First They Came for The Smokers...

[MineralMan]

Well, we're in for it again. In the desperate quest for more money, legislators want to tack yet another 54 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the State of Minnesota. We just had a 62 cent tax added per pack by the Federal Government. And those are on top of other recent tax increases.

"It's for the children," they say. "It will cut down on smoking," they say. "It'll bring a bunch of bucks into the treasury, and only about 20% of the population smokes, so they won't be able to stop us." Oh....they don't say that, do they?

Yes, smoking is a nasty habit. It'll probably kill me someday. That'll save some money for Medicare and Social Security, since I'll probably die a few years before my non-smoking peers. But...that's not really good enough. I smoke. Therefore I am a filthy person, and should pay for my bad habit. Now. The state coffers are running dry, so they might as well tax the smokers one more time...while they still can.

Enough! You cannot balance the state budget on the backs of smokers. No. We will go and buy our cigarettes somewhere else. We probably won't quit smoking, but we are taxed enough already, thanks.

Old Pastor Martin Niemöller started his teaching on the evils of ignoring mistreatment of one group because you do not belong to that group with a similar statement. It still holds true. You don't mind them taxing smokers, since you don't smoke? OK. How about when they tax your favorite wine? Or your Venti Decaf Latte? How about a dollar tax on every gallon of chocolate milk? Let's add a 50 cent tax to each condom sold. How will that be, folks?

Think about it. Your secret pleasure may be the next to be taxed.
4/21/09

www.osomin.com

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Just tax the rich motherfuckers' income and be done with it!

[Orrex]

16. Hell yeah

All earned and unearned income,and capital gains, in excess of, oh I don't know, $500,000 should be taxed at 99% for at least one year.

[guardian]

187. So if you worked hard for 30 years, built a business

and sell the business for $1 million when ready to retire you want to take a 70% of everything it took you 30 years to build???

[Xenotime]

148. Funnel their income throught the government! Make them understand control

[JDPriestly]

2. Oh, from the heading I thought you were talking about the Grim Reaper.

He's the guy who heads straight for the smokers. At the age of 65, I watched as Grim Reaper took friend after friend from smoking related diseases.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, yes...

And I've watched friends die in motorcycle and auto accidents. I had several killed in Vietnam. Then, there were the heart attacks in their 50s and the cancers. We all die. Nobody gets out of that.

I don't smoke where you are, so where's the problem?

I guess you're OK with a selective tax on smokers, then. Okey Dokey, then.

[JDPriestly]

6. Smoke yourself to death as far as I am concerned.

[MineralMan]

9. Ok, thanks for your permission. I wasn't aware I needed it.

[cali]

19. that's a disgusting and hateful comment. congratulations

[Fuzz]

26. Ah, piety. Gotta love that.

Maybe falling off that really high horse will hurt someday.

[MichiganVote]

27. Just so long as the boozers are safe........

[leeroysphitz]

64. Amen. n/t

[JDPriestly]

84. Exactly -- and the motorcycle riders and the morbidly obese.

If you want to live an unhealthy lifestyle, that's your choice, but the cigarette tax should stay. It makes it a tiny bit harder for 12-year-olds to get cigarettes, and that makes it worthwhile. I'm for anything that keeps 12-year-olds from boozing and riding motorcycles also.

[MichiganVote]

106. Madam,step away from the mushrooms. I work MS and there isn't a 12 year old in the place

I couldn't tap for a butt if I wanted one. And none of them would even think of paying for a pack. Ditto for the booze.

P.S. this is not an inner city poor and down on your luck school.

[genna]

172. What kind of taax would you impose on morbidly obese people?

I know that the helmet laws are targeted for motorcycle riders. What else did you have in mind?

[TahitiNut]

98. You can do better than that. The 'bar' was set back in November 2005 ...

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Shut up, crybaby
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5325562#5333519
5333519, Shut up, crybaby
Posted by ******** on Fri Nov-11-05 01:33 PM

Go cough up blood and die.

Such sentiments expressed on DU just warm the cockles of my heart.

[seabeyond]

118. there is always the ugly.... n/t

[Shell Beau]

142. No need to lecture smokers. They hear it all of the time, and I am

sure they are aware of the risks. That isn't really what this is about. You don't smoke obviously, good for you. But he didn't ask for any lectures.

[Occam Bandage]

3. So cigarette taxes are just like the Holocaust.

Yes, that's some fine perspective. Never mind that they've been repeatedly proven the most effective means of lowering smoking rates.

[MineralMan]

7. Of course not. However, the parallel between

putting an extra load on one group, then ignoring it because you are not in the group still holds.

[Occam Bandage]

69. No, it doesn't really. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

92. Not really.....

You've made a choice to smoke, not like being a Jew, or black, or gay.

If they decided to put a fat tax on fast food, it would suck, but I'd have to make my mind up whether to pay it or stop eating fast food.

[genna]

174. Pretty good idea. Fat tax on fast food.

[walldude]

14. So you are for forcing your morals on me?

You are right it's the most effective means of FORCING people to quit. Make it so they can't afford it. You don't like smoking so you want to make sure that only rich people can afford to do it? HArdly seems fair, and I bet if they were doing it with whatever vice you may have you wouldn't be so happy about it.

[stopbush]

55. No one is forcing morals on you. They are simply recognizing the harm

your habit inflicts on the health of others and holding you accountable for your totally discretionary use of a product that has killed millions and continues to kill millions. What other "vice" directly causes the health damage to the user and to others that smoking causes?

[walldude]

86. Alcohol...

DUI deaths, alcohol related shootings, I've never heard of anyone getting shot in a nicotine fueled rage. Coffee, bad for you. Sugar, really bad for you, Trans fat, fried foods, the list of things that are bad for you is endless.

Look I understand smoking is bad, but you can't continue to complain about how my habit is harming you since the only place left for smokers is in their car, at home or outside. A month ago I went to buy a carton of smokes and it had gone up 8 dollars that week. How would you like it if that nice bottle of wine you enjoy after work all of a sudden went up 8 dollars in a day?

Another thing, if all you are doing is "recognizing the harm my habit is doing" then why bother to jack up the price. If it's so terrible why is smoking not illegal?

[TK421]

99. Simple...smokers are too easy to persecute...too easy a target

and I would like an answer to your question of "How would you like it if that nice bottle of wine you enjoy after work all of a sudden went up 8 dollars in a day? " Or...how about people who like extra garlic on their linguine when they go out to eat? Don't you know that the smell of garlic is offensive to some people :eyes: Tax garlic, assholes!!!! The shit in this wussified country is really getting out of fucking hand!!!

[Stellabella]

173. Cigarette smoke isn't 'offensive.'. It's dangerous.

Keep it in your own lungs and I don't care if you smoked 100000 cigarettes a day.

[Seldona]

100. Being born is the number one cause of death.

Let's put a tax on that. Do I seriously need the icon? Oh all right...

:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

109. Here's the problem with your reasoning -

Right now there are a hundred thousand other products that are equally as bad as smoking.

I have worked in offices that were "smoke free' but people could wear as much heavy duty cologne and perfume as they wanted.

And when someone asked ther fellow workers to cut down on those products, they were told that that would impinge on their 'freedom.'

And then there were always the workers who felt it smelled funny and sprayed Febreeze all over the place.

Meanwhile the cleaning crew came in at midnight and used whatever chemicals that handled the job the qiuickest - too bad if they contained benzenes, ether or fromaldehyde.

I am now of the opinion to lay off the smokers. Let 'em continue to smoke outside, etc, but as a society we should back off and look at the fact that office workers, especially those in legal offices, now have the highest risk for dying from a pulmonary disease - including fast acting lung cancers and fibrosis. And often those offices don't allow smokers to smoke inside.

So we should quite blaming all the smokers all the time, when the equation is much more varied than that.

[Occam Bandage]

110. Do you believe the health effects of perfume are comparable to tobacco?

I have not seen that claim before.

[truedelphi]

128. A close friend of mine spent the several thousand dollars to get the

Analysis of what is in one brand of Perfume, Calvin Klein's "Eternity"

The analysis revealed that several dozen carcinogenic chemicals were part of its formula.

The argument for perfume goes like this - women have worn perfume for thousands of years.

Yep, they have - and for most of those thousands of years, perfume was made from flowers. Not from benzene, formaldehyde, ether, various ammonia derivatives etc. (We took benzene out of our gasoline because of its toxicity, but it can and is in many "personal" care products, which are currently unregulated.)

Some women wear it occassionally - it more than likely gets excreted from their systems during their time away from it.

But heavy users are often addicted to the various elements in the perfume.

[Codeine]

180. Addicted? ADDICTED?

:rofl:

Back up that assertion. Please!

[truedelphi]

129. Here's a website from an acquaintance about the dangers in personal care products:

http://www.safecosmetics.org/?gclid=CJO25u-AhJoCFSQMDQodBnl9GA

[stopbush]

117. Here's the problem with your reasoning.

The entire world has been hit over the head with the fact that smoking is death on a stick for the past 45 years.

That's not true for products like Febreeze and cologne. Those products surely have levels of toxicity, but most people are totally unaware of that truth. Whose fault is that? I don't know. Should people read the warning labels on those products? Sure. Perhaps you can tell me off the top of your head what's deadly about Brillo pads.

As far as, "And when someone asked ther fellow workers to cut down on those products, they were told that that would impinge on their 'freedom.'" I'll take your word for it, but trying to counter the reams of scientific research that prove that smoking is deadly with a personal experience story that relates what you believe happened in an isolated situation doesn't cut the mustard. It's not balanced and it fails to support your argument. I've worked in places where the employees voted on establishing policies on wearing colognes and after shaves to excess. Of course, these votes were taken because someone put forth an initiative based on evidence that it was bad for people. Those people were also very much anti-smoking (but that was a moot point here in CA).

[truedelphi]

130. I think you read something into what I said that I wasn't saying.

First of all - I am not trying to say that the reams of scientific research regarding smoking should be ignored. You read that into my statement.

I understand that smoking is bad. I have never smoked. And I have tried to discourage Friends who smoke from doing it. But it is not the only bad choice. For instance, why is it that statistically, according to the WHO, one of the worst places to work right now is in the health field - because of all the chemicals used to disinfect and cover up odors. And also another bad place to work is in legal firms - their people are contracting fast-acting lung cancers right and left, and also coming down with pulmonary fibrosis and other similar conditions. Why? This is true even in San Francisco, where smoking in offices has been banned for more than a decade.

So we make the smoker the bogey man, when many of our choices are just as bad. And ignorance may or may not be an excuse.

[genna]

175. It would be GREAT if more products and companies were treated in the manner t

the tobacco companies and smokers are.

Not because I want new boogie men (I like the difference between boogie and bogey), but because I think product liability should take a higher regulation status. For companies that pollute our waterways with no clean up (I am thinking the Exxon Valdez problem), they should be assessed a certain fee arrangement. Why should they be allowed to destroy a natural environment, send those people into ruin and not have to pay penalty fees?


It is not just them. Pacemaker people. Cell phone providers. So on and so forth.

Let cigarettes be the beginning. If you want more taxes on alcohol, so be it. They can run the marathon too.

[Occam Bandage]

68. It doesn't force anyone to do anything.

It does, however, have a measurable effect on a major public-health issue.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

158. I'm in favour of forcing my morals on you.

I don't particularly care about forcing you not to smoke, but I'm all in favour of forcing you not to kill people, or to sell heroin, or drive at 90 miles an hour in built-up areas, or lots of other things.

There may well be plenty of good arguments against raising tax on cigarettes. But "forcing your morality on other people is wrong" is not among them, because it isn't.

[MADem]

58. Seems to be a lot of hyperbolic misuse of that poem lately.

It's bothersome. As people who actually experienced that horror die off, I wonder if we'll see the work (mis)used in an ad for some consumer product.

As for the smoking, I've known quite a few people who cut down, and then finally quit because it just got too expensive.

[Occam Bandage]

71. First they came for the double cheeseburgers.

And I said nothing, because I do not eat the double cheeseburgers.

Then they came for the 20-ounce soda.
And I said nothing, because I only drink 16 ounces anyway.

Then they came for the small fries.
And I said nothing, because I do not eat the fries.

Then they came for the chicken sandwich.
And there was nothing left on the McDonalds Dollar Menu for me.

At Burger King, we promise we'll keep selling the spicy chicken sandwich for only one dollar.

[MADem]

73. Nothing would surprise me anymore, unfortunately.

They already used MLK to push something--can't remember what it was, but it bothered me at the time.

I was waiting for the "I have a dream...about a twenty percent off sale at Sears!" or something like that to follow...! After all, if they got Fred Astaire to sell vacuum cleaners with digital imaging, what's next? JFK selling condoms?

[Reterr]

90. Apparently-the bullshit libertarian propaganda on this board gets more absurd every day

Oh NOES!!!! Nanny state! Richard Berman and other fine astroturf groups please save me from the slavery imposed by the state on smokers.

Ridiculous...

[Sebastian Doyle]

190. Well they are breathing some of the same poison gases.

Hitler's victims didn't have a choice in the matter though :evilfrown:

[rcrush]

4. I think bootlegging ciggarettes is gonna become big.

I need me a semi truck and some bad ass motherfuckers.

[realisticphish]

11. *worthless side note

from what i've read, cigarette smuggling is one of the biggest illicit industries in eastern europe

[niyad]

30. are cigarettes still tax-free on the reservations?

[MineralMan]

31. You know, I don't know.

I'll look into that. There are numerous casinos around here.

[leeroysphitz]

67. No need for trucks if you have the internet and a P.O. Box.

You can have smokes shipped tax free (illegally) in a plain unmarked box as easily as a toaster.

My dad does this. MANY people do this. I quit smoking a couple of years ago but I still love and encourage the idea of fostering and supporting a black market that allows citizens to bypass onerous and asinine taxes passed by the greedy and corrupt at the behest of moralist busy bodies and their hand selected pseudo science.

As far as I'm concerned it's as American as apple pie.

[stopbush]

82. You're saying the science linking smoking to cancer is pseudo-science?

Right.

[vanboggie]

87. Doesn't work in Michigan

Our ciggie taxes went sky high years ago and the state clamped down and got a bunch of people for back taxes - many in the thousands of $. The sellers on the internets wouldn't even take our orders after that :evilfrown:

[genna]

177. Eventually we have to pay the piper one way or the other.

Why not try to do it up front?

If you can't afford it but you want to do the lawful thing, why not tap into one of these industries geared to helping you quit nicotine?

[DevonRex]

137. And you'll have some badass ATF guys on you in a heartbeat.

[question everything]

8. Or.... first they had to cut number of buses

even though the number of passengers increased, because funding for the bus lines came from gasoline tax which dropped when people cut down on driving.

Some day they will realize that there is not enough money to care for children's health because the funds come from cigarette taxes and people finally started to cut down on their smoking.

[walldude]

10. "It will cut down on smoking," they say.

"It'll bring a bunch of bucks into the treasury, LMFAO So which is it? Will it cut down smoking or bring in more money. It can't possibly do both.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, that's the lie. It probably will cut down on smoking,

but that isn't why they're doing it.

I see this post is starting a warm discussion.

[stopbush]

93. Of course that's why they're doing it.

In 1944, 41% of the population smoked. Now, it's around 20% (source: Gallup). 81% of smokers today say that they would like to quit.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/28213/Latest-Gallup-Update-Shows-Cigarette-Smoking-Near-Historical-Lows.aspx

[NeedleCast]

60. Yes, exactly. Seems like few people realize that "sin" taxes are self-defeating

[vanboggie]

89. Right, and they KNOW they'll get the taxes n/t

[onehandle]

The problem with smoking is the harm vs. good ratio.

Condoms prevent disease and unwanted babies.

A Decaf Latte and Chocolate milk provide protein and energy.

Even wine is good for you, if it is not overdone.


Smoking is nothing but harmful. It has been targeted for destruction by society.

[niyad]

32. you do know, do you not, that for the first peoples here, tobacco is sacred?

[MineralMan]

33. Yabbut they were heathens, innit?

Feh!

[onehandle]

35. Tobacco isn't illegal.

And puffing away on a street corner on a little bleached paper tube isn't exactly how they traditionally use it.

[ieoeja]

44. So tobacco is their revenge on the white man? n/t

[Codeine]

181. So?

What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

At all?

[jazzjunkysue]

193. So are rocks. You shouldn't smoke those, either.

[MineralMan]

36. Lots of things have been targeted for destruction by

many societies. It seems to be pretty ingrained, doesn't it? What other things has this society tried to destroy, do you think?

[onehandle]

39. So Occam Bandage was right. You are comparing this to the Holocaust.

Swell.

[MineralMan]

45. Am I? Nope.

Consider Prohibition and the current War on Drugs. I'm sure you can think of other things our society has tried to destroy, too. Atheism has kind of a tough time in this society, too. Some segments of our society would like to eliminate liberals, too. And never mind racial groups and other religious groups.

It's all one thing. Discriminating against a group is what it is. Certainly, there are matters of degree, but the equation is the same.

[gcomeau]

12. Of all the things you could bitch about...

...a tax on a completely non-essential consumer good which people damn well KNOW it is unhealthy to them and everyone around them to use in the first place is probably pretty near the bottom of the list of things that warrant sympathy.

And comparing this to some kind of horrifyingly unjust persecution of a minorty group? Get real. Go find a tea party, you'll fit right in among your own kind.

[MineralMan]

20. Well, thanks for your thoughfulness in considering

my post. What is "my kind," please?

[vanboggie]

91. Well I'm your kind, too

And I don't like that sanctimonious parental kind. That kind of talk reminds me too much of the Rethuglican mindset. Abstinence doesn't work with sex and it doesn't work with cigarettes.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Life is unhealthy.

100% morbidity.

[MineralMan]

25. Indeed.

[backtoblue]

47. The taxes on cigarettes are another hit to the lower and middle class

Smoking seems to be more prevalent in poorer households, at least in my area.

It doesn't seem fair for the government to condone the selling of toxic and horrible products to its people, and then charge them for their own death.

[MineralMan]

49. It is a pretty regressive tax, for sure.

[backtoblue]

56. It was once considered cool to smoke and the marketing was massive...

"For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them"

Same philosophy IMHO

[gcomeau]

75. Smoking is a hit to the lower and middle class.

I personally consider death by lung cancer to be the bigger hit than "IF you want to keep doing this stupid thing it's going to cost you a bit more".

[stopbush]

85. I'd like to know how the lower and middle classes afford cigs at

$3 to $7 a pack.

I make an upper-middle class salary, and I couldn't afford such a luxury item if I wanted to. I don't buy much booze or go to movies much either.

[backtoblue]

132. Sad as it is, they go without other things

It is an addiction, often described as being worse than heroin. nt

[Shell Beau]

143. So, he is a republican because he is pissed off about this?

:rofl:

Yes, makes perfect sense! :sarcasm:

[gcomeau]

155. No...

...he would fit right in with the "Oh my God taxes are teh evil!!!!" tea party crowds because... well, do I seriously have to explain it? Did you read the OP?

[Shell Beau]

159. I did in fact read the OP. Why else would I be responding?

[Captain Hilts]

15. Smoking is VERY price elastic among teenagers. nt

[ejpoeta]

29. teens are the only ones with disposable income.

[LeftHander]

145. and kids want to smoke just like Joe Camel....

and when they get sick later we should make big tobacco pay their smoking related healthcare cost

[Codeine]

182. You know Joe Camel has been gone for well over a decade, right?

No kid of a vulnerable age has been exposed to him.

[johnnie]

17. I am thinking of quitting

For the first time in my life I have had enough. I roll my own and I used to pay about 25 bucks for a lb of tobacco and two boxes of tubes. That was good for about two cartons. Today I paid 68 bucks for the same stuff. It blows my mind that people aren't up in arms that the taxes went from $1.10 a pound to $24.78 a pound. I hope that other things that others enjoy start getting taxed at that percentage, I will be laughing my ass off.

[DCKit]

80. I quit Saturday a week ago.

Just can't (won't?) afford it anymore, but don't know whether to be angry or glad that they finally taxed it beyond what I'm willing to pay.

And, no, the taxes will not be a boon to the feds. I quit as much on principle as for economic reasons (though it's nearly impossible to justify spending more on a daily habit than daily food) and millions of others are going to feel the same way - if they don't already.

I'm hoping to get my singing voice back.

[JVS]

18. Sooner or later they're going to hit the point where adding tax reduces revenue gathered.

[bluescribbler]

21. Happened in MAss, as well

Except they raised the tax $1.00. And there's also a 5% sales tax, so they really raised the tax $1.05. Depending on the store, a pack of Camel Filters can run from $7.25 to $7.80.

[MineralMan]

24. Well, that's OK with some here, it seems.

"Our kind" doesn't deserve any consideration with regard to taxation.

[beevul]

61. Didn't you get the memo, MineralMan?

"Our kind" - ADDICTS - need to be treated this way.

[rrneck]

22. Welcome

to the ranks of economic scapegoats. Sin taxes are just another way to make people feel good about their civic responsibilities without actually charging them for it. Standard corporate risk and responsibility distribution.

[ejpoeta]

28. they've already been trying that with the 'obesity tax' on pop. and in NYS

they are trying to have a law that makes it so grocery stores and pharmacies can't sell cigarettes so that they can keep the healthy stuff away from the unhealthy stuff. Now, it's not hard to think... well, they shouldn't sell pop or junk food in grocery stores or pharmacies. hmmm.

[stopbush]

34. The day my condom use, decaf drinking, chocolate milk gulping

or wine drinking impacts the health of others the way second-hand smoke impacts the health of others, I'll be more than happy to pay such a tax.

[MineralMan]

41. You do not breathe my secondhand smoke, and never will.

Und so?

[stopbush]

52. Oh, please. I have to breathe the smoke of others. And somebody near you

no doubt has to occasionally breathe your smoke.

What a stupid rejoinder. You argue against a global initiative like a tax on smoking products and then argue that you as an individual shouldn't have to pay the tax because your personal smoke doesn't effect 99.99% of the people in the country.

You aren't being taxed. The product you buy is being taxed. Don't buy the product and you don't have to pay the tax. Why not argue against the tax on luxury boats? There's a tax that's specific to a group of people. Is that unfair as well? Why not argue against taxing any number of products that you don't personally use on the basis that they are targeted at a group of people? Maybe there should be no tax on jock straps because such a tax is "aimed" at a specific half of the population, so it's unfair.

Again, it's the product that is taxed, not you. The product that you choose to use has horrible effects on your health and horrible effects on the health of non-smokers as well. Your using the product contributes to the cost of everyone's health insurance climbing.

Not much of an argument, MM. Quit your whining. Better yet, quit your smoking.

[beevul]

65. Holy ignorant, batman.

"The product that you choose to use has horrible effects on your health and horrible effects on the health of non-smokers as well."


Maybe...no, definitely, you need to look up the definition of addiction, and rethink your entire argument.


To characterize the use of cigarettes in the context of a regular smoker (not someone that just had thier FIRST cigarette) as a "choice" is dishonest disengenuous and wrong.


I guarantee you, that if someone waved a magic wand and made all tobacco disappear that by tomorrow the headlines would be full of all kinds of mayhem due to it.


Not simply because someone couldn't exercise a "choice".

[stopbush]

78. Since when has starting smoking not been a choice?

Let's see, the first Surgeon General warning on smoking was issued in 1964. What's that, 44 years ago? Let's say most smokers begin around age 16. That means "regular smokers" who started smoking at age 16 in 1963 are now 61 years old. Perhaps they had an excuse as the warnings hadn't yet been issued.

Since then, the science behind the ills of smoking cigarettes has only gotten worse. People who smoke make a choice to smoke. Do a lot start as kids? Sure. It's still a choice. maybe not an adult choice. maybe not an informed choice, but it's still a choice.

Are people who started smoking ten years ago to be considered "regular smokers," even as they ignored warnings that had been around for decades?

Here's a few things that we can maybe agree on:

1. Smokers start for one reason and one reason only: because they think it looks cool. There may be peer pressure among teens, but ultimately, the reason to smoke is to look cool. Perhaps you think they start to improve their health.

2. Most smokers' deaths are caused at least in part from their smoking.

3. Most smokers think they'll be the smoker that beats the odds and doesn't die from a smoke-relating illness. They're also the ones who imagined that they would be the one that didn't get addicted to a product that everyone on Earth knows is highly addictive. Get real.

So, you're addicted to smoking. Who forced that addiction on you?

And, if that magic wand was waved tomorrow and all tobacco and tobacco products disappeared, there would be chaos and mayhem in the world. That mayhem would be visited by a bunch of suddenly new non-smokers upon everybody else. It would not arise from the non-smokers already in the population. No smoker would die because he was deprived of his vice, but you seem to indicate people would die at the hands of smokers because their vice was denied them.

Great defense of a product.

[beevul]

103. A goalpost move in defense of the previously noted ignorance?

Color me shocked, really.

I dont defend products, I defend people. Something that seems to be getting scarce these days.

I thought about knocking over your 3 points there, and can sum it up in 2 words : So what?


The context here, is ADDICTION, NOT how this effects "new smokers".

The people that are effected by this tax, you know, the ones that buy the product...the ones that need to pay extra "for the children"...the ADDICTS.

Talking about the cause, or the initial choice 2 or 10 or 50 years ago, is water under the bridge.

The reality HERE and NOW, is that a tax is being levelled onto the backs of ADDICTS. Thats it, and no amount of excuses, contrived justifications, or trivia real or imagined, or spin, can make it something else.


Choice: Pacify thier addictions - which smokers would generally like to be left alone to do, I would say, or quit using because a bunch of self righteous puritanical fuckwads say they should, and collectively try to lever them into doing so. And of course, human nature factors in. People generally don't like to be told what to do beyond the point of reasonability, let alone forced or levelaged.

It may or may not surprise you, but there are still one hell of alot of people that believe that thier life is thier own, including thier body, to do with as they please. Count me among them.

Many anti-smokers are MUCH worse in attitude toward a legal product - tobacco - and the people that use it, that the drug warriors are towards MJ and the people that use it.

[stopbush]

119. Are you saying that smoking addicts can't break free of their addiction?

Some can, some can't.

Perhaps we should pacify their addiction, but that doesn't mean they need to smoke. They are addicted to the nicotine, and the nicotine can be delivered through a patch or a gum. They could chew tobacco to get their nicotine. Any nicotine delivery system that doesn't spew toxic fumes into the surrounding air is fine with me. At least that removes the threat of second- and third-hand smoke and its disastrous effects on innocent bystanders.

That doesn't address the issue of added costs to the health system that are brought on by use of tobacco products. That's something we all end up paying for.

But, I'd take a partial solution for now.

And talk about self righteous. There's no one more self righteous than smokers, Republicans and the religious.

And what, pray tell, is puritanical about trying to stamp out a health hazard that effects many innocents, ie: people who don't smoke? I guess you find it puritanical to try to limit collateral damage in a war zone.

[beevul]

120. At least now you concede it is an addiction.

"Perhaps we should pacify their addiction, but that doesn't mean they need to smoke. They are addicted to the nicotine, and the nicotine can be delivered through a patch or a gum. They could chew tobacco to get their nicotine. Any nicotine delivery system that doesn't spew toxic fumes into the surrounding air is fine with me. At least that removes the threat of second- and third-hand smoke and its disastrous effects on innocent bystanders."

There are other ways to remove "the threat of second- and third-hand smoke and its disastrous effects on innocent bystanders". The fact that the anti-smoking brigade and thier sockpuppets in government go so much farther than those ways, speaks volumes to the puritanical fanaticism on thier parts.

"That doesn't address the issue of added costs to the health system that are brought on by use of tobacco products. That's something we all end up paying for."

Unless you are equally as adamant about taxing/eliminating ALL things that add costs to healthcare, you have no argument.



And last but not least, the million dollar question:

(you may wish you hadn't asked)

"And what, pray tell, is puritanical about trying to stamp out a health hazard that effects many innocents, ie: people who don't smoke? I guess you find it puritanical to try to limit collateral damage in a war zone."


How dishonest. You act as if the latest taxes I.E. indirect leverage is aimed at eliminating whatever dangers lie in secondhand smoke that effects innocents. If that were the case, it would be a simple matter - make laws about smoking in public around people that don't smoke, and make smokers areas where non-smokers have no business looking for clean air...Oh, wait...we have those, and we tried that, and it wasn't good enough for the anti smoking brigade.

No, the anti-smoking brigade wants smoking done, gone, and forgotten. The puritanical part, is the dishonesty I.E hiding the real agenda behind "effecting many innocents" and coming up with things that are clearly designed for and targeted at elimination of smoking, rather than actually trying to eliminate the contact of second hand smoke to non-smokers. And how fanatically its all said and done.

You know, I know it, and they know it. No0 point trying to deny it. The truth speaks for itself.


"And talk about self righteous. There's no one more self righteous than smokers, Republicans and the religious."


No, you are wrong. The singular most smug self righteous group in any debate, are the antis. Anti gay, anti abortion, anti-immigration, anti-drug, anti-gun...and on and on and on.

Period.

[stopbush]

121. Uh, I said it was an addiction back in post #78.

Many things that contribute to bad health are taxed in this country. Eat at McDs, you pay taxes, don't you? Drink at a bar, you pay taxes. Buy a bottle of booze, it's taxed.

Don't act like tobacco products are the only thing that gets taxed in this country, and don't act like the only things that get taxed in this country are vices. How much tax is levied on a gallon of gas?

BTW - what is the anti-smoking brigade? Would that be the 80% of Americans who don't smoke, or is it some imagined subset of that 80%? If smoking was harmless, there would be no outcry against it. But it isn't harmless, and the more research that is done the worse it looks for smoking. The science says it harms smoker and non-smoker alike. That's why people want this obvious health hazard to be done, gone and forgotten.

And as long as you're calling for honesty, how about smokers face up to the fact that they got played by one of the biggest corporate scams going, ie; the scam run by Big Tobacco. They sold you the image that smoking was cool, and you fell for their corporate crapola. They got you to throw your money away on a product that does no one any good and that will kill you sooner rather than later. And just to laugh in your face about it, they've got you all convinced that it's a civil right to continue to buy their overpriced product, to the point that you're now out arguing for the right to make yourself and others sick by using their product, wherever and whenever you wish.

Why not be honest about that, mein freund? Why not admit to being played worse than an elderly e-mailer sending their fortune off to a scammer in Nigeria? Smokers are no smarter than the people who fall for every other transparent scam on Earth. They just think the rest of us have to respect and admire their penchant for being so easily duped, and to feel sorry for them taking up an addiction that they knew was an addiction going in.

[beevul]

124. Jesus, could you be any more full of it?

"Many things that contribute to bad health are taxed in this country. Eat at McDs, you pay taxes, don't you? Drink at a bar, you pay taxes. Buy a bottle of booze, it's taxed."

That does not make doing such a thing righteous.

"BTW - what is the anti-smoking brigade? Would that be the 80% of Americans who don't smoke, or is it some imagined subset of that 80%? If smoking was harmless, there would be no outcry against it. But it isn't harmless, and the more research that is done the worse it looks for smoking. The science says it harms smoker and non-smoker alike. That's why people want this obvious health hazard to be done, gone and forgotten."

The anti-smoking brigade - the fanatics that want not just the harms to the non-smoker stopped, but they want smoking gone. Just like prohibitionists. That you tend to characterize them in such a way as to make them sound warm fuzzy and innocuous leads me to believe you are one of them.

Again, you touch not once on ways for the two interested parties to co-exist. That there, friend, is THE tell tell indicator of a true-believer. A fanatic.

Oh, and the best for last:

"And as long as you're calling for honesty, how about smokers face up to the fact that they got played by one of the biggest corporate scams going, ie; the scam run by Big Tobacco. They sold you the image that smoking was cool, and you fell for their corporate crapola. They got you to throw your money away on a product that does no one any good and that will kill you sooner rather than later. And just to laugh in your face about it, they've got you all convinced that it's a civil right to continue to buy their overpriced product to the point that you're now out arguing for the right to make yourself and others sick by using their product, wherever and whenever you wish."

Ahh such dishonesty. I have not argued that I have the right to make ANYBODY ELSE sick. That, sir, you have contrived of whole cloth, your own self. As far as making myself sick? Well, much like a womans body, I consider mine own body to be...well...mine own. Its nobodys business what I ingest insert or exhale, so long as it harms no other. My body to pierce. My body to tatoo. My life to live or end as I see fit. And I'll make myself sick or not, as much or as little as I want to, or not - thank you very much. Its none of your damned buisiness or anybody elses. But you and others are not content to leave it at that. You feel the need to control behaviors even when they do NOT harm others, or control them beyond the point of making sure they do not harm others.

People like you were responsible for prohibition, and are responsible for the monstrosity known as the war on drugs, and making sure that gays can not marry. What all of those have in common: attempting/assuming control of behaviors even when they do NOT harm others, or controling them beyond the point of maiking sure they do not harm others. Thats what fanatics do.

Swell company you're keeping there.



"Why not be honest about that, mein freund? Why not admit to being played worse than an elderly e-mailer sending their fortune off to a scammer in Nigeria? Smokers are no smarter than the people who fall for every other transparent scam on Earth, they just think the rest of us have to respect and admire their penchant for being so easily duped, and to feel sorry for them taking up an addiction that they knew was an addiction going in."

Such compassion. Exactly what everyone should expect from posters on DU, right? :sarcasm:


So you're saying smokers are victims of the corporate blah blah blah? Ok, I'll concede that, now you can start addressing and treating smokers as the victims you just characterized them as. Deal?




Upthread someone had your kind pegged as the "sanctimonious parental" types, and they were spot on.

[stopbush]

136. I admit that I'm of the anti-smoking brigade.

It sort of happens to one after you've buried your father, your father-in-law and two grandfathers due to cancers that were smoking related. Of course, those relatives of mine all started smoking back in 1920-1940, when cigarette companies had doctors as spokesmen. The fact that they were heavy smokers for a good part of their lives and that they all died between the ages of 52-64 only makes the reality worse.

As far as making others sick, I grew up in an era when parents smoked in a car full of children, where watching TV in the family room meant sucking back second-hand smoke. Some of my siblings have chronic illnesses due to growing up in such an environment, and one of my brothers still smokes himself, unable to kick the habit after many attempts. That would be the same brother who cradled my dad in his arms as he died from his smoking-related disease.

I care about my brother because he has tried to quit and has quit for a year or so at a time. But it's difficult. He's not a belligerent smoker. He doesn't smoke around others. I wish he could quit. He knows what lies ahead for him if he doesn't, and it isn't pretty.

You're right that you have a right to do whatever you want to yourself. I only object to what smoking does to non-smokers and to the money it takes out of my pocket via inflated health insurance costs. You're welcome to get yourself sick and even die from smoking. Odds are you'll get your wish. If smokers could be trusted to keep it to themselves, I could live with that. But many smokers don't or won't keep it to themselves. They're militant in their smoking, much more militant that the anti-smoking lobby that finds their habit disgusting and unhealthy.

As far as gay marriage - I am absolutely for it, and I've supported the cause financially as well as with my vote.

I'm against the war on drugs. I believe MJ and other drugs should be regulated and taxed by the government and sold to people who wish to use them. Unlike cigarettes,at least MJ has some beneficial effects. I'd still object to MJ producing second-hand smoke that effects others.

I'm all for liquor being sold and taxed as it is. I'm for tough DUI laws and have no problem with the book being thrown at people who are repeat DUI offenders or who cause a death due to DUI. Anybody who gets behind the wheel while under the influence of drugs or alcohol has just crossed the line from personal use to being a menace to society, just as any smoker who blows his smoke my way has just crossed the line from personal use to being a menace to my health.

BTW - you're not a victim of anything but your own stupidity. You bought the corporate BS on smoking. I never did. I had the same info you had. Perhaps my life experience put me off acquiring the addiction. Who knows.

As far as feeling compassion for smokers, I feel it for my brother. Not so much for you with your in-your-face, it's-my-body-so-fuck-you attitude. You're not looking for compassion with such an attitude and I'll not spare any, even for a fellow DUer.

Now, run along and enjoy your cigs. Just keep it to yourself.

[bluescribbler]

146. No one more self righteous?

I beg to differ. Ex smokers are way more self righteous than smokers are. I know. I used to be one.

[stopbush]

154. Self righteous or self satisfied?

I'd think that anyone who successfully kicks the smoking habit has every reason to be self satisfied.

Self righteous, maybe not so much.

[bluescribbler]

163. Not mutually exclusive

Some of the most self righteous people I've met, (aside from GOPigs, that is), are people who used to smoke. I've heard the snide comments. I've seen the looks. "I'm so good. I quit smoking. Why can't you?" Just look at some of the replies to the OP, and you'll see some fine examples of what I mean.

[johnnie]

43. Where do you breath second hand smoke these days?

I know here in Ohio, you can't smoke anywhere where other people are.

[stopbush]

57. First, I'm glad that I no longer live in Ohio!

Here in CA, one breathes second-hand smoke when waiting in line to get into a movie, or Disneyland, or a restaurant, or at the beach, for example.

Disneyland is a case in point: they have designated smoking areas inside the park, and that's bad enough, as anyone waiting in the queue for the Matterhorn Bobsleds can tell you - the stench and the smoke from the nearby designated smoking area is quite bad. It literally stinks to wait in a queue for 20 minutes only to be inhaling second-hand smoke while you're still 10 minutes from getting on a ride.

But smokers are generally a self-centered, above-the-rules sort, so they tend to smoke in places where they're not supposed to smoke at Disneyland, like the restrooms, the locker areas and even along the various promenades throughout the park. They'll smoke whenever and wherever they can, at least until a park employee tells them to put it out.

I guess the smoker's solution would be, "then, don't go to Disneyland, a-hole."

[johnnie]

62. After reading your posts

I'm glad you no longer live in Ohio also.

[stopbush]

83. I'll bet you two packs of Luckies that I'm happier than you are

that I no longer live in Ohio.

[Enthusiast]

94. Here in Ohio, we break

the law and do it anyway. Because we are scofflaws.

[jazzjunkysue]

185. Outside every door. Until that stops, I say, tax, tax, tax.

Smoking around me is not anyone's right or privilege. Smoke in your house, and your car, and not anywhere near me.

[XemaSab]

37. My asthma will kill me some day

And that's a $400/month "habit" if ever there was one.

The difference?

You chose your death, mine was forced upon me by my smoker mother.

[MineralMan]

54. I'm very sorry to hear that. I would never smoke around

children. Never have. Never will.

[Shell Beau]

144. Now we have more information about the effects of second hand smoke.

Sorry you got asthma from it. My mom smoked around me. Thankfully, I have shown no ill effects because of it.

Smoking is pretty much banned in all public places. There are some places that have designated smoking areas outside though.

[TexasObserver]

38. you can roll your own for $20 a month

I have a nephew who does, and he's a serious smoker. Spends $20 a month, rolling his own.

[MineralMan]

46. Not any longer. The latest Federal tax increase tobacco

included loose tobacco, which had its tax increased to a point where the price was more than doubled. They eliminated that loophole. Cigars and pipe tobacco, too, got huge percentage increases in their tax rate.

[Seedersandleechers]

74. As expensive as smoking is,

and I have smoked for years but quit when they started taxing the shit out of them, may I suggest you switch to weed. It smells better, and strangers for the most part are always complimenting you on how good it smells. No one ever complains about the second hand smoke with weed - at least very few.

[JonLP24]

113. Yes, my can of Top went up ALOT

[Goblinmonger]

40. How are they going to tax masturbation? n/t

[MineralMan]

48. Hmm...I think an annual tax laid on young males 14-20 years of

age would take care of that. Oh, you are an adolescent male? That will be $500. Thanks very much...we'll put that money toward research on STDs. Well...we'll do that after the national debt is paid.

No money? Never mind, we'll just tax your parents, then.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Or they could tax lotion and kleenix. n/t

[genna]

178. LMAO!

[sui generis]

42. there is nothing so insulting as a lie they don't even believe themselves

That's the real irritant.

If you're going to be a bleeding heart liberal telling everyone else how to live their lives for the betterment of society, at least be an honest one.

If they really wanted to get rid of the smokers they'd require smokers to smoke four packs a day or go to jail, but oh NOOOOO, they pretend to give a damn not about the smoker's health but about the cost of treatment, which only the afflicted pay for anyway.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Actually, we care about second hand smoke.

I couldn't care less if the smoker his/herself took a flying leap.

[sui generis]

72. My point exactly. Second hand smoke is overrated by the hysterical.

Baron von Munchhausen syndrome is more like it. While second hand smoke isn't healthy, neither is any form of re-breathed air.

Second hand smoke alone is not a root cause of anything in a normal healthy human at the levels most "victims" of SHM are exposed - namely to say an occasional whiff. We just aren't that pathetic and weak.

SHM in an enclosed environment: bad manners and unhealthy yes, but now we're talking about managing shared environments and not forcing a baby or a puppy to suck down your afterbreath and lick the ashtray.

[stopbush]

88. Oh, bullshit. Do a search on "second hand smoke research 2009"

and tell me what you find.

[sui generis]

135. a lot of biased bullshit

written by "anti" smokers (as opposed to non-smokers

If there were no smokers you would bitch about breathing second hand farts. Let me be even more unfriendly: not all second hand smoke is "the same" and not all SHM environments are "the same". If someone is so delicate that they'll just flop over dead from an errant whiff of tobacco, maybe Darwin has spoken.

[stopbush]

138. Nice straw man there: "drop over dead from an errant whiff of tobacco."

I'm guessing you don't win a lot of arguments with that strategery.

[sui generis]

150. oh please

criticizing the critique is not a strategy. I'm guessing you don't win a lot of arguments with that brain.

[stopbush]

151. Yes, funny how reality (science) has an anti-smoking bias to it.

[sui generis]

161. yes, but like religion it's wrong to use science to remove human choice

how funny is that.

Seriously, the quality of mind of the people who are anti-smoking on behalf of all humanity is positively cultish, and if you want to quote science to me there is science to that too.

[stopbush]

164. Perhaps "quality of mind of the people who are anti-smoking on behalf of all humanity"

is similar to quality of mind of the people who are anti-toxins on behalf of all humanity, ie: people who warn humanity about the dangers of ingesting toxic waste, and who take their concern beyond mere warning and try to minimize or eliminate the opportunities that people have to exercise their "choice" to ingest toxic waste.

[sui generis]

166. that's the funny thing about the extremes of the left and right

they both end up at fascism.

Didn't we hear the same bull about reproductive rights and what we CHOOSE to do with our pink parts?

Education over Legislation, every day. If people can't make their own choices then what's the point of babbling about freedom? Other than the freedom to tell other people what they should do.

If I were to take this nowhere near any extreme, I'd force fat people to exercise, busy people to sleep, and heterosexual couples to reliably procreate or be partnered with someone who can.

It's not even a slippery slope, it's the Dave Murray downhill.

[stopbush]

167. You keep citing rights and choices that do not have the harmful

effects that smoking has on other individuals who breathe second-hand smoke.

You say education over legislation while ignoring the education (science) on smoking, its effects on smokers and non-smokers alike.

All of your ranting rings very hollow. You want a special carve out for your unhealthy choice, even going so far as to equate it to reproductive rights and the right to get married and have kids. You're reaching, and nobody's buying your schtick.

[sui generis]

169. Rantings. You got that right.

Well, if you're nobody, then you are correct.

Unfortunately there are many non-smoking somebody's who agree with me. So far this mystical "science" you seem to consider the Authority of All Things is absent in any material way in your insight.

For instance: Second hand smoke is composed of many things, indeed, and if I were in a lab, and I didn't account for dispersion, 2nd party oxygen demand (i.e., are you smoking next to an out of breath runner, a fellow smoker, a baby, a baby in the car behind you in traffic with vent on vs. the windows down, etc. THERE ARE QUANTIFIABLE DIFFERENCES. Add hormetic considerations at different toxicity levels and you have yet another vision of cause vs. effect.

And YET you want a blanket rule based on "science"? Yes, if I smoke a cigarette, and exhale into your face while you are inhaling, it's not good for you. It wouldn't be good for you even if I weren't smoking a cigarette though. Thus the scientific idea of a study control.

Blanket rules are for people who oversimplify. Science without fact is for people who want to bludgeon you first, and then oversimplify your life with their rules. Educate people to make their own choices. Accept their choices when they make them. I'm perfectly fine with not smoking in public spaces, restaurants or other enclosed areas. I have a feeling you would take it further and punish people for smoking at all.

Thus my hyberbole about global concern: please make the fat people skinny while you're at it. They're fucking up the environment for everyone. Death from choosing to overeat is a by far bigger (pun intended) problem than death from choosing to smoke, and think of all the trees people who wipe their asses with toilet paper are destroying.

Oh and define smoking while you're at it. One pack a week? Social smoking (one pack a year)? Is there some magical cutoff? Don't answer that unless you're willing to dictate calories and all the harm to our environment from eating twice your weight in cows every week, from shitting out twice your weight into sanitary sewage treatment every week.

now THAT was a rant toots.

[stopbush]

186. OK. I'm game. Please cite the scientific studies that support

your position.

If you can find a study that wasn't underwritten by the tobacco industry, that would be good, too.

Present your scientific facts.

Thanks in advance.

[sui generis]

188. are you retarded?

Of course you know there are no studies citing "my position", which isn't a position but a statement of analytic fact.

Dude.

Play the game right or don't play. I don't require the authority figure of a "study" to say that I should agree that smoking is bad for all non-smokers under every conceivable situation and therefore society is justified in controlling that choice for everyone, because of the non-smokers. Really.

How often do you beat your wives? Quote me a study proving you don't. :eyes: Well apparently if you don't quote me that study it proves you beat your wives.

That's why I asked if you were retarded.

[stopbush]

189. As I thought, you've got nothing but your opinion.

As we used to say in NYC, that and a subway token will get you downtown.

Analytic "fact?" Look up the word fact in Websters and tell me what you learn.

I like your straw man about "every conceivable situation," as if any laws or rules that deal with anything are passed in any country on the planet with the intention of covering "every conceivable situation," as if the police are going to ticket people for jay walking as they flee a burning building.

BTW - your name calling doesn't really serve you well. Is that all you've got, calling people you don't know retarded? Sticks and stones, sui, sticks and stones.

Further BTW - no study anywhere is going to "cite" your "position" - which is really only an opinion, not a position, because it isn't worth citing. You don't require an authority figure because you believe your opinion is authoritative on its own. You attacked scientific research that supports the claims that smoking is a health hazard as being biased. I asked you to produce scientific evidence that supports the opposite claim. You can't. End of debate. You lose. Don't play the scientific method "game" if you're not prepared to play by the scientific rules.

[sui generis]

191. I didn't call you retarded. Reading is fundamental

and a fundamental skill you're falling short on.

Over second hand cigarette smoke. Your statements are nonsensical - a value judgement of my opinion connected to whether it could be cited as a position.

End of debate. You lose. Those are fifth grader phrases. I'm guessing you're a fifth grade science substitute.

Please give me your scientific credentials before you start quoting "science" to me; I work in the real world, with statistics as a matter of a fact. I can paint you any color you like and run you and any god damn study you toss my direction into a mandala of "facts" and "conclusions".

There was never a debate, by the way, so don't promote this conversation as such - you had no opening, no exposition, no deduction, eduction, or inductive reasoning, and certainly your conclusion is flat as three day old beer.

Have a good weekend. You're male, so I recommend high levels of biotin and L-acetylcholine to help with your nootic shortcomings, good for a few IQ points.

[stopbush]

194. Since you brought up IQ, mine consistently tests at 138.

Not that that means anything to anybody, but I'm not one looking to add "a few IQ points." I assume IQ scores are important to you as you brought up the subject. I'm no genius, but I think the word "retarded" doesn't necessarily apply either.

I'm 54, not in 5th grade, and not a teacher. I make far too much $ to be a teacher, though I wish teachers were paid more, especially teachers in the arts and sciences. You guessed poorly on that one.

As far as science and statistics, well, you know the old saw about when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. Sorry that didn't work out for you this time around.

Oh, you "work in the real world," and the rest of us...?

As far as the name calling, your posts are what they are. One need not be a genius to be able to read and comprehend where you're coming from and what you are quite plainly saying. You're transparent, just as you wish to be.

Nice chatting.

[sui generis]

198. I declare myself the winner

and I am unanimous in that.

sheesh guy.

To clarify: I am for educating people well enough to make their own choices. I am against allowing smokers to intrude on the airspace of non-smokers. I am against being a benevolent know-it-all and legislating smoking out of existence, followed by who knows what other benevolent "good for society" regulations would follow.

It really is that simple.

[jazzjunkysue]

195. In that case, you're living among hysterical people, and you're out-numbered.

But, of course, there's nothing at all wrong with a person who is in total denial that they're committing suicide, slowly, because they're addicted to a drug.

Nope. Those people are the sane ones.

[genna]

179. Bleeding heart librul?

Who is that? Where are they?

They sound like people who would NEVER be on Democratic Underground. Maybe we should refer to the rules so we can keep away from them dayyum libruls.

[bamacrat]

51. Man I hope they start taxing my secret pleasure.

Then I wont have to keep it secret.

[damntexdem]

59. Why stop at 54 cents? An increase of one dollar would be nice.

Nope, can't balance the state budget on the backs of smokers. But some ground can be gained; and some recompense received for the extra costs imposed on society, and on state government, by smoking.

[jazzjunkysue]

196. I'll see your dollar, and raise you 5. no kidding.

[gulfcoastliberal]

63. Try growing your own...

That's what I would do. That way you can guarantee the quality.

[FudaFuda]

66. Too bad smokers can't just exercise the willpower to boycott

A declared, organized, and faithful boycott would drop those taxes like a rock. The government NEEDS tax revenues from smokers - SCHIP funding, for instance, depends on smokers. One or two months of no tobacco sales and governments, fed and state, would realize some tax revenue is better than none.

But you're addicts. Which means you're weak. You don't have the backbone in you to collectively stand up and say, 'hell no!' Instead, you either cough up whatever the new price is, or you try to rationalize quitting your habit 'for your own good.'

I'm not a tobacco user, by the way. I just think it's wrong to treat people like shit for it. Any 'additional cost' you might be 'burdening' society with by virtue of your habit is more than offset by the profits earned by the corporations that thrive on your patronage. That's where the government should be getting its money for the collective healthcare costs of smoking - not the end users.

[JVS]

70. Is it ethical to exploit addicts in this way? Should we flood the country with opium to gain more..

tax revenue?

[Occam Bandage]

81. That would be a fair comparison

if the net effect of these taxes was to increase and not to decrease the number of addicts.

[Vidar]

76. The "sin" taxes are just another way to rob the poor & provide coke & hookers for the rich.

[Occam Bandage]

79. So, how many cents per pack goes to hookers?

[LanternWaste]

77. I did.

"We probably won't quit smoking, but we are taxed enough already, thanks."

I did. Two week now. In my case, I finally realized that all the righteous rage and incompetent indignation I was directing at the raise in prices should really have been directed at me in the first place. My addiction, my bad habit, my weaknesses that I could never admit to were simply projected onto those who merely raised the tax.

But that's just me-- I have little doubt that the indignation and rage others may feel have absolutely nothing to do with their own addictions, and are uniquely and fully justified...

[SidDithers]

133. Congratulations...

:applause: :hi:

Sid

[Reterr]

95. My father mostly only smoked around me and mom

He was good about mostly smoking at home since he didn't want to inconvenience strangers I guess. Just us...

If taxing cigarettes is equivalent to a holocaust on smoking, I am fine with it (apart from the tastelessness of the hyperbole that needs to equate everything that mildly inconveniences one to the holocaust). Stupid, disgusting habit. One of the many things that strained my relationship with dad. Sanctimoniousness from smokers is really annoying to me.

[stop the bleeding]

96. I smoke weed and would gladly pay taxes on it.

Consider yourself fortunate that you're able to enjoy your creature comforts with taxes but without the risk of legal proceedings.

[Morning Dew]

97. I think the MN legislature is also adding a 3-5 cent tax per drink on alcohol.

I believe it's in the same bill. Tim - no new taxes - Pawlenty will likely veto it.

[formercia]

101. $1.00 per oz vice tax on KY jelly

Hand lotion remains untaxed as it is dual-use.

[Political Heretic]

102. Jean Luc Picard must respond to this OP

[ismnotwasm]

104. Condoms?

A guilty pleasure? Sweet Jesus don't tax the condoms.

Taxing cigarettes or any other "vice" is easy for government, a kind of sleight of hand way of taxing. No-one ever follows the money, do they? Or do they?

I do agree we have to be careful of that kind of thinking. But;

If the tax dollars went to treating smoking related diseases and disorders--and smoking is implicated in far more problems than somebodies lungs-- I wonder how it would all balance out? I mean would the tax revunue cover the cost of medical care?

On the other hand, If smoking was somehow eradicated, would we have to bail out the huge ass tobacco industries? How are they doing, by the way? Pretty good I'll bet.

Kind of circular mess.

[CAcyclist]

105. My secret pleasure is breathing clean air. nt.

[vanboggie]

111. ya ya ya

Know what is hazardous to my health? Packs of 30+ cyclists on my hilly rural road. They disrupt traffic flow and endanger driver and passengers in any vehicle that dares try to pass. Tax the MF's.

[Better Believe It]

107. As an ex-smoker I say tax the rich and leave working class smokers alone.

The rich can afford the fancy Cuban cigars. They are not affected by tabacco taxes, only addicted working class people are impacted by these so-called "sin" taxes. That's simply not fair and equal treatment.

[Taverner]

108. When are people going to realize cigarettes are a bad tax revenue source

The number of smokers is dwindling every year

And you expect this to pay for something?

[friedgreentomatoes]

112. K & R

That quote by Pastor Martin Niemöller was my email signature once upon a time.

[Paladin]

114. I Don't Care If You Smoke. Just Spare Me The Blubbering Appeals For Support.

You're not entitled to the same sort of sympathy that the truly put-upon groups in society receive. And you sure as hell aren't entitled to equate your fucking cigarettes with chocolate milk......

[stopbush]

115. Well spoke.

[jazzjunkysue]

192. And don't ask for help in a hospital when your lungs and heart give out, either.

Smokers should and probably will pay high premiums for health care, if they can get it at all.

[CRF450]

116. I got a few broke ass friends who stay broke because they wont quit smoking.

Its your money, but its a waste buying something that kills you slowly.

[Skip Intro]

122. Just fucking confiscate my ciggarettes, please!

Take them from me and let me never have another one.

I won't put up a fight.

Make them go away.

[DevonRex]

140. I would go for that, myself. IMO they should be outright illegal.

It is the worst addiction EVER. I'll tell you how I finally quit. I got an e-cigarette. You can even get zero nicotine cartridges and juice. Start high, go to zero. Yet you still get to have the sensation of smoking.

[Norquist Nemesis]

123. If everybody quits smoking, who's gonna pay for SCHIP? n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

126. People who will live longer, that's who.

[Norquist Nemesis]

127. Really? Then why aren't they paying for it now?

[Codeine]

183. Nobody is going to quit.

They'll just piss and moan about how they're being subjected to The New Holocaust and keep on smoking.

[Maru Kitteh]

125. I don't WANT to balance the budget on the smokers, I want the smokers to not smoke

I hate that stinky-ass personal-space cancer smog shit with a burning passion.

[Hissyspit]

131. Condoms = Cigarettes?

Taxing something that potentially saves lives is the same as taxing something that potentially kills people?

Wow. Talk about a false equivalence.

[SidDithers]

134. Poor, poor smokers...

:nopity:



Sid

[stopbush]

152. Your violin could be smaller.

Just sayin'...

[SidDithers]

162. Better?...

:hi:

Sid

[anonymous171]

139. I think we should tax luxury items instead of cigarettes.

You know, like a 50% sales tax on high-end sports cars. Make the rich pay for everything instead of the smokers .

[FiveGoodMen]

156. That's closer to fair since it hits the items bought by people with plenty of money

but it's still better to tax income.

That's when you get the best chance to see who can afford to pay.

Besides, the economy benefits when people buy things. Why provide a disincentive for that?

[otohara]

141. You May Die A Few Years Sooner

but to treat you for any smoking related disorders is very costly and it may take a whole lot longer than you think.

You're not going to just drop dead one day from years of smoking.

Took my mom several years of oxygen tanks, operations, hospital stays, therapy and more before her smoking related illnesses did her in. The quality of her life during these many years were not happy ones.

[bluescribbler]

147. Not necessarily

"to treat you for any smoking related disorders is very costly"

According to a study done in Europe, smokers actually represent a smaller portion of health care costs than do non smokers. apparently, because we die sooner, we don't have as many hip replacements, we don't die lingering deaths from Alzheimer's, etc.

In addition, the Mass tax is supposed to help pay for the universal health care law. IMHO, the law was flawed from the start, because businesses who don't offer health insurance to their employees are assessed a fee of $296.00 per employee per year. Show me a smart businessman who won't conclude that his bottom line looks a hell of a lot better paying the assessment than paying the premiums.

[robdogbucky]

149. Oh, please....

“…That'll save some money for Medicare and Social Security, since I'll probably die a few years before my non-smoking peers. But...that's not really good enough…”
This rant is humorous from my angle, that of someone that has watched several die from long, excruciating, painful, expensive smoking related deaths. It does not save anything, just the opposite. Every one of them could not quit and bemoaned the fact that they ever started and no one could find a way to help or make them quit until it was too late. My late father in law had quit with the surgeon general’s warning in 1964 or so. He still died years later from emphysema and heart disease his doctors attributed to his earlier smoking. It will be your turn soon enough.

“…We all die. Nobody gets out of that. I guess you're OK with a selective tax on smokers, then. Okey Dokey, then.”
Count me in as being supportive of the ever-increasing tax to motivate people to fight their addiction.
As a former smoker of 33 years, and having lost many in my family, and knowing the stats of deaths each year in this country directly related to smoking, versus say alcohol, driving, illegal drugs, violent crime, AIDS, yes, I think it is a progressive tax. Especially if it can make someone quit and save their life and possibly lives of their own family members and pets. Think of the innocent pets lying on the floor if nothing else, inhaling all that secondary poison without any choice that floats downward to the floor where they rest.

“…I couldn't tap for a butt if I wanted one. And none of them would even think of paying for a pack. Ditto for the booze. P.S. this is not an inner city poor and down on your luck school…”
I think we all know that and presenting the cynical side to justify not taking action is not really helpful to the debate and a poor problem-solving technique IMHO. That does not mean we should stop trying to save kids’ lives early on, speaking strictly from direct personal experience that is.

“…But he didn't ask for any lectures.” Then why did he loudly complain on his soapbox on a public forum then? Is his position sacrosanct, just because it’s his?

“…putting an extra load on one group, then ignoring it because you are not in the group still holds.” Isn’t this always the case in a democratic process where the majority rules? The losers are predictably unhappy.

“...You've made a choice to smoke, not like being a Jew, or black, or gay…” Or being drafted to fight in an illegal war and then dying there, or having to use transportation like a motorcycle (for that comparison), or the being obese comparison, which may not be purely an elective addiction to eating (see genetic evidence, diabetes, corporate promotion/profits of HFCS, etc.) Interesting too, since the elimination of leaded gasoline (see those that decried the abolition of same, mainly oil corps.) there has been a marked decrease in juvenile environmental illnesses related to lead depositions in the environment and a lowering of violent behavior and crime among the juveniles. Addiction makes the user unable to see the truth. I know from direct experience.

“…Make it so they can't afford it. You don't like smoking so you want to make sure that only…” No, it’s not just that I don’t like it, it is the most addictive substance known to man (nicotine, more so even than heroin), it is also harmful to others, is an elective behavior, and big corps are allowed to make huge profits on it. Those are the multiple reasons I don’t like it, and oh, yeah, I have lost at least 4 family members due strictly to terminal diseases directly attributed to the nicotine addiction.

“…If it's so terrible why is smoking not illegal?” Because big tobacco corps with lobbyists make sure they stay in business addicting and killing people for profit.

Have at it flamers, I don’t really care at this point. Tobacco addiction is pointless and expensive and deadly and profitable to those that sell it, promote it, make a living off of treating the diseases, etc. Sack up, get a clue, save your life and try to quit before it is beyond the point of no return.

robdogbucky

[stopbush]

153. Good post.

[hayu_lol]

157. Sheesh, another thread dedicated to the...

Nicotine Nazis.

Booze kills brain cells.

Now that the pot smoker alliance has come down on tobacco smokers...it is ironic that if pot is ever legalized, there will be no place left in the world where you can smoke it.

Maybe its time for smokers to buy a used submarine and bring in American cigarettes from Mexico and land them at Coos Bay for distribution.

[kwassa]

160. Smokers healthcare costs society lots of money

says the American Lung Association

http://www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.39853/

Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable morbidity (disease and illness) and premature mortality (death) worldwide. Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 438,000 American lives each year, including those affected indirectly, such as babies born prematurely due to prenatal maternal smoking and victims of "secondhand" exposure to tobacco's carcinogens. Smoking cost the United States over $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care expenditures, or an average of $4,260 per adult smoker.

# About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. That means that for every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking.3

# Among current smokers, chronic lung disease accounts for 73 percent of smoking-related conditions. Even among smokers who have quit chronic lung disease accounts for 50 percent of smoking-related conditions.4

# The list of diseases caused by smoking includes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema), coronary heart disease, stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myeloid leukemia, cataract, pneumonia, periodontitis, and bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, throat, cervical, kidney, stomach, and pancreatic cancers. Smoking is also a major factor in a variety of other conditions and disorders, including slowed healing of wounds, infertility, and peptic ulcer disease.5

[Seldona]

165. As opposed to people who will live decades longer?

Really? Is that all being taken into consideration? How can smokers die early, AND cost the system more money over the average life-time?

[stopbush]

168. Easy. Read the data.

They cost the system money even over the terms of their shortened lives. If they live longer, they cost society even more. The health costs don't start adding up the second a smoker dies, they add up as smokers and their victims (second-hand smokers) get treatments while they're still alive.

BTW - the loss of productivity is another issue, as those of us who watch our smoking co-workers take their third, fourth or fifth smoking break of the day well know. In many cases, smoking breaks add up to an additional 30-40 minutes out of the work day.

[n5ifi]

170. Wake Up Folks

Your habbit is next. Their only trying to help

[Codeine]

184. When they came for literacy,

you were safe.

[genna]

171. Why not allow the government to tax any vices it deems unworthy or unacceptable?

If the government can redline red light districts, why can't it impose specific taxes and regulations on those goods and services?

Guilty pleasure is right.


Smoking is unhealthy. $2 to $4 of taxes on top of the retail price.


Pornography. Can't be viewed until after 9 pm. It was changed to all day but restricted channels. If you want porn to be taxed extra to make up for state shortfalls, you might find a group of legislators who think it is a good idea.


I don't like women having to take unpaid leave for maternity, women in the child bearing range having different right to coverage in health care when it comes to birth control versus sexual aids for older men, and retirement incomes being taken away from workers because their companies did not protect their pensions.


Some stuff ain't fair.

[ProudDad]

176. First they came for the Meth Cookers

and they were just exercising their freedom to get high while blowing up their parent's house.

And the poor smokers who were busy killing the rest of us with their 2nd hand smoke until certain laws made that illegal...

[WI_DEM]

197. As someone who has had both parents die from smoking related diseases, I say GREAT.