PDA

View Full Version : Cigerette Tax


dustindow
08-09-2006, 12:06 AM
After reading the argument over gasoline prices I wonder. Cigerettes have a bigger tax than gasoline. It ranges from 30 to 50 cents. Also depends where you live. For me a pack of Marlboro is around 3.25 with tax its 3.59 but in New York its around 5 or 6 dollars. Is this really necessary?

thedeadwalk!
08-09-2006, 12:13 AM
I don't think it's necessary at all. But, they'll charge as much as you'll pay for them. Same goes with liquor.

StrawberryFieldsForever
08-09-2006, 12:17 AM
It should be taxed more.

I dunno how the states worked, but I personally believe here in Canada that cigs should be taxed like crazy because of our health care system, and all the extra taxes should go into health care.

Basically, a 50 000 dollar cancer treatment (as it would probably be in the states I dunno) is payed for by the government, unless you go to a private doctor...theres insurance and stuff that ties into it but basically we have free health care.

A smoker causes his or her own problems through a choice they made. It's not like being a car accident victim or getting into a small accident like busting ur arm from falling somewhere. Smokers get lung cancer, and the rest of Canada shouldn't pay for that through their normal taxes, which is why cigs should be taxed like crazy.

Smoking is less necassary in everyday life than gasoline, I'm sure we can all agree on that. Most of us need cars just to get to work and stuff (here in Winnipeg our transit system is so bad it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours to get somewhere on bus that takes 15 minutes by car). It definetly makes sense that cigs are taxed more than gas.

Against Miik!
08-09-2006, 12:17 AM
O.k. in Cuyohoga County in Ohio, which the county Cleveland is located in, they are introducing an additional 30 cent tax on cigarettes. This tax is being introduced to support the growing arts community. Now if you ask me, this is especially bs. Why put the whole strain on smokers? Wouldn't it make more sense to add put a 5 cent tax on milk or something? It would bring in far more money and effect everybody equally. Everybody just likes to crap on the smokers I guess.

dustindow
08-09-2006, 12:28 AM
It should be taxed more.

I dunno how the states worked, but I personally believe here in Canada that cigs should be taxed like crazy because of our health care system, and all the extra taxes should go into health care.

Basically, a 50 000 dollar cancer treatment (as it would probably be in the states I dunno) is payed for by the government, unless you go to a private doctor...theres insurance and stuff that ties into it but basically we have free health care.

A smoker causes his or her own problems through a choice they made. It's not like being a car accident victim or getting into a small accident like busting ur arm from falling somewhere. Smokers get lung cancer, and the rest of Canada shouldn't pay for that through their normal taxes, which is why cigs should be taxed like crazy.

Smoking is less necassary in everyday life than gasoline, I'm sure we can all agree on that. Most of us need cars just to get to work and stuff (here in Winnipeg our transit system is so bad it can take up to 2 or even 3 hours to get somewhere on bus that takes 15 minutes by car). It definetly makes sense that cigs are taxed more than gas.


That would work if you didnt pay for your own health. Which an the US we don't have universal health care.

(*The Noonward Race*)
08-09-2006, 12:29 AM
Basically, a 50 000 dollar cancer treatment (as it would probably be in the states I dunno) is payed for by the government, unless you go to a private doctor...theres insurance and stuff that ties into it but basically we have free health care.Tru dat, we should tax more.

btw im in wpg too.

lfantwister
08-09-2006, 12:37 AM
Where I work a pack of cigs is 5.40. It's better to tax the smokers to punish them even more for their bad decisions I guess, if you're going to tax anyone, but as a general rule consumption taxes should be slashed

UDBassist
08-09-2006, 08:22 AM
After reading the argument over gasoline prices I wonder. Cigerettes have a bigger tax than gasoline. It ranges from 30 to 50 cents. Also depends where you live. For me a pack of Marlboro is around 3.25 with tax its 3.59 but in New York its around 5 or 6 dollars. Is this really necessary?

Well in NY everything is higher including pay rate so everything equals out. Now for everyone else saying that raising the taxes should be a way of punishing us for a bad decision? Are you listening to yourselfs? Its like gas going up so are we being punished for driving to work everyday?

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-09-2006, 08:23 AM
Cigarettes are a luxury and it is the governments responsibility to discourage you from using cigarettes. In the UK cigarette related sickness puts a huge burden on the health service which is another justification for the high tax n them.

ringworm
08-09-2006, 08:58 AM
down here the gas & cig taxes pay for most of the road const. & improvements, so I'm fine with it & I smoke ;;;coughs;;; needs to quit

mullets suk
08-09-2006, 08:59 AM
I think the higher taxes are also to try to get more kids not to buy cigs. cause they most likely think kids income isnt that high so there not goin to want to spend $5+ on them.

pooble
08-09-2006, 09:01 AM
all the more reason for people to try to sell them to kids illegally

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-09-2006, 09:04 AM
all the more reason for people to try to sell them to kids illegally

I think people do that to be profitable, as opposed to out of spite. The kids would still have to pay the taxes on the cigs. It's not like crazy old men go "What's that kids? Can't afford cigarrettes because of taxes? Well then, let me buy you some. On the house!"

pooble
08-09-2006, 09:08 AM
grade 12s are old enough to legally buy cigarettes. asides from that most kids just use fake IDs by grade 11.

old men dont sell cigarettes to students, older students do.

Electronic Wolf
08-09-2006, 09:11 AM
I think people do that to be profitable, as opposed to out of spite. The kids would still have to pay the taxes on the cigs. It's not like crazy old men go "What's that kids? Can't afford cigarrettes because of taxes? Well then, let me buy you some. On the house!"
I laughed.

It's good that cigarettes are taxed to hell. We need to discourage people from doing it, and do something to discourage our kids from smoking too. Smoking is retarded, and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

Chrizzle fo' Shizzle
08-09-2006, 09:42 AM
Cigarettes are a luxury and it is the governments responsibility to discourage you from using cigarettes.


It's good that cigarettes are taxed to hell. We need to discourage people from doing it, and do something to discourage our kids from smoking too. Smoking is retarded, and anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

Why? Doesn't all of the "education" we throw at kids do enough of a job of stopping them from hurting their own bodies? Simply because somebody does not personally like the activity does not mean they have the right to legislate against it

The reason they tax cigarettes and alcohol so heavily is because they know that they're not going to get as much public outcry as if they more heavily taxed, say, milk

griftadan
08-09-2006, 10:39 AM
Cigarettes are a luxury and it is the governments responsibility to discourage you from using cigarettes. In the UK cigarette related sickness puts a huge burden on the health service which is another justification for the high tax n them.

no thats a justification for ending the NHS.

Der ‹bermensch
08-09-2006, 10:52 AM
After reading the argument over gasoline prices I wonder. Cigerettes have a bigger tax than gasoline. It ranges from 30 to 50 cents. Also depends where you live. For me a pack of Marlboro is around 3.25 with tax its 3.59 but in New York its around 5 or 6 dollars. Is this really necessary?
Quit complaining, and consider yourself lucky. You can't even get a pack of Mustangs for for 3.25 here. Prices in Maine are more like the NY ones.

Cigarettes are a luxury and it is the governments responsibility to discourage you from using cigarettes.
No its not! Its their responsibility to keep their noses out of our private ****ing business!

loathed
08-09-2006, 10:59 AM
By 1 pack...how many sticks are there in there?

CabbageStabbage
08-09-2006, 11:12 AM
grade 12s are old enough to legally buy cigarettes. asides from that most kids just use fake IDs by grade 11.

old men dont sell cigarettes to students, older students do.

Here in Ontario you have to be 19 to buy booze or cigs. Grade 12s are not going to turn 19 during the school year, unless they failed a grade. However, I can very easily buy booze from friends of friends, so the age restriction really does nothing.

Personally I think down on cigarettes, just as I think badly of coolers. If you're going to kill yourself smoking, smoke cigars. If you're going to get hammered, drink your booze straight, not pre-watered down.

denboy
08-09-2006, 11:35 AM
I've always wondered what would happen if a pack of 10 smokes went up to like £6
and 20 packs £14

People would stop buying 20 packs

Against Miik!
08-09-2006, 07:30 PM
So whats with in Berlin, the packs only come with 17 cigarettes? The packs are the same size as the ones in the states, which come with 20, there is just a little room left over? I forget if they were cheaper. I think they were like 4 euro and I pay 5 USD for cigs.

Reaganista
08-09-2006, 10:22 PM
cigarettes have negative externalities so there should be a tax to discourage over consumption
demand is also really elastic so it's a good way to raise revenue

I can't think of many things it would be better to tax
we should double or triple them

Danger Bird
08-10-2006, 02:52 AM
The government making money off obviously harmful products is a clear conflict of interests with its job of protecting the people.

Here in Ontario you have to be 19 to buy booze or cigs. Grade 12s are not going to turn 19 during the school year, unless they failed a grade. However, I can very easily buy booze from friends of friends, so the age restriction really does nothing.

Personally I think down on cigarettes, just as I think badly of coolers. If you're going to kill yourself smoking, smoke cigars. If you're going to get hammered, drink your booze straight, not pre-watered down.
Haha, I like the way you think. Personally, I don't see the sense in smoking fags when you can smoke grass, which is much healthier and actually has some sort of positive effect on your conciousness, other than fulfilling an addiction.

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-10-2006, 03:42 AM
no thats a justification for ending the NHS.

By what stretch of the imagination?

"Some people smoke and get cancer so we'll take away free healthcare for everyone"

they get cancer from smoking, the NHS gets money from the smoking tax, and less people smoke because of the high cost. The system works.

ChickenStu
08-10-2006, 12:17 PM
cigarettes have negative externalities so there should be a tax to discourage over consumption
demand is also really elastic so it's a good way to raise revenue

I can't think of many things it would be better to tax
we should double or triple them

And then we should triple the tax on cheeseburgers.

After that lets limit the amount of cheeseburgers we can eat in a week.

Then lets ban cheeseburgers.

griftadan
08-10-2006, 12:53 PM
By what stretch of the imagination?

the fact that NHS systems suck and this is just one reason why

they get cancer from smoking, the NHS gets money from the smoking tax, and less people smoke because of the high cost. The system works.

your not going to match the costs of thousands of dollars of treatments just by taxing the causes of the illness. besides, there are a plethora of things which kill at a greater rate than cigarettes, are we going to tax them too? why cigarettes?

Futue te Ipsum
08-10-2006, 01:22 PM
no thats a justification for ending the NHS.America is justification for us keeping it.the fact that NHS systems suck and this is just one reason whyThe system works.
your not going to match the costs of thousands of dollars of treatments just by taxing the causes of the illness.Actually, the govt makes more from alcohol and tobaco taxation than is spent on treatments for both.
besides, there are a plethora of things which kill at a greater rate than cigarettes, are we going to tax them too?If they're taxable, a personal choice and there's a good reason to limit their consumption (use, or whatever is applicable.), then yes.
why cigarettes?See above.

griftadan
08-10-2006, 01:23 PM
you can do better

kurrpt
08-10-2006, 01:39 PM
Well, i found out about ordering cigarettes from Indian reservations (no tax)

Im going to just take strides into becoming a better consumer

Chrizzle fo' Shizzle
08-10-2006, 01:44 PM
If they're taxable, a personal choice and there's a good reason to limit their consumption (use, or whatever is applicable.), then yes.


And who decides whether or not there's a good reason to limit the consumption of a product? If someone wants to risk all the health problems associated with smoking, the government should not punish them for making that choice

kurrpt
08-10-2006, 01:47 PM
its a very small group of individuals. The fact remains that smokers are just going to disappear, and they realize that people will continue to buy the product regardless of the price...

same with gasoline

lfantwister
08-10-2006, 01:54 PM
ts a very small group of individuals. The fact remains that smokers are just going to disappear, and they realize that people will continue to buy the product regardless of the price...

In 2004, an estimated 44.5 million, or 20.9 percent of, adults were current smokers.

from: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39853

That's not really very small group of individuals. And the numbers are not really going down, or at least as far as I can tell. I sell mroe cigarettes to people in their teens and twenties than older people (but maybe it's just where i live)

kurrpt
08-10-2006, 02:10 PM
you obviously misread my post...

when i said "small group of individuals", that comment was directed to the question above, asking "And who decides whether or not there's a good reason to limit the consumption of a product?" to which i responded ...

lfantwister
08-10-2006, 02:11 PM
oh sorry

Volumnius Flush
08-10-2006, 03:05 PM
Cigarettes are supposed to go up a dollar in Texas to between $4 and $5.

kurrpt
08-10-2006, 03:12 PM
they are anywhere for 4-5.50 in PA

Reaganista
08-10-2006, 03:38 PM
The government making money off obviously harmful products is a clear conflict of interests with its job of protecting the people.
no, taxation is a disincentive to consume

And then we should triple the tax on cheeseburgers.

After that lets limit the amount of cheeseburgers we can eat in a week.

Then lets ban cheeseburgers.
that's hardly as practical, though
it would be better just to tax fat people

America is justification for us keeping it.
healthcare in America is great

And who decides whether or not there's a good reason to limit the consumption of a product?

policy makers
what kind of question is that
If someone wants to risk all the health problems associated with smoking, the government should not punish them for making that choice
the government should always use taxes to reflect any externalities present in a transaction

griftadan
08-10-2006, 05:19 PM
America is justification for us keeping it.

your assuming that theres only 2 courses of action available.

The system works.

at what? providing subpar treatment while stifling competition in the private sector?

Actually, the govt makes more from alcohol and tobaco taxation than is spent on treatments for both.

which country and what treatments?

If they're taxable, a personal choice and there's a good reason to limit their consumption (use, or whatever is applicable.), then yes.

but why should limiting consumption be up to anyone but those consuming?

nowhesingsnowhesobs
08-10-2006, 05:47 PM
at what? providing subpar treatment while stifling competition in the private sector?
The health care of American citizens is universally superior? The World Health Organization ranks the USA's health system at 37 in the world and the UK's at 18.

Volumnius Flush
08-10-2006, 05:56 PM
but why should limiting consumption be up to anyone but those consuming?

In the late 1600's on the isle of Madagascar, there was a major co-op against the flightless dodo bird. Looking back on my Portuguese ancestors, I realize this was a foolish plunder. Dodos are genetically similar to the chicken, and thus must be a nutritious (and tasty) meat. Now had these settlers been more civic oriented or oriented towards preserving the livelihood of the bird, they would have in the former, made restrictions on how many dodos one could eat per week, and in the latter, bred dodos in captivity.

This is a clear example of why we must make restrictions on consumerists like you who buy 200 packs of batteries when Katrina comes and then there are none left for people who need them.

griftadan
08-10-2006, 06:05 PM
The health care of American citizens is universally superior? The World Health Organization ranks the USA's health system at 37 in the world and the UK's at 18.

no. i don't like the US healthcare system either.

griftadan
08-10-2006, 06:06 PM
Criticisms of public health care pointing at the British model are misguided. The British system was (until recently) very poorly funded, and even now suffers from a lack of cohesion as a result of a lack of long term strategic planning. Using it to demonstrate flaws of universal health coverage shows the problems of the British system, not of universal health care.

i feel the sameway when someone uses the US to put down the private system.

Against Miik!
08-10-2006, 07:04 PM
For those who can pay, the U.S. healthcare system is pretty stellar. Downside? Most people can't.

LittlePound
08-10-2006, 07:48 PM
I've always wondered what would happen if a pack of 10 smokes went up to like £6
and 20 packs £14
People would stop buying 20 packs
that is probably true considering it would be a lot cheaper to just buy two ten packs.

Also,i have no problem with the tax on liquor or smoking. If you want to kill yourself (this comment is mainly based at smoking), then i don't see why you should care how much it costs. It's not like you'll be using htat money later on anyways. Plus, i do think there should be discouragements for unhealthy choices in life and smoking is undeniably one of them.
Liquor, i dunno. It is just as dangerous with how it is abused so i guess i agree with the tax on it, but....if people would stop abusing it and all the mess they do with it i'd be fine with them removing the tax.

Chrizzle fo' Shizzle
08-10-2006, 08:26 PM
Also,i have no problem with the tax on liquor or smoking. If you want to kill yourself (this comment is mainly based at smoking), then i don't see why you should care how much it costs.

People don't smoke because they want to kill themselves. They do it because they enjoy doing it, and they're willing to take the risk that it might kill them

LittlePound
08-10-2006, 09:43 PM
Obviously people don't smoke to kill themselves. But, especially in recent time, i'd be surprised if there was one legal age smoker that wasn't aware of the damage that is caused by smoking. Therefore, knowingly putting harmful substances into their body knowingly is basically attemptive suicide. Now obviously they aren't hoping something will go wrong but they know the chances aren't in their favor, or they've disillusioned themselves to think it can't happen to them. One of the two. Either way, if you're doing something that is purposely harming yourself, the extra few cents in tax should be the last of your worries.

Amit
08-10-2006, 10:03 PM
O.k. in Cuyohoga County in Ohio, which the county Cleveland is located in, they are introducing an additional 30 cent tax on cigarettes. This tax is being introduced to support the growing arts community. Now if you ask me, this is especially bs. Why put the whole strain on smokers? Wouldn't it make more sense to add put a 5 cent tax on milk or something? It would bring in far more money and effect everybody equally. Everybody just likes to crap on the smokers I guess.

well that or maybe just maybe the unnecessary, preventable, and substantial burden tobacco products place on the healthcare system

sexymuffin
08-10-2006, 10:26 PM
hey i smoke becuase it feels good and i feel like i can do whatever the hell i want with my body so long as i'm not hurting anyone else. Taxing it more just becuase you know smokers can't quit is taking advantage of weak people. It's comparable to monopolizing.

oh man the health care suffers. People won't stop dying or getting sick becuase everyone quit smoking, we'd just be in the hospital for other reasons.

Spoonful of Shame
08-10-2006, 11:06 PM
Pffft. Cigarettes? Nay, not for me.

Cigars are the key. I love smoking up a storm. \m/

Amit
08-10-2006, 11:40 PM
hey i smoke becuase it feels good and i feel like i can do whatever the hell i want with my body so long as i'm not hurting anyone else. Taxing it more just becuase you know smokers can't quit is taking advantage of weak people. It's comparable to monopolizing.

not really

taxing a luxury commodity is perfectly reasonable especially if it is a commodity that is a burden to society

oh man the health care suffers. People won't stop dying or getting sick becuase everyone quit smoking, we'd just be in the hospital for other reasons.

not really

that kind of defeatist thinking works great on paper but not so great in real life

Futue te Ipsum
08-11-2006, 03:49 AM
And who decides whether or not there's a good reason to limit the consumption of a product?The people in power, obviously.
If someone wants to risk all the health problems associated with smoking, the government should not punish them for making that choiceYou think they're trying to punish smokers?

Oh my.

Futue te Ipsum
08-11-2006, 03:51 AM
that kind of defeatist thinking works great on paper but not so great in real lifeIt doesn't even work on paper :/

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-11-2006, 04:21 AM
your not going to match the costs of thousands of dollars of treatments just by taxing the causes of the illness. besides, there are a plethora of things which kill at a greater rate than cigarettes, are we going to tax them too? why cigarettes?

Because they're a luxury

WHO 2001:

Causes of death in developed countries
Number of deaths
Ischaemic heart disease
3,512,000
Cerebrovascular disease
3,346,000
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
1,829,000
Lower respiratory infections
1,180,000
Trachea/bronchus/lung cancers
938,000
Road traffic accidents
669,000
Stomach cancer
657,000
Hypertensive heart disease
635,000
Tuberculosis
571,000
Suicide
499,000

Obviously, we need a suicide tax.

Against Miik!
08-11-2006, 04:27 AM
well that or maybe just maybe the unnecessary, preventable, and substantial burden tobacco products place on the healthcare system


Well now that just doesn't make any sense. Most all places people smoke are places you'd expect people to smoke. If you go to a bar and you don't like smokey environments, good luck. Same with some restaurants, yes smoking/non smoking sections do make a difference. Its not like people walk into hospitals or day care centers and light up.

TheBigMachine
08-11-2006, 05:13 AM
with my body so long as i'm not hurting anyone else
Passive smoking, you are hurting someone else. Unless you smoke in private or with other smokers.

What's all this about 5 dollars a packet in the US? Here, it's around $11 dollars. I did the conversion(roughly) and it comes to something like $8US. Here, smoking is more expensive, you can smoke in less places, but our health care system is in a bit of a pickle anyway.

What Im saying is, the amount of tax you put on cig's doesnt necessarily convert into better health care system(if that's where the tax money goes).

In Australia, some 11 year old's smoke. What does this say? This says that taxes do very little, because they can get free ones off older mates or all pitch in for a pack.
I think that police should be given the powers to confiscate the smokes and fine the user(if under the legal limit), or rather the person that gave the smokes to the kid if possible.

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-11-2006, 09:27 AM
Damn, I just had 4 links to show you how smoking is directly related to the top four things on the list and then my post didn't work. :angry:

But anyway... all of those top 5 are much more likely to occur if you smoke, so I'd say that cigarettes are a good thing to tax.

I'll find the sources again later.

nonononono

I was arguing that we SHOULD tax cigarrettes and the guy was all like "other things cause just as many deaths, lets tax those" and I wa saddressing that

Amit
08-11-2006, 11:14 AM
Well now that just doesn't make any sense. Most all places people smoke are places you'd expect people to smoke. If you go to a bar and you don't like smokey environments, good luck. Same with some restaurants, yes smoking/non smoking sections do make a difference. Its not like people walk into hospitals or day care centers and light up.

what

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 03:23 PM
not really

taxing a luxury commodity is perfectly reasonable especially if it is a commodity that is a burden to society

So how much do you propose we tax cookies and ice cream?



not really

that kind of defeatist thinking works great on paper but not so great in real life

People get sick for other reasons then cigarette smoke. There are thousands of carsenagenic substances in the world, and many people's lives end at the hands of cancer. Smoking will bring this faster, but cancer is cancer at any age.

What our health service needs to do is invest in natural medicines. Too bad that'll never happen becuase it doesn't make any money.

Amit
08-11-2006, 03:50 PM
So how much do you propose we tax cookies and ice cream?

nope because they provide nutrition

i do think we should tax fat people or give them incentives to work out

People get sick for other reasons then cigarette smoke. There are thousands of carsenagenic substances in the world, and many people's lives end at the hands of cancer. Smoking will bring this faster, but cancer is cancer at any age.

carcinogenic*

and cigarettes are a direct AND INDIRECT AND BY INDIRECT I DON'T JUST MEAN SECOND HAND SMOKE burden on healthcare why is this so incredibly hard to understand

ugh

What our health service needs to do is invest in natural medicines. Too bad that'll never happen becuase it doesn't make any money.

investing in natural medicines won't work

kurrpt
08-11-2006, 03:53 PM
they dont tax ciggys if you roll your own...

not that im going to start doing that, but im saying options are available

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 04:01 PM
^^home rolled cigs always give me a headache.

nope because they provide nutrition

i do think we should tax fat people or give them incentives to work out
that kind of fascist thinking works great on paper but not so great in real life



carcinogenic*

and cigarettes are a direct AND INDIRECT AND BY INDIRECT I DON'T JUST MEAN SECOND HAND SMOKE burden on healthcare why is this so incredibly hard to understand

ugh

it's not hard to understand, but that doesn't mean we should inconvenience law abiding citizens by making cigarette prices go through the roof.



investing in natural medicines won't work

because it won't make any money

Amit
08-11-2006, 04:06 PM
that kind of fascist thinking works great on paper but not so great in real life

no it would work great in real life but hey nice try being clever

it's not hard to understand, but that doesn't mean we should inconvenience law abiding citizens by making cigarette prices go through the roof.

but those law abiding citizens are doing something which is an inconvenience to everyone else

besides this gives people even more incentive to quit smoking

because it won't make any money

without money you wouldn't have healthcare

please learn something more about healthcare and economics

Hababi
08-11-2006, 04:10 PM
nope because they provide nutrition

i do think we should tax fat people or give them incentives to work out



Tax credit for gym membership? :cool:

Oh and I'm all for more taxes on cigerettes. Cigerette smoking is a cancer on society and hurts not only the smokers but all those around the smokers.

And I've developed an allergy to cig smoke--if I'm around it, I get a headache and queasy :(

Amit
08-11-2006, 04:11 PM
not to mention it hurts the people who has to treat those smokers (and second hand smokers)

why don't tobaccoists understand this

Hababi
08-11-2006, 04:14 PM
not to mention it hurts the people who has to treat those smokers (and second hand smokers)


Well..it does increase demand, somewhat, for nurses and doctors in the areas affected by smoking (which is almost everything, anyway :p)...so there is one ever so slight benefit...Yeah, far outweighed as it is.

Just imagine the huge demand for neurosurgeons if it's ever proven that cell phone usage causes brain tumors


why don't tobaccoists understand this


If they were acting logically in regards to their lifestyle, they wouldn't smoke to begin with, not even considering the effects on others :p

Amit
08-11-2006, 04:16 PM
with healthcare, the increase of demand (and benefits thereof) of demand can be (and is) hugely negligible yet the negative effects be very influential

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 04:17 PM
no it would work great in real life but hey nice try being clever

Taxing people because they're overweight is absolutely tyrannical and rediculous.



but those law abiding citizens are doing something which is an inconvenience to everyone else

besides this gives people even more incentive to quit smoking

then argue to make it illegal, not to make the prices rediculous so those who are already addicted have another payment to worry about everyday on top of rent, utilities and food.



without money you wouldn't have healthcare

please learn something more about healthcare and economics

umm i never said it would work. I actually said it would never happen because it wouldn't make money.

Please stop being so condescending

Amit
08-11-2006, 04:21 PM
Taxing people because they're overweight is absolutely tyrannical and rediculous.

that's why i said "or give them benefits incentives to work out"

then argue to make it illegal, not to make the prices rediculous so those who are already addicted have another payment to worry about everyday on top of rent, utilities and food.

making something illegal does not do anything but drive up demand

making something economically unattractive however is a double victory for the government

umm i never said it would work. I actually said it would never happen because it wouldn't make money.

and without money you wouldn't have healthcare or other community services

Please stop being so condescending

why

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 04:28 PM
that's why i said "or give them benefits incentives to work out"

well my post was in response to the former of the two.

making something illegal does not do anything but drive up demand

making something economically unattractive however is a double victory for the government

I see your point but i still don't want to pay 9 dollars because i feel like smoking a pack over a weekend while hanging out with some friends. And i doubt anyone addicted is going to have a very good time managing with prices like that either.



and without money you wouldn't have healthcare or other community services

okay, what's your point?


why

because it's unnecessary to treat everyone that disagrees with you like their an idiot.

Amit
08-11-2006, 04:35 PM
I see your point but i still don't want to pay 9 dollars because i feel like smoking a pack over a weekend while hanging out with some friends. And i doubt anyone addicted is going to have a very good time managing with prices like that either.

the burden has to go somewhere

because it's unnecessary to treat everyone that disagrees with you like their an idiot.

only the ones who don't support their arguments

it has nothing to do with idiocy or whether they disagree or agree with me

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 04:38 PM
the burden has to go somewhere

so then who do we burden? The individual or society?

Amit
08-11-2006, 04:39 PM
so then who do we burden? The individual or society?

the individual who is burdening society

reciprocity

Futue te Ipsum
08-11-2006, 04:52 PM
People get sick for other reasons then cigarette smoke.True.
There are thousands of carsenagenic substances in the world, and many people's lives end at the hands of cancer. Smoking will bring this faster, but cancer is cancer at any age.Bloody hell. Do you have any idea how retarded what you're saying is? What are you proposing here, that we should not actively attempt to evade things which can and do kill people?

Cancer is always cancer but I'll let you into a little secret here. Just because you get it from smoking doesn't mean that you would've got it from something else, and yes there are "carsenagenic" [sic] substances all around but you'd be hard pressed to find a legal over the counter concentration of them as deadly and addictive as tobacco.
What our health service needs to do is invest in natural medicines. Too bad that'll never happen becuase it doesn't make any money.Rofl. Why don't we pop out the homeopathy whilst we're at? Then whilst our patients are busy dying due to sub standard treatments of unrefined "natural" compunds that aren't nearly as potent nor safe as modern drugs we can step back and look at how absurd the idea of using treatments because they are natural is when there area oh so many better alternatives.

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 04:55 PM
the individual who is burdening society

reciprocity

So to what extent would you infringe on personal freedoms to better society? Killing old people who are a burden? Or something more moderate?

I think if we want to get people to quit smoking, the best solution is to create a plan with cigarette companies to gradually reduce the amount of nicotine they add in cigarettes until only the natual nicotine remains. We wouldn't have nearly as many health problems or people addicted if there was less nicotine in the cigarette to start with.

Amit
08-11-2006, 05:00 PM
So to what extent would you infringe on personal freedoms to better society? Killing old people who are a burden? Or something more moderate?

i know what i find objectionable but i can't tell you the exact defining point sorry

I think if we want to get people to quit smoking, the best solution is to create a plan with cigarette companies to gradually reduce the amount of nicotine they add in cigarettes until only the natual nicotine remains. We wouldn't have nearly as many health problems or people addicted if there was less nicotine in the cigarette to start with.

that sounds like a really good solution and i'd agree to it

but it isn't just nicotine which is harmful in cigarettes

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 05:01 PM
but it's what keeps people smoking long after they want to quit.

Amit
08-11-2006, 05:02 PM
i know

i'm just saying

sexymuffin
08-11-2006, 05:04 PM
oh okay then

lfantwister
08-11-2006, 07:16 PM
Bloody hell. Do you have any idea how retarded what you're saying is? What are you proposing here, that we should not actively attempt to evade things which can and do kill people?

Like cars. Do you know how many people are killed in car crashes? By that logic let's get rid of all that new-fangled transport.

Futue te Ipsum
08-11-2006, 07:27 PM
Like cars. Do you know how many people are killed in car crashes? By that logic let's get rid of all that new-fangled transport.yeah, because cigarettes clearly serve just as important service to humanity as cars d...

Oh, wait, I mean get a grip on reality and actually think about what you're saying before making me reply to this inane garbage.

lfantwister
08-11-2006, 07:28 PM
yeah, because cigarettes clearly serve just as important service to humanity as cars d...

Oh, wait, I mean get a grip on reality and actually think about what you're saying before making me reply to this inane garbage.

lol don't lie, you enjoyed it

Futue te Ipsum
08-11-2006, 07:29 PM
True.

Reaganista
08-11-2006, 08:16 PM
that kind of fascist thinking works great on paper but not so great in real life
yeah that's what hitler did
he was just trying to get the jews in shape

Against Miik!
08-12-2006, 12:17 AM
what

I'm just saying there is no reason to penalize smokers in the way that it is being done. They should be held responsible for bolstering the arts program in a city. Those are two completely unrelated things. Its not an illegal act, so why should you have to pay a penalty?

Amit
08-12-2006, 12:34 AM
I'm just saying there is no reason to penalize smokers in the way that it is being done. They should be held responsible for bolstering the arts program in a city.

what

Those are two completely unrelated things. Its not an illegal act, so why should you have to pay a penalty?

umm a tax isn't a penalty

Against Miik!
08-12-2006, 12:46 AM
umm a tax isn't a penalty

You incinuated that it was. That the only reason for the tax increase in the situation I presented was because smokers put a preventable burden on society. What else would that mean besides its a penalty?

Amit
08-12-2006, 01:00 AM
You incinuated that it was. That the only reason for the tax increase in the situation I presented was because smokers put a preventable burden on society. What else would that mean besides its a penalty?

if reciprocity is a penalty then i suppose yes then this reciprocal tax is a penalty

sexymuffin
08-12-2006, 01:00 AM
Was it you who said in another thread that someone can choose not to be addicted? Maybe jacking up the prices will help them to make that choice.

No, but i agree with it. That still doesn't change the fact that if I was addicted to cigarettes, I'd rather not go through the hell that quitting is. Nicotine is incredibly addictive, and although it only takes three days to quit, for someone who has a stressful job and family life, those three days will seem like hell on earth just becuase the government wants a little more cash.

And if the government didn't profit so much off these taxes, they WOULD hound the tobacco companies down and lessen the nicotine.

Amit
08-12-2006, 01:08 AM
No, but i agree with it. That still doesn't change the fact that if I was addicted to cigarettes, I'd rather not go through the hell that quitting is. Nicotine is incredibly addictive, and although it only takes three days to quit, for someone who has a stressful job and family life, those three days will seem like hell on earth just becuase the government wants a little more cash.

three days of individual suffering doesn't sound bad at all have you ever had a really bad flu or stomach infection

And if the government didn't profit so much off these taxes, they WOULD hound the tobacco companies down and lessen the nicotine.

well not really considering how powerful tobacco is in politics

it's a win-win for tobacco and government anyway

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 01:31 AM
What else would that mean besides its a penalty?
it's a market correction for an externality dammit

Amit
08-12-2006, 01:32 AM
it's a market correction for an externality dammit

exactly

sexymuffin
08-12-2006, 01:33 AM
three days of individual suffering doesn't sound bad at all have you ever had a really bad flu or stomach infection

You can't compare an infectious disease with addiction. but i get your point.

well not really considering how powerful tobacco is in politics

it's a win-win for tobacco and government anyway

and a screw over for the people. I'm not saying it would happen, but it's what should happen if the government really wants people to quit.

It's all about money though.

Amit
08-12-2006, 01:35 AM
You can't compare an infectious disease with addiction. but i get your point.

the basic pain and suffering nerve reactions are still the same

and a screw over for the people. I'm not saying it would happen, but it's what should happen if the government really wants people to quit.

It's all about money though.

it's a screw over only for the people who are screwing up healthcare

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 01:38 AM
and taxation serves both those purposes
it's the perfect solution

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 01:48 AM
it raises money and it gives incentive to quit

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 02:01 AM
No it wouldn't it would be some ridiculous overrought commie crap used for no reason other than you not liking taxes

sexymuffin
08-12-2006, 02:02 AM
No it wouldn't it would be some ridiculous overrought commie crap used for no reason other than you not liking taxes

they illegalize marijuana, why can't they limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes?

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 02:04 AM
lol

they illegalize marijuana, why can't they limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes?
because then smokers would just import
unless we want another illegally smuggled drug to conduct a 'war' on

sexymuffin
08-12-2006, 02:07 AM
because then smokers would just import
unless we want another illegally smuggled drug to conduct a 'war' on


Which is why you reduce the nicotine in cigarettes gradually, so it doesn't make a big impact. The majority of smokers wouldn't even notice.

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 02:11 AM
accept the US government has accountability and transparency
and the US people have the internet
everybody would know about it before it even got out of committee and they'd all start smoking damn russian cigarettes

sexymuffin
08-12-2006, 02:17 AM
ugh fuck russia srsly

Amit
08-12-2006, 02:17 AM
damn russians

Against Miik!
08-12-2006, 02:27 AM
Which is why you reduce the nicotine in cigarettes gradually, so it doesn't make a big impact. The majority of smokers wouldn't even notice.

Well now thats just not cool

Smoking however is:smoke:

Sublymonal messages ftw

Amit
08-12-2006, 02:39 AM
mm what's cool is paying for my oncologist uncle's latest porsche 911

sexymuffin
08-12-2006, 02:51 AM
eggo, im sorry but i have to say it because it's true.

Ha > OK

ChickenStu
08-12-2006, 04:04 PM
it raises money and it gives incentive to quit

I am baffled by the irony in your name and your desire to influence and control people with taxation.

Reaganista
08-12-2006, 09:44 PM
reagan passed the two largest tax increases in history

ChickenStu
08-12-2006, 10:05 PM
He passed the largest tax increase in peacetime in history, if you consider the cold war 'peacetime'.

The others didnt even come close.

All the increases he passed didnt measure up to the erta he signed in 1981.

Reaganista
08-13-2006, 01:51 AM
well as long as you get that your confusion was unfounded

Volumnius Flush
08-14-2006, 02:01 PM
If you really want to find out who is behind the cigarette tax, it's Ben Bernanke. He issued a private Order to state legislators March 2005 warning of economic collapse unless we taxed cigarettes.

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-15-2006, 04:20 AM
If you really want to find out who is behind the cigarette tax, it's Ben Bernanke. He issued a private Order to state legislators March 2005 warning of economic collapse unless we taxed cigarettes.

I think governments can work out that they should tax cigarrettes without private orders

Damage
08-15-2006, 08:06 PM
Really, the govenment, and cigarette companies for that matter, have free license to do pretty much whatever they want to the price of cigarettes. People will still buy cigarettes because they're an almost completely inelastic good. No matter what the price, people addicted to them need them. The only thing that will happen is it will make people less attracted to starting in the first place.

nowhesingsnowhesobs
08-15-2006, 08:29 PM
It is quite possible to kick smoking habits and the high cost of cigarettes is quite a good incentive.

Damage
08-15-2006, 08:42 PM
It is quite possible to kick smoking habits and the high cost of cigarettes is quite a good incentive.

You're aware that for many, smoking is harder to kick than heroin, right?

It's just easier for people to shell out the money to continue doing what they're doing, especially if that thing is addictive. There's a reason people will buy a $200 bottle of scotch.

Amit
08-15-2006, 08:44 PM
You're aware that for many, smoking is harder to kick than heroin, right?

It's just easier for people to shell out the money to continue doing what they're doing, especially if that thing is addictive. There's a reason people will buy a $200 bottle of scotch.

and so, the government (and taxpayers) wins either way

Damage
08-15-2006, 08:46 PM
and so, the government (and taxpayers) wins either way

Exactly. A good's elasticity is defined by when the customer feels that they are "losing" and decides that, in this case, quitting (or finding a substitute good) is the better option.

Auberge le Mouton Noir
08-16-2006, 04:25 AM
You're aware that for many, smoking is harder to kick than heroin, right?

It's just easier for people to shell out the money to continue doing what they're doing, especially if that thing is addictive. There's a reason people will buy a $200 bottle of scotch.

SURVEY

Have you ever been addicted to nicotine?

O Yes O No O Still am

If you answered Yes, on a scale of one to 10, how ahrd was it to kick the habit?

___


Have you ever been addicted to Heroin?

O Yes O No O Still am

If you answered Yes, on a scale of one to 10, how hard was it to kick the habit?

___



Is that the kind of research that you're saying has taken place?

Futue te Ipsum
08-16-2006, 04:44 AM
Most people who smoke don't take herroin, and it's pretty easy to kick a habit if you, errr, don't have it.

Or pretty damn impossible, depending on your perspective.

Damage
08-16-2006, 04:00 PM
Hmmm. I'm not understanding why people are thinking it's inconceivable that people that take heroin might smoke as well. To answer your question, yes, I am assuming people who were users of each were asked which habit was harder to kick. I'm not seeing the problem there...