My letter to the RNC.

[auditor0007]

George Burns smoked up to and including the day he died and he turned 100 by then.

I love when idiots bring up one person who smoked and lived to be 90 or 100 while ignoring the millions who don't make it to 70. ******* hilarious. You know what is worse than dying from cigarettes? It's spending the last ten years of your life hooked up to an oxygen tank just so you can breath and then dying.

 

[S.J.]

I love it when liberals turn on each other.

 

[auditor0007]

smoking increases the cost of your care on society.


making you pay the costs of your actions is completely reasonable

So does eating at McDonald's 4 times a week.
So does drinking every day.
So does eating high fat and salty foods.
So does people sitting at their keyboards eating all this stuff
and passing judgement on the rest of us....

Any of the things you listed can be done in moderation without causing any real harm to anyone. The same cannot be said for smoking cigarettes. You can smoke cigarettes in moderation, but they are still harmful to the person smoking and to anyone breathing in any second hand smoke. And please do not tell me there is no proof that second hand smoke is dangerous. That is as disingenuous as the cigarette companies lying to us for years that smoking wasn't dangerous and that it didn't cause lung cancer.

 

[sfcalifornia]

George Burns smoked up to and including the day he died and he turned 100 by then.

I love when idiots bring up one person who smoked and lived to be 90 or 100 while ignoring the millions who don't make it to 70. ******* hilarious. You know what is worse than dying from cigarettes? It's spending the last ten years of your life hooked up to an oxygen tank just so you can breath and then dying.

Of everyone on this board I would say Katzndogz would be the one most likely to claim smoking makes you live longer.

 

[sfcalifornia]

I just sent the following message to the Republican National Committee:



Here's a demographic you can capture right now: Smokers. I'm one, and though I've voted Democrat in the past 3 elections and am not a single issue voter, I HAVE had enough of higher tobacco taxes! As you well know, the President is proposing even more tobacco taxes in his budget request and its high time the nanny-staters find some other whipping boy to pillage. Why not get out front on this tax right now and style it as an issue of fairness, which it is?

Almost 1 in 5 adult American's still smoke, which equates to a potential 40 million + voters. The GOP doesn't have to be pro-smoking to be pro-fairness and you have the opportunity right now to attract perhaps millions of votes simply by standing up for the right of smokers not be continually raped by those who claim to know what's best for them. There is little to be lost by opposing the health-Nazi's and much to be gained.

Will you?

If 20% of American adults still smoke that means 80% of Americans don't smoke and the largest percentage of the non-smokers more than likely hate it. Plenty of GOP will oppose the higher taxes and nanny-state on principle but I think a larger percentage of GOP hate cigarettes even more. I'm sorry Oldguy, on the whole, nobody has empathy for smokers except other smokers.

I was pissed when California imposed the smoking laws on public places way back when because I was a smoker then. I realize now those smoking laws made life such a pain in the ass, they were instrumental in helping me quit. And I'm so glad I quit.

How expensive does a pack of cigarettes have to get Oldguy before you quit?

 

[Oldguy]

I always felt that tobacco taxes were unfair until I quit smoking. Let me explain. It is a known fact that smoking kills. This is a fact that tobacco companies have tried to deny forever, but there is no denying that smoking takes years off of one's life and adds to medical costs. Yes, government wants to be big brother when it comes to smoking, and this is one case where I don't mind them being big brother. Now, while I do see it as somewhat unfair to those who already smoke, these are not the true targets of the higher taxes. The target is the young person who does not yet smoke.

When I started smoking around 1980, cigarettes cost $.75 per pack. Minimum wage at that time was $3.10 per hour, so I could buy four packs of cigarettes with one hour's pay. Basically, smoking was a fairly cheap habit, even for an high school kid working a part-time job. Paying that $.75 for a pack of smokes wasn't going to break my bank or make me think twice as to whether or not it was a good investment. Now, let's look at the cost for a pack of smokes today. In almost every state, the cheapest decent pack of smokes you will find costs well over $5.00. Minimum wage is $7.25 in most states, so a young person earning minimum wage would spend nearly an hour's pay for a pack of cigarettes. If that person works 20 hours per week, then smoking a pack per day will cost the kid over one quarter of his/her total earnings, just to smoke. That's enough to make a lot of kids think twice about making smoking a permanent habit or even trying it to begin with.

As far as smoking being a choice, that is an excuse that addicted people use to justify their need to quench their addiction. If there was no addiction, knowing the reality of the harm cigarettes cause, hardly anyone would smoke today. I smoked for nearly 30 years. After quitting, my only regret is that I ever started in the first place or that I didn't quit much sooner. Luckily, I am not experiencing any negative consequences and hopefully never will, but I missed out on a lot of things due to smoking. Luckily I still have some time to make up for it.

Anyway, my bottom line is that anything that stops young kids from starting to smoke is worth it, even if it hurts you or anyone else. You are old and wise enough to know that you really should quit, so I don't feel too bad for you having to pay some more if it helps stop a young person from starting. That young person just might be one of my kids or yours.

Economics of Tobacco Control - Myths and Facts

Are you also onboard with any other behavior modification tax in the name of "health," or is just in regards to cigarettes?

Ah, you want to know if I support the soda ban in NYC or something along those lines? No, I do not. Here is the thing; you can drink a soda in moderation or you can can be healthy and eat something bad for you every now and then without causing yourself or anyone else any harm. The same cannot be said for cigarettes. Smoking just one cigarette is bad for you, and anyone else who may breath in your second hand smoke. You cannot say that smoking cigarettes in moderation won't hurt you, because it does. Also, cigarettes are addictive where fatty foods are not. If someone overeats, it's because of their own personal issues, not because some chemical in the food is making them eat more.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/m...science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But, there's a larger issue here which escapes attention: Once we accept the idea that people can be taxed because of the effects of their behavior on others, the door is swung wide open to define just about any human activity as taxable because none of us live in a vacuum. No matter what you do, it will affect someone else, even if only indirectly.

Given the process of incrementalism and the history of finding ingenious new ways to impose taxes, there's no reason to presume that taxing behaviors which might affect others will stop with tobacco, is there? And, if it doesn't stop here, where does it stop?

We're well down the path of the par-boiled frog already. At what point do you feel the heat and say, "Enough!"

I still believe that if the GOP would get out front on the whole underlying issue, it could resonate with enough voters to make a difference for them in 2016, if not before. And, it would be a legitimate political cause because it does concern us all and it is something which a lot of people already feel.

 

[Oldguy]

Well instead of bitching on a mesageboard, why not write to the Prez and your senators and representative and offer a different solution? I think a 10-mills sales tax increase nationally would do wonders not just for the preschoolers but for the older schoolkids too.

Agree? Disagree? Tell your Congressperson.

Thanks, but I've already done that. Given my past experience, it may be months before I get a reply, if I get one at all.

In the meantime, public forums like this one are a legitimate exercise in free speech and participatory democracy because people outside this little community do read these things. Political parties and campaign organizations DO prowl through internet discussion sites because they're an easy way to judge public opinion.

 

[Oldguy]

I just sent the following message to the Republican National Committee:



Here's a demographic you can capture right now: Smokers. I'm one, and though I've voted Democrat in the past 3 elections and am not a single issue voter, I HAVE had enough of higher tobacco taxes! As you well know, the President is proposing even more tobacco taxes in his budget request and its high time the nanny-staters find some other whipping boy to pillage. Why not get out front on this tax right now and style it as an issue of fairness, which it is?

Almost 1 in 5 adult American's still smoke, which equates to a potential 40 million + voters. The GOP doesn't have to be pro-smoking to be pro-fairness and you have the opportunity right now to attract perhaps millions of votes simply by standing up for the right of smokers not be continually raped by those who claim to know what's best for them. There is little to be lost by opposing the health-Nazi's and much to be gained.

Will you?

If 20% of American adults still smoke that means 80% of Americans don't smoke and the largest percentage of the non-smokers more than likely hate it. Plenty of GOP will oppose the higher taxes and nanny-state on principle but I think a larger percentage of GOP hate cigarettes even more. I'm sorry Oldguy, on the whole, nobody has empathy for smokers except other smokers.

I was pissed when California imposed the smoking laws on public places way back when because I was a smoker then. I realize now those smoking laws made life such a pain in the ass, they were instrumental in helping me quit. And I'm so glad I quit.

How expensive does a pack of cigarettes have to get Oldguy before you quit?

I objected to no-smoking laws at first too, but now I support them until they get to the point of stupidity (open areas like beaches, for instance), but taxation for the purpose of behavior modification just flies so radically in the face of freedom that it galls me to no end. And, it's not just cigarette taxes. I'm equally opposed to taxes on any so-called "unhealthy" behaviors. We either have free choice or we do not. Which is it?

And, in a free society, what gives someone else the right to force me to quit doing anything which mostly just harms me? How far are you willing to take that concept? Nobody lighting a cigarette in your presence is going to kill you, any more than eating a Twinkie will kill you, so the question isn't whether or not cigarettes are harmful (they are), but how much risk are you willing to take to preserve your OWN freedom of choice?

It's easy to support making smokers quit through taxation because that public relations battle has already been won, but that's not the end of it, is it? There are new and less personally "dangerous" targets in the sights of the health-nut crowd, like junk foods and sugary drinks, and once you've accepted the idea that society has the right to compel smokers to quit through taxation, you have no grounds for opposing the same thing in regards to what people eat or drink, including you.

The point is that if you don't stand up for the rights of smokers not to be taxed into oblivion for the "common good," you leave yourself and others wide open to having the same thing applied to anything at all which can be defined as "unhealthy" or "dangerous."

Do you not yet see that this isn't about just tobacco anymore and that we all stand and fall together?

 

[zeke]

hey old guy. How do you like it when the welfare queen sits around eating chips and drinking pop till she weighs 400 pounds. At which point her diabetes and other illnesses kick in and her hospital bills go through the roof and guess who pays for it all? You and I.

Are YOU good with that? That anyone could engage in any unhealthy behaviour they choose and the rest of us will pick up the hospital tab for their poor choices. YOU think that a good idea?

You must. It's all about "personal choice". And the medical care? It's only money.

But if you don't want to be taxed on cigs, quit. You are paying a voluntary tax. I smoked for 30 years. I quit. I got tired of paying so damn much money to help kill myself.

 

[Oldguy]

hey old guy. How do you like it when the welfare queen sits around eating chips and drinking pop till she weighs 400 pounds. At which point her diabetes and other illnesses kick in and her hospital bills go through the roof and guess who pays for it all? You and I.

Are YOU good with that? That anyone could engage in any unhealthy behaviour they choose and the rest of us will pick up the hospital tab for their poor choices. YOU think that a good idea?

You must. It's all about "personal choice". And the medical care? It's only money.

But if you don't want to be taxed on cigs, quit. You are paying a voluntary tax. I smoked for 30 years. I quit. I got tired of paying so damn much money to help kill myself.

Really? Then how do you feel about this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/288121-taxes-on-guns.html

 

[Votto]

smoking increases the cost of your care on society.


making you pay the costs of your actions is completely reasonable

Bullshit. If the health-Nazi's are correct, I'll die sooner and that will actually SAVE you money in the long run. Moreover, if WE can be heavily taxed to offset the cost of our behavior, so can any other behavior deemed to be "unhealthy."

In fact, we can already see that happening with sugary drinks and junk food.

Where does it stop? How about right here, right now? The GOP could help themselves by opposing any further "health" taxes, and God knows they can use all the help they can get.

The time to restrain Frankenstein has passed. You should have thought of that before supporting the movement to create him.

Now shut up and do as your told by paying your "sin taxes", or do you have a problem paying "your fair share"?

Mwhahahahahaha!!

I've said it before and I'll say it again, liberals could care less about freedom except when it comes to their sexual practices and drug use.

Well guess what, it does not work that way. If you want a controlling governemnt over everything else, they will come for you someday as well.

 

[freedombecki]

George Burns smoked up to and including the day he died and he turned 100 by then.

He was an actor. He was paid to pretend a smoker could live to be 100. That's what thespians do.

 

[zeke]

Old guy. You really are becoming a rethug. I had never seen you deflect like you just did.

So we have gone from taxes on cigs to taxes on guns. I do believe I paid my taxes on the guns I own. Well except for the recent boxes of ammo a friend picked up on base.

But for sure if the tax on owning a gun was high enough, and the revenue used for caring for gunshot victums, I could probably go along with it. But the revenue would have to be used to treat gunshot victums. Which btw, are a much greater number than those killed by guns and gun shot victums cost hundreds of millions of dollars to treat. Most without insurance.

You like that idea?

 

[JoeB131]

I just sent the following message to the Republican National Committee:



Here's a demographic you can capture right now: Smokers. I'm one, and though I've voted Democrat in the past 3 elections and am not a single issue voter, I HAVE had enough of higher tobacco taxes! As you well know, the President is proposing even more tobacco taxes in his budget request and its high time the nanny-staters find some other whipping boy to pillage. Why not get out front on this tax right now and style it as an issue of fairness, which it is?

Almost 1 in 5 adult American's still smoke, which equates to a potential 40 million + voters. The GOP doesn't have to be pro-smoking to be pro-fairness and you have the opportunity right now to attract perhaps millions of votes simply by standing up for the right of smokers not be continually raped by those who claim to know what's best for them. There is little to be lost by opposing the health-Nazi's and much to be gained.

Will you?

Frederick the Great said of Empress Maria Teresa during the Partitions of Poland "The more she wept, the more she took." It could equally apply to Democrats and Tobacco.

The democrats do make a big deal about how horrible the tobacco companies are and how bad they feel for smokers, but they usually just do this as a pretext to get their hands into the money till. Government makes more off the sale of a pack of smokes than evil big tobacco does.

And anyone who follows my posts here know I'm no friend to big corporations.

Still, all that said, I just don't see coming out against the tobacco taxes as being a winner for the GOP. Clinton burned them repeatedly in the 1990's on this issue (Although Bob Dole screaming that there was no proof that cigarettes caused cancer wasn't a help.) Non-smokers such as myself don't care, that's a tax we don't have to pay. It might even finally encourage some of our loved ones who do still smoke to finally give up that filthy habit.

And the GOP, being the GOP, just can't take on ANY Issue without sounding like shills for big corporations. That's where they screwed up in the 1990's, where they went to the wall for Big Tobacco, and then whistleblowers leaked all those documents proving the tobacco companies WERE targetting teenagers.

 

[Votto]

Not surprisingly, this thread has gone all over the place, from personal attacks to anti/pro-Republican to the dangers of smoking to cheap advice.

So...let me refocus it: Is this an issue which the GOP could mine for support? I think it is and I hope they do because if somebody doesn't begin to oppose the nanny-state, the health-Nazi's and do-gooders will run us all down.

Comparing the DNC to Nazis?

Tsk, tsk.

 

[Votto]

Old guy. You really are becoming a rethug. I had never seen you deflect like you just did.

So we have gone from taxes on cigs to taxes on guns. I do believe I paid my taxes on the guns I own. Well except for the recent boxes of ammo a friend picked up on base.

But for sure if the tax on owning a gun was high enough, and the revenue used for caring for gunshot victums, I could probably go along with it. But the revenue would have to be used to treat gunshot victums. Which btw, are a much greater number than those killed by guns and gun shot victums cost hundreds of millions of dollars to treat. Most without insurance.

You like that idea?

He should be writing letters to the DNC. Just tell them that all you want are lower taxes on his smokes and he will vote for them indefinately. Then again, have they ever supported lower taxes for anything?

I guess he is right. The GOP is his only hope, but considering that the GOP exists in name only in today's ultra uber liberal society, he has no hope.

There is no more right anymoe, just wrong. Enjoy your one party fascism America.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm a smoker who does not share your view, so it would not capture my vote. And I've voted Republican or Libertarian in every presidential election except the last two.

I hope they raise the tax to $20 per pack. Anything that deters people from smoking is a good thing imho.

Here's where I have to disagree. It might be good to discourage the casual smoker who maybe smokes half a pack a day, but the two pack a day heavy smoker, he's just going to get screwed on that deal, because he can't quit if he wanted to.

Despite both my father and grandfather dying of lung cancer, members of my family still smoke. One brother had a stroke and the other a heart attack in the last year.

I think instead of Democrats trying to tax smokers into compliance, which is just a regressive tax on working folks, they should take the approach of regulating tobacco like a prescription drug. You can guy if you have a doctor's note, but your doctor has to be monitoring your health and making an effort to get you to quit.

 

[rightwinger]

I have no problem if the additional tax revenue from smokers was used for stop smoking programs, medical research or other smoking related issues

But even as a non-smoker, I think these taxes are just piling on and used to fill the general coffer

 

[jon_berzerk]

Old guy. You really are becoming a rethug. I had never seen you deflect like you just did.

So we have gone from taxes on cigs to taxes on guns. I do believe I paid my taxes on the guns I own. Well except for the recent boxes of ammo a friend picked up on base.

But for sure if the tax on owning a gun was high enough, and the revenue used for caring for gunshot victums, I could probably go along with it. But the revenue would have to be used to treat gunshot victums. Which btw, are a much greater number than those killed by guns and gun shot victums cost hundreds of millions of dollars to treat. Most without insurance.

You like that idea?

He should be writing letters to the DNC. Just tell them that all you want are lower taxes on his smokes and he will vote for them indefinately. Then again, have they ever supported lower taxes for anything?

I guess he is right. The GOP is his only hope, but considering that the GOP exists in name only in today's ultra uber liberal society, he has no hope.

There is no more right anymoe, just wrong. Enjoy your one party fascism America.

well he always has the black market

Trade In Black-Market Cigarettes: Hot, Dangerous : NPR

 

[Seawytch]

Cigarette taxes work.

Philip Morris: Jeffrey Harris of MIT calculated…that the 1982-83 round of price increases caused two
million adults to quit smoking and prevented 600,000 teenagers from starting to smoke…We don’t need to
have that happen again.