of all the factors necessary to even make a pretense of a good cost-benefit analysis. I think the most reliable way to keep kids from starting is by--somhow--making it seem less desirable to them. And, just as adults become hooked on cigarettes, so do governments get hooked on cigarette taxes. You can end up with the government not really wanting to get people to stop (or not start).

[JDPriestly]

77. The income from the taxes will never equal the cost of the healthcare

that smoking costs government.

[Jackpine Radical]

81. Not just health care. A lot of costs.

For example, smokers are not as efficient in the workplace.

The problem is that the money is all coming out of (or going into) different pockets, so there's no overall rationalizing effect.

[guitar man]

7. I stuff my own

I make my own cigarettes with a table machine and the amount the taxes are going up on my bag tobacco is beyond ridiculous. I've been paying around $18.00-20.00 per pound and if I understand the tax correctly, they are going to tack another $24.00 per pound on top of what I'm already paying. That's ridiculous.

[NeedleCast]

8. I tried last year just to see if I could grow my own

grew a few tobacco plants in my garden. The plants turned out pretty well but the curing didn't go as planned. I might try again this year.

[guitar man]

11. I may try it myself

I have a notorious brown thumb thought, I bet I could kill dandelions if I tried to grow them. :(

[Statistical]

17. Your hired. You can "grow" dandelions in my lawn. (n/t)

[Blue Diadem]

14. That's a heckuva increase.

We were paying $15 lb and to have it go up that much only means one thing for me...

Time to quit.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

21. I have been stuffing my own since November and have saved a lot of money and even with

the increase, the cost of cigarettes will run at a saving of about $50 off of a carton of cigarettes here in NY. I'm not a happy
puppy about it though.

The tax is supposed to go into effect on April 1st and my online supplier already has it listed with the increase. :(

[guitar man]

23. What kind of tobacco do you like?

I've been using Stoker's #2 light, but it looks like it's going up to about $45 per pound. I see Sagamore at ryotobacco.com for $30-36 per pound. If that's what it's going to be after the tax hike, I can live with it. Don't like it, but what the hell......

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

26. I've been using Rave Light with Premier Light tubes. I was just going

to order from RYOcigarette.com (my normal supplier) and they already have the rate hike so I ordered from Americanryo.com which doesn't have the hike yet. Before the increase, ryocigarette charged $14.99 per pound and now its up to $44.99. Americanryo has Rave at $21 per pound and I just ordered 5 pounds.

I use a Premier Supermatic and it takes me all of 4 minutes to make a pack. It all started when one of my best friends gifted me for my birthday a handheld injector, a box of tubes and a pouch of Bali Shag. I figured the rest out for myself. :)

[guitar man]

29. $21 per pound

that sounds pretty good, I'm going to check it out, thanks :)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. Your welcome! Also, I don't know if you are aware, tubes are going up in price too with

the tax increase.

[guitar man]

42. I know

they're getting us coming and going :(

Luckily I bought 1000 tubes last week, so I'm stocked for a while.

They have my Stoker's there so I ordered 3 bags and a sample of the Rave tobacco, I'm always up for trying something new ;)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. It's great that they had your tobacco and it's neat that they do provide samples.

That's been one of my biggest challenges, the trial and error of what I like. Can you let me know what cigarette Stoker would be compared to?
BTW...Rave is labeled as 100% natural.

[guitar man]

47. it's tough to classify Stoker's

It is a really rich, aromatic tobacco. When you first open the bag, you get a smell almost like it's been cured in brandy or something like that. It's really good, I stumbled upon it one day when the tobacco shop was out of the tobacco I had been using and the cashier reccomended it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. Thanks! You'll notice that on opening Rave, it smells like licorice. :) It reminds me of

Marlboro Light.

[guitar man]

54. ooh, licorice

sounds interesting ;)

[laststeamtrain]

46. I went to buy a pound of additive free yesterday & the price was up about 24 bucks.

Ridiculous is a nice word for it.

[guitar man]

52. exactly

ludicrous. I don't mind a reasonable tax increase on something I buy if the money is well spent, but a tax that increases the price by 133%? C'mon now, aren't they raising the price of factory-rolled cigs by just 60 cents a pack? What gives?

[sinkingfeeling]

10. I strongly support a 'sin' tax on soft drinks. Look what they do to people's teeth. I absolutely

cannot believe people giving toddlers soft drinks, but see it happen daily.

[Heidi]

12. Dumbest rationalization I ever heard for giving a toddler soft drink

(and in a sippy cup!): "He's gonna lose his baby teeth anyway."

[NeedleCast]

13. I can't believe people would do that either

but you can't honestly believe an increased tax on soda would stop it, and really you'd be punishing many for the "sins" of a few. Do you really think its a good idea to create more regressive taxes AND let the feds (or anyone else) decide what items are "sinful" and what items aren't?

Already several people in this thread seem to being say "screw the poor, it's up to us to make them healthy (by increasing taxes)!"

[sinkingfeeling]

38. Taxing soft drinks has nothing to do with being 'poor'. Americans consume over 52 gallons of the

stuff each year. I am probably among a very tiny minority of people who will not drink the stuff in any form. It's not a regressive tax and it is certainly as unhealthy as anything on the planet. Seems like this tax would impact about 250,000,000 instead of the much smaller smoking minority.


http://www.cspinet.org/liquidcandy/
Soft drinks are a problem not only for what they contain, but for what they push out of the diet. In 1977–78, boys consumed more than twice as much milk as soft drinks, and girls consumed 50 percent more milk than soft drinks. By 1994–96, both boys and girls consumed twice as much soda pop as milk. Heavy soft drink consumption is associated with lower intake of numerous vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber.

The empty calories of soft drinks are likely contributing to health problems, particularly overweight and obesity. Those conditions have become far more prevalent during the period in which soft drink consumption has soared. Several scientific studies have provided experimental evidence that soft drinks are directly related to weight gain. That weight gain, in turn, is a prime risk factor for type 2 diabetes, which, for the first time, is becoming a problem for teens as well as adults. As people get older, excess weight also contributes to heart attacks, strokes, and cancer.

Frequent consumption of soft drinks may also increase the risk of osteoporosis—especially in people who drink soft drinks instead of calcium-rich milk. Dental experts continue to urge that people drink less soda pop, especially between meals, to prevent tooth decay (due to the sugars) and dental erosion (due to the acids).

[NeedleCast]

40. It absolutley is a regressive tax

It's the very definition of a regressive tax. I'm unsure how these "sin" taxes could be any more regressive. The effect of soda on people's health might be the same, but it's a tax that effects the poorest the most.

Ultiimatly, I don't really care about the health impact. I drink sodas and know they aren't good for me. I understand the health risk. I'm okay with that. What I do care about are regressive taxes and to a lesser extent, putting the federal government in a position to levy a tax against things that are bad for me. Just like I argued in the OP, this is a tax done ass backwards...we tax something we want people to stop doing. The system CAN'T work that way. You can't build a dependance on tax dollars on a "sin" tax at the same time you're discouraging people from doing it.

[JDPriestly]

36. Good idea. The question in such taxes is whether the taxes

cover increased health care and other social costs. Tobacco causes horrible diseases that are expensive to treat -- like various cancers and heart disease (not just lung cancer but, for example, also bladder cancer). When poor people get cancer, the government has to pick up the tab. That is why the taxes on tobacco prices are a good idea. The tax is not intended to punish people. It is intended to cause the taxes included in the price of purchasing the harmful product to help pay back the public for the cost of treating the diseases that the product causes. Of course, the tax does not go directly to pay for medical costs. But indirectly they relieve a tiny portion of the burden of those costs.

[pmorlan1]

48. Why Don't You Mind Your Own Business

It's amazing how many people who post here have no problem advocating for higher taxes on items they don't use. They evidently want to recreate the world in their own image. Unfortunately our world has always been full of busy bodies who want to tell other people how to live their lives. They evidently either have delusions of grandeur or they have a wide streak of authoritarianism running through them. Either way I have no respect for them and just wish they would mind their own business. If you're so interested in everyones health why don't you fight against harmful items to our health that your fellow citizens don't enjoy using?

[sinkingfeeling]

50. Yeah, but it's sure OK to ban smoking. In case you haven't kept up, sodas and

other carbonated drinks affects on health care will very soon surpass that of all tobacco. But if you think everybody in the country should be obese, diabetic, and have no teeth. That's fine with me. I doubt if you'll be here for long.

[NeedleCast]

57. The point is that ultimately, they're going to come for your "sin" too

You don't drink sodas so you don't have an issue with taxing it at a higher rate. You don't smoke, so you don't have a problem with taxing tobacco at a higher rate. Sooner or later though, they're going to come after your "sin." What will your reaction be then, I wonder?

[NoSheep]

59. Exactly. What's it going to be? Hardwood flooring? Granite countertops?

Cotton clothing? Self-Help books? Coffee? Herb tea? Chicken? Oooo! Oooo! I know: Your Personal Computer!!! It wouldn't affect poor kids since they can't afford them anyway!

The Culture Police really slay me. :thumbsup:

[sinkingfeeling]

68. Am a smoker.

[BeFree]

15. SCHIP

The new tax is a tax of which the proceeds are supposed to go to providing health care for kids. Bush vetoed the tax, Obama signed the bill.

If the extra money goes to HC for kids, fine. But can we trust the government?

[NeedleCast]

16. Even if we can trust the government it seems counterproductive

to increase the tax on a decidedly unhealthy product...so that we can provide health care for someone else.

"The more you smoke, the more children we can cure!"

That seems like an ass-backwards way to design a system.

[guitar man]

20. well, if they didn't do that

they would just have to break down and tax the uber-wealthy, and GOD KNOWS we can't do that! Society as we know it would break down and chaos would ensue if we ever asked the robber barons in this country to pay their fair share. :sarcasm:

[BeFree]

53. Indeed, it is

Taxing tobacco users so that children can get proper health care is a weaselly way to do the right thing. What did you expect? That congress would do the right thing? Since when has congress done the right thing?

This is the same congress that let Bush off the hook.

[SoCalDem]

82. and as people either quit or figure out ways around the taxation

revenues for SCHIP will evaporate...just like the magnificent school-funding device known as "lottery money" ..

what goes around, comes around....

sorry kiddos..enjoy your SCHIP for as long as it takes the smokers to figure it all out..:evilgrin:

passive-aggressive/regressive taxation to fund necessary items on a budget, is a pretty odd way to run a program...


smoking is baaaaad for you...stop.. I mean it..really stop... ok, we're gonna tax the shit out of it & make you pay more & we're gonna use the money to pay for health care/education/etc for the childrrrrrrrren..but hey you evil person, you better stop it...oh wait, then we get no money... okay keep doing it but we're gonna raise the taxes on it until you can;t afford it, and then..oh wait.. we'll get back to you..

[surrealAmerican]

18. The problem is: we have two conflicting goals here.

High taxes on cigarettes really do reduce consumption, which is a good thing for people's health, but when governments rely on that revenue, they have an interest in keeping people smoking, which is bad for health, but good for state finances. The first goal is a worthy one, we have valid reasons to want to reduce the number of smokers. We just need to make sure most of the tax burden is progressive, and that means income taxes, NOT "sin" taxes or sales taxes.

[NeedleCast]

19. Totally Agree

I'm surprised to see that several people in this thread seem to think taxing our way to healthyness is a good idea.

[Liberal In Texas]

25. Prove taxes on cigarettes reduce consumption. I don't believe it.

But I agree with you about income as opposed to "sin" taxes.

[surrealAmerican]

39. There have been many studies that prove just that.

For every increase in cigarette tax, you lose a certain percentage of smokers.

[kiva]

34. The only way to avoid this reliance is to direct the

revenue back to the source. The majority of tobacco taxes should be spent to fund health care for tobacco-related health issues and to fund anti-smoking campaigns. Currently states rely on tobacco taxes to fund various government functions, education, and the SCHIP program. It really does create a conflict--if everyone quit smoking tomorrow, how would these programs be funded?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. This is a tax on the middle class that we were promised wouldn't happen. Do you think

people making over $200,000 will feel the affect of the increase? I think not.

[NeedleCast]

24. That's why I want to see all these "hidden" taxes killed off

Like I said upthread, these sin taxes or luxary taxes or whatever they're called are just a way for politicians to raise taxes without being held accountable.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. An excellent example is on rolling tobacco. The tax has increased to about $24 a pound.

I loved my Benson and Hedges Ultra Lights and when they went to $70 a carton (pre new tax increase), I had to find a cheeper solution. Do you think people who make over $200,000 are making their own cigarettes or even thinking twice about the increase in the federal tobacco taxes?

Those of us who still smoke (and sometimes are scorned for that)don't seem to have a voice at all in these decisions and there is such a stigma attached to smoking that politicians, IMHO, don't care about victimizing us.

[Occam Bandage]

28. I think tobacco taxes should be even higher.

I don't see the "tax dollars lost" argument. Every dollar not spent on cigarettes will be spent on something else. Raise income taxes on the wealthy after we've effectively destroyed smoking.

Oh, and "people can't afford to smoke" is kind of the point, n'est-ce pas? Progressive taxation is one goal, and public health is another.

[Tyler Generation]

33. I agree, but we seem to be in the minority

DU turns into a "Tea Party" over cigarette taxes, I find that pretty ridiculous.

[NoSheep]

61. Name something you buy every week that you'd like to see triple in price in one month.

From what I understand, the industry raised the price $10 per carton.(smokers have already started paying this for their addiction) My state is adding another $10 and the fed another $10.

I don't think smoking is a good thing but it seems to me very unfair to charge one group so much.

If it's paying for child health care, I'd like to discuss birth control with the parents who have children but can't afford to take care of them.

[Occam Bandage]

65. Unfair prices are the point.

The purpose of this type of tax is to increase the cost of cigarette addictions, causing greater numbers of people to decide that the cost of continuing to smoke cigarettes is greater than the cost of quitting cigarettes.

[NoSheep]

73. Do you honestly believe that is the purpose of this tax?

The purpose of the tax is to raise revenue! What better way than to prey on those who can't do much about it. We are addicted! Get it? Know how many mansions that has built?

Someone hand over the keys to the turnip truck...your passengers are dropping like flies.

[NoSheep]

74. Name something you use every week you'd be glad to see increase in price by $30.....

I guess you didn't pay any attention to that did you? You don't smoke so you're all for it. Just like a damned Republican....no skin off your ass.

[NeedleCast]

43. I think that assumes that the dollar not spent on smokes

would be spent on something healthier.

Ultimatlty though, how do you get around the fact that you're funding various federal programs with tax dollars on tobacco and at the same time trying to discourage people from smoking? It seems to be that should the ban brigade get what they want (illegalize tobacco), that the feds would have to find something else to tax.

I think you and I would both *like* to see that new tax be a raised income tax on the wealthy, but lets face it, politicians aren't going to continue to raise income tax if they can find a "hidden" tax to use instead.

I also think legislating our way to health is a very slippery slope that ends in everyone sitting down to a brocolli and carrot protein shake for dinner (yes, that's a little hyperbolic). :)

[Occam Bandage]

64. I'd bet that on balance, most are.

Of course, that doesn't mean all are. Suppose a smoker decides that rather than buying cigarettes, he'll spend that money on eating at Burger King for his lunch (instead of bringing his own turkey sandwich to work). Depending on his health, it may be debatable as to which is worse for his health in that case. Still, the list of things that may be purchased that are healthier than cigarettes is quite a bit longer than the list of things that may be purchased that are unhealthier than cigarettes.

As for how I get around the self-defeating nature of funding programs with punitive taxes? We tax gasoline, and fund essential highway programs with that tax while at the same time trying to lower gasoline consumption. We tax tobacco, and fund essential health programs with that tax while at the same time trying to lower tobacco consumption. It seems somewhat contradictory, and were that the only long-term source of income for those programs it would be. However, those types of taxes aren't really intended to be the only long-term source of income for those programs.

Budgets tend to be ad-hoc, year-to-year things. These types of taxes are certainly short-term solutions to budgetary requirements, but I don't see that as a particular problem; all that means is that when the tax is no longer sufficient to cover the program, a new short-term (such as raised fees on particular services or taxes on specific types of goods) or long-term (such as a progressive income tax) solution will be implemented.

As for legislating our way to health? It's a difficult subject. I think that governments do have a degree of responsibility when it comes to public health and safety. What exactly that means can be problematic. Surely few people have a problem when the government taxes the public in order to inspect meat-processing factories for safety, and surely few people would advocate for a mandated broccoli-and-carrot-shake diet, but there's quite a bit of space in between. Personally, I think encouraging/discouraging behavior through taxes is generally acceptable, whether we're talking about encouraging businesses to offer health care by giving them tax credits, or discouraging individuals from smoking by raising taxes on cigarettes. In this particular case, the only thing I would want to watch out for is the point at which smuggling cigarettes becomes more attractive to the market than purchasing them; at that point increased taxation would be pointless.

[NeedleCast]

67. Thanks For your well thought out and reasonable answer

I hope that what you've said comes to pass...an increased progressive income tax, I just doubt that will end up being the case when it's easier and more politically expediant to serve up more hidden taxes on luxaries or "sin" items than it is to simply raise the income tax rate.

Again, I'd just like to see all these regressive, hidden taxes done away with, including the gas tax. Again, it's hard to imagine a more regressive tax than gasoline taxes. With cigarettes we seem to be nearing the point of diminishing returns. How high does the gas tax have to go before we get to the same spot? Unlike cigarettes (I think) the cost of a gallon of gass is still more than the cost of the tax.

I get what you're saying about the health factor as well and don't have any issues with the use of tax dollars funding, for example, the FDA. Like you said though, at some point you reach a tax level which is, essentially, just another for of prohibition. This thread shows that at least some people are already growing their own.

[pmorlan1]

51. Well I Think You're a Smug Authoritarian

Concern about "public health" is just a cover used by authoritarians who get off on using coercive methods to force other people to do what they want. After tobacco becomes an underground product because of the high taxes I wonder what product you will go after next? Because there's always a "next" for the authoritarians.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Yes, "public health" is a lie made up by the Communist/Fascist alliance.

Cigarettes are actually less harmful than milk. We're just going after them because we think it's great fun. Here's a fun secret, but you can't tell anyone: our next target is going to be toilet paper. Really. We're going to say it's wasteful, and make everyone wipe with washcloths.

[old mark]

37. It is like legalizing gambling and taxing it heavily - it is really

a tax on stupidity.

mark

[Politicalboi]

41. Weed has many uses

Compared to tobacco. We can use the stalks for fuel or paper or clothing. I hate it when they take all this shit out on us smokers instead of going after booze. Put a good $3.00 tax on six packs so that "the children" won't start to drink. That's the lame excuse they gave us smokers.

[Sanctified]

55. The best tax in the world would be a 10 cent tax on a roll of toilet paper.

Everyone shits so everyone would share the burden of the tax.

[ddeclue]

56. Nope - increasing the tax encourages people to quit which is in

the gov'ts and the people's interest.

Doug D.

[NeedleCast]

58. And how do you replace the tax stream when people ulitmately do quit?

That's the issue.

Also, please understand that increasing tax doesn't encourage people to quit, it forces people to quit. There's a difference.

So the question that those in favor of this tax can't seem to answer is this...what do you do when most everyone quits or is forced to quit? This latest tax hike on tobacco is being used to fund the SCHIP program. How do you fund the program when the tax stream dries up? Insert a "sin" tax on another product until you tax it out of affordability as well?

Taxes like this are regressive and self-defeating.

[roughsatori]

60. I think you're wrong. I don't smoke and never have. I hate smoke.

But could you please post a link to a serious study that proves that "tax encourages people to quit."

I HATE GOVERNMENTS that attempt to control every detail of my life.

My mom is 80 years old. I buy her 2 packs of cigs every 3 days.

My brother phoned last night to say: "You are like a murderer! You are killing Mom with her fucking cigs."

She has smoked her entire life, a few years back, she lost her husband of 56 years. I moved her in with me AND IF SHE WANTS TO SMOKE AND DRINK - she can. I keep wine and rum for her in the house for her.



I don't drink alcohol, or smoke cigs, or weed.

[Occam Bandage]

69. There are dozens if not hundreds of studies showing that.

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1213/1403/
"The New Zealand evidence indicates that increases in tobacco prices are associated with decreases in tobacco consumption in the general population over the long term. "

http://www.bjreview.com.cn/forum/txt/2009-02/10/content_177671.htm
"According to a survey by the World Bank, each 10 percent in price increase will cut 4 percent of cigarette consumption in developed countries, while in developing countries it will drop by 8 percent."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4SXRTRV-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f080b9ff7ebc459d17a9e0edda24471a
"A 44% increase in the price of cigarettes would reduce the average annual per capita cigarette consumption in Taiwan by 14.86 packs; a reduction of 12.87%...a large increase in cigarette tax would reduce cigarette consumption effectively."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380885
"Increases of taxes on cigarettes are associated with declines in the consumption of tobacco. Because of inflation, increased health concerns, and the declining percentage of smokers, however, large reductions in consumption require large tax increases."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1694421
"Larger tax increases were associated with larger declines in consumption. Raising state cigarette taxes appears to be an effective public health intervention that can reduce cigarette consumption and its associated health consequences."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1557504&tool=pmcentrez
"A tax increase would lead to relatively higher reduction of cigarette demand among the lowest income group and generally encourage that group to reduce the large economic burden that smoking imposes."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2246022&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract
"Increasing taxes on cigarettes is a unique policy intervention that reduces smoking prevalence, generates additional tax revenue, and results in significant savings in medical care costs."

[roughsatori]

70. Thank you for for the links and info.

I still don't like any of these "sin" taxes. But then I believe all drugs should be legal, a matter between a physician and patient, and not any of the governments biz.


The new Puritan's will eventually tax and restrict all pleasures.

[DailyGrind51]

72. I can't get sick just watching someone else eat a Big Mac,

but I can get sick from inhaling someone else's cigarette smoke!

[Mari333]

75. I can get sick from the pollution caused by people eating Big Macs

http://vegetarian.about.com/od/vegetarianvegan101/f/waterpollution.htm
tax fast food.

[Kansas Wyatt]

76. TAX COFFEE!!!

The Tax & Ban Tobacco Coalition should be paying their fair share of taxes on coffee. They don't need their CHIC buzz off of coffee concoctions. After all there have been studies that say it is very addictive and a danger to one's health, it does nothing to improve your health, it makes a person all hopped-up, and the stench of coffee is just sickening. My God, they even have children wanting to drink it!

These worthless deadbeat coffee addicts need some tax intervention to save the rest of us from their ilk! The revenue well on tobacco is going to be drying up soon... If we don't TAX COFFEE now, children will go without health care.

[Profprileasn]

79. Health care

If my taxes are paying for health care, I think cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, and other questionably healthy items should be taxed heavily. Those taxes should go directly into the healthcare system. You create the health problems by using these products, you pay for it to a greater extent.