Good On You Aust/NZ..

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who's telling people they can't smoke?

Setting an obscene tax on cigarettes is just short of an outright ban.

It's only an obscene tax for those who smoke cigarettes.

Exactly. What right do we have to punish smokers for making a personal choice?

 

[Mr Natural]

Setting an obscene tax on cigarettes is just short of an outright ban.

It's only an obscene tax for those who smoke cigarettes.

Exactly. What right do we have to punish smokers for making a personal choice?

They're not being punished, they're just paying more.

The choice is all theirs.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's only an obscene tax for those who smoke cigarettes.

Exactly. What right do we have to punish smokers for making a personal choice?

They're not being punished, they're just paying more.

The choice is all theirs.

A higher tax on cigarettes isn't punishing smokers for their habit?

 

[Mr Natural]

Exactly. What right do we have to punish smokers for making a personal choice?

They're not being punished, they're just paying more.

The choice is all theirs.

A higher tax on cigarettes isn't punishing smokers for their habit?

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They're not being punished, they're just paying more.

The choice is all theirs.

A higher tax on cigarettes isn't punishing smokers for their habit?

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

So if they don't want to be a part of the public health care option they can opt out and then the taxes on their cigarettes will go away?

 

[Mr Natural]

A higher tax on cigarettes isn't punishing smokers for their habit?

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

So if they don't want to be a part of the public health care option they can opt out and then the taxes on their cigarettes will go away?

I'm sure they can buy their own healthcare plan if they choose but the cigarette tax stays.

Sometimes life is unfair.

 

[jillian]

A higher tax on cigarettes isn't punishing smokers for their habit?

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

So if they don't want to be a part of the public health care option they can opt out and then the taxes on their cigarettes will go away?

only if i get back that portion of my tax money that was used to fund the iraq war

 

[froggy]

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

So if they don't want to be a part of the public health care option they can opt out and then the taxes on their cigarettes will go away?

only if i get back that portion of my tax money that was used to fund the iraq war

I guess paying that little bit of tax broke you, boohoo you dried up old prune,

 

[jillian]

poor bitter froggy troll....

 

[froggy]

poor bitter froggy troll....

You invited me to play your game, getting to rough for ya, haggy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

So if they don't want to be a part of the public health care option they can opt out and then the taxes on their cigarettes will go away?

I'm sure they can buy their own healthcare plan if they choose but the cigarette tax stays.

Sometimes life is unfair.

So it is a punishment then. It's punishing smokers for smoking by imposing an undeserved tax on them.

 

[Dr Grump]

ahem, getting back on topic...;oP

As you can imagine, here in Oz, it was big news. However, they did speak to a doctor who has put some research into smoking. He said an overseas European study (being tv, he didn't quote exactly where it was from) showed that for every 10 percent increase in tax on ciggies, 4 percent of people gave up. This latest hike is a 25 percent increase, which means 10 percent of smokers will probably give up. He said, a large number of smokers know the habit is bad for them, don't really like it but are addicted, and this kind of thing is the final straw to make them quit. I gave up 12 years ago, and outside of having my two sons is the best decision I ever made in my life....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Punishment would be taking them away altogether. Making them pay higher taxes is part of the price of admission.

So if they don't want to be a part of the public health care option they can opt out and then the taxes on their cigarettes will go away?

only if i get back that portion of my tax money that was used to fund the iraq war

The difference being that you weren't singled out as a certain segment of society to pay higher taxes.

 

[Dr Grump]

So it is a punishment then. It's punishing smokers for smoking by imposing an undeserved tax on them.

no, it's saying if you have a habit that causes ill effects, and there is no way to negate those ill effects, you are going to pay your own way via the health system...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So it is a punishment then. It's punishing smokers for smoking by imposing an undeserved tax on them.

no, it's saying if you have a habit that causes ill effects, and there is no way to negate those ill effects, you are going to pay your own way via the health system...

But you said yourself that they can opt out of the public option for a private option. Will those who opt out of the public option be exempt from the tax? Of course not. So that flimsy excuse is out the window.

 

[Cuyo]

Funny how, in the subject of cigarette/smoker issues, all political convictions go right out the window and it's split between the smokers and non-smokers!

The otherwise conservative/anti-tax crowd is allllllll for it... If they're a non-smoker.

And the lefty/anything for the greater good crowd suddenly thinks this is FASCISM... If they're a smoker.

I'm a smoker. Most of you know my politics but they're irrelevant here. I think the "Make the smokers pay for it" philosophy is bullshit. I think the health effects are overblown (in fact that's pretty well settled), although it's clearly healthier not to smoke at all.

Here's my main gripe. The argument is that you are a bigger drain on the healthcare system by being a smoker. So how about a fat tax? How bout warning labels on a Big Mac, and hey, shouldn't that Big Mac be taxed so heavily it costs $14 by now? After all, eating McDonalds every day will kill you far faster than smoking cigarettes every day, does anybody question that?

It's about moderation. If you enjoy smoking, you should do it in moderation, same as eating McDonalds or any of the other 99 cent heart attacks out there. And if they're going to levy exorbitant taxes on tobacco, and demonize it's use, project it as being immoral - All those same things should happen to food that makes you FAT and UNHEALTHY.

That's my stand.

 

[Dr Grump]

So it is a punishment then. It's punishing smokers for smoking by imposing an undeserved tax on them.

no, it's saying if you have a habit that causes ill effects, and there is no way to negate those ill effects, you are going to pay your own way via the health system...

But you said yourself that they can opt out of the public option for a private option. Will those who opt out of the public option be exempt from the tax? Of course not. So that flimsy excuse is out the window.

No flimsy excuse...how many smokers do you think are covered under the private health system down here (hint: Not many)....

 

[Dr Grump]

Funny how, in the subject of cigarette/smoker issues, all political convictions go right out the window and it's split between the smokers and non-smokers!

The otherwise conservative/anti-tax crowd is allllllll for it... If they're a non-smoker.

And the lefty/anything for the greater good crowd suddenly thinks this is FASCISM... If they're a smoker.

I'm a smoker. Most of you know my politics but they're irrelevant here. I think the "Make the smokers pay for it" philosophy is bullshit. I think the health effects are overblown (in fact that's pretty well settled), although it's clearly healthier not to smoke at all.

Here's my main gripe. The argument is that you are a bigger drain on the healthcare system by being a smoker. So how about a fat tax? How bout warning labels on a Big Mac, and hey, shouldn't that Big Mac be taxed so heavily it costs $14 by now? After all, eating McDonalds every day will kill you far faster than smoking cigarettes every day, does anybody question that?

It's about moderation. If you enjoy smoking, you should do it in moderation, same as eating McDonalds or any of the other 99 cent heart attacks out there. And if they're going to levy exorbitant taxes on tobacco, and demonize it's use, project it as being immoral - All those same things should happen to food that makes you FAT and UNHEALTHY.

That's my stand.

Who really eats Macca's EVERY day vis-a-vis the number of smokers? Also said that you can negate the negatives of fat foods by eating in moderation and exercising. There is no way to redeem the negative affects of smoking.

I would be interested to see what aspects are overblown?

No, even smoking in moderation is bad for your health. There are NO pluses to smoking...

 

[Cuyo]

Funny how, in the subject of cigarette/smoker issues, all political convictions go right out the window and it's split between the smokers and non-smokers!

The otherwise conservative/anti-tax crowd is allllllll for it... If they're a non-smoker.

And the lefty/anything for the greater good crowd suddenly thinks this is FASCISM... If they're a smoker.

I'm a smoker. Most of you know my politics but they're irrelevant here. I think the "Make the smokers pay for it" philosophy is bullshit. I think the health effects are overblown (in fact that's pretty well settled), although it's clearly healthier not to smoke at all.

Here's my main gripe. The argument is that you are a bigger drain on the healthcare system by being a smoker. So how about a fat tax? How bout warning labels on a Big Mac, and hey, shouldn't that Big Mac be taxed so heavily it costs $14 by now? After all, eating McDonalds every day will kill you far faster than smoking cigarettes every day, does anybody question that?

It's about moderation. If you enjoy smoking, you should do it in moderation, same as eating McDonalds or any of the other 99 cent heart attacks out there. And if they're going to levy exorbitant taxes on tobacco, and demonize it's use, project it as being immoral - All those same things should happen to food that makes you FAT and UNHEALTHY.

That's my stand.

Who really eats Macca's EVERY day vis-a-vis the number of smokers? Also said that you can negate the negatives of fat foods by eating in moderation and exercising. There is no way to redeem the negative affects of smoking.

I would be interested to see what aspects are overblown?

No, even smoking in moderation is bad for your health. There are NO pluses to smoking...

Exercise can offset the effects of smoking as well:
Exercise can do a smoker's body good - Los Angeles Times

And here's how I believe the health effects are overblown. Smoking increases the risk of heart disease, nobody questions that. Being overweight also increases the risk, and nobody questions that. So when a 300-lb smoker dies of heart disease, which one was it? My belief is due to the moral warfare on smoking, this person's death is chalked up as another "Smoking related death." It's now perfectly acceptable to be a non-smoking zealot, but harboring bad faith toward overweight people is just not as morally acceptable yet.

We all know or knew a smoker who lived into their 80s. But how many 300+lbers do we know that do so? Not too many. I think, in this country anyway, the shit food habits are the far, far bigger public health epidemic than smoking.

And you're right regarding the moderation argument; Many more smokers smoke every day than McDonalds customers who eat McDonalds every day. I stick by my assertion. If you're going to sin tax the cigarettes, then McDonalds gets sin taxed too. If you only eat the stuff once in awhile, you won't really feel the effect of the tax now will you? Just as if you only smoke a rather benign pack a week or so, the tax will not hurt you as much either.

 

[Dr Grump]

Exercise can offset the effects of smoking as well:
Exercise can do a smoker's body good - Los Angeles Times

And here's how I believe the health effects are overblown. Smoking increases the risk of heart disease, nobody questions that. Being overweight also increases the risk, and nobody questions that. So when a 300-lb smoker dies of heart disease, which one was it? My belief is due to the moral warfare on smoking, this person's death is chalked up as another "Smoking related death." It's now perfectly acceptable to be a non-smoking zealot, but harboring bad faith toward overweight people is just not as morally acceptable yet.

We all know or knew a smoker who lived into their 80s. But how many 300+lbers do we know that do so? Not too many. I think, in this country anyway, the shit food habits are the far, far bigger public health epidemic than smoking.

And you're right regarding the moderation argument; Many more smokers smoke every day than McDonalds customers who eat McDonalds every day. I stick by my assertion. If you're going to sin tax the cigarettes, then McDonalds gets sin taxed too. If you only eat the stuff once in awhile, you won't really feel the effect of the tax now will you? Just as if you only smoke a rather benign pack a week or so, the tax will not hurt you as much either.

That article is pretty inconclusive and hardly backs up the argument.

Yep, my grandmother lived until she was 90 and started smoking when she was 12 and stopped when she was 89. She had emphysema for the last four years of her life. The tax payer paid for her oxygen bottle.

A pack a week is still doing you irreversible harm. My sister-in-law is a doctor. She said even though I gave up smoking 12 years ago, my lungs are permanently scarred.

As i said, there are remedies for eating too much food. Not so, with smoking.