Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

MineralMan

(150,914 posts)

14. That's how the taxes on tobacco products started out.

Reply to etherealtruth (Reply #8)

Sat May 18, 2013, 01:43 PM

May 2013

Soon, however, people started realizing that it was a fruit ripe for picking for other purposes. When increasing tobacco taxes for general purpose use, it's a bit amusing. They're counting on the revenue, which means that they really don't want people to quit. If they quit, the revenue stream would end.

Smoking is nasty. People who smoke are nasty. Let's make them pay!

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

24 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

LTTE: Smoking at Vikings Stadium? [View all] MineralMan May 2013 OP

Well said MineralMan. russspeakeasy May 2013 #1

I agree olddots May 2013 #2

Surely the solution is to stop smoking, Nye Bevan May 2013 #3

Surely that is not the point of my post. MineralMan May 2013 #4

Perhaps a better answer etherealtruth May 2013 #8

That's how the taxes on tobacco products started out. MineralMan May 2013 #14

Yet accidents and abuse caused by alcohol consumption is ignored. glinda May 2013 #21

Hey, there is no smoking at C-Link field in Seattle... Wounded Bear May 2013 #5

Yes, well. A lot of people are forced to pay for MineralMan May 2013 #7

I'm still a bit ambivalent about how they financed the CLink... Wounded Bear May 2013 #10

Well, that at least makes some sense. It taxes MineralMan May 2013 #12

B-but... you said "Smoking!" dogknob May 2013 #11

Yes. It's interesting, I think, to see the responses. I knew it MineralMan May 2013 #13

Spot on. glinda May 2013 #22

There is logic expressed in your letter etherealtruth May 2013 #6

It would be stupid to allow smoking in a building with a clear roof. bluedigger May 2013 #9

A very interesting question you've raised about public expenditure of money to support corporations. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #15

Yes, your conundrum is a valid one. MineralMan May 2013 #16

Whaddya know MM...we agree on something!! Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #17

Oh, I'm betting we agree on more than you think. MineralMan May 2013 #18

We had the same "deal" when I was an Oregonian when they built The Rose Garden Tierra_y_Libertad May 2013 #19

The argument is that while we are... TreasonousBastard May 2013 #20

He doesn't own the Stadium does he? I thought it was the City. glinda May 2013 #23

I'm still pissed at all the non-smokers who expect me to pay for poor kids' health care. Comrade Grumpy May 2013 #24