gekkobear – Your claim seems to be that reducing unhealthy habits actually increases long-term health costs due to people living longer. This statement is only true if you consider money spent on treating avoidable health issues just as good as treating unavoidable health issues.

maleman on April 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM

First, it isn’t “my claim”. I’m not the one that wrote, studied, researched, or peer reviewed that article. My opinion, although impressive I’ll admit is still generally considered less than a peer reviewed and researched article with statistical analysis published in a medical journal… to some people anyhow.

Second, the spending isn’t “just as good”? It’s different money? I didn’t realize we had different types of money spent on health care, some for “good” spending, and some for “bad” spending and the costs were different based on how it was spent.

The original argument I was responding to was that reducing smoking will reduce health care costs. Of course now that a properly sourced and peer reviewed study shows that to be false, the claim changes… why am I not surprised?

Would you like to clarify the new improved claim that justifies this tax; or should we not bother seeing as the goalposts will be hauled around again as soon as that argument also fails?

Go ahead, explain how “good spending” of say $1 million costs less than “bad spending” of $1 million dollars and money is entirely different. Or claim that the costs are now irrelevant… or whatever.

Just let me know when you’re done moving the goalposts.

Have the PC police use the same tobacco jihad tactics against anyone buying booze. That is, start a campaign to ridicule and belittle anyone seen drinking. Make them societies outcasts. Afterall, anyone who abides in alcohol is a potential danger to themselves and others. They aren’t making the proper personal choices.

Oh, what’s that, – it’s ok to tax those stupid smokers you say. Those cigarettes aren’t good for them and we need to nanny them into proper behavior.
/s

And remember these cautionary words from C. S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. “

Warning: Tax Increase brought to you by Barack Obama. Smoke all you want, Dems need the money!

Remember the windfall profits the states got as a result of the class action lawsuit against Big Tobacco back in the 90′s? Where was the money supposed to go? To schools, smoking cessation programs, health care, et al right? Well, what happened when they started running out of that money? They started drives to tax more on cigarettes to save our children’s education and the like did they not? So there was an effective double-tax implemented as a result. One when the tobacco companies were sued (they had to pass the price of that to the consumer) and one after the settlement money was burned through by the government.Well, guess what, when more smokers either give up the habit (which is always a good thing but a purely private choice) or go to the black market to get their nicotine fix; what’s going to happen to the tax revenue. It’s going to go D-O-W-N! At that point, all this money that is going to the government coffers now, will diminish and will need to be replenished by guess what…. ANOTHER TAX!!! On what you ask? It’s the government, they’ll find something wrong with something else that affects something in your body that you obviously have no way of controlling your consumption with your own free will. That new tax will be used to cover the shortcomings of the previous tax it took the place of. Then once that tax runs its course, there’ll be another one after that. And then another, and another……….

Another example, look at federal and state gas taxes. These taxes are supposed to be for transportation infrastructure mainly in the name of roads, right? We need a safe and dependable system of roads. The government relies on folks driving their vehicles to get the money via the fuel taxes to keep our road systems safe and dependable. In fact, it behooves the government to ask people to buy bigger gas guzzling vehicles so the amount of fuel folks buy is increased thereby increasing the amount of money going into the government coffers, right? But, what does government do? It levies confiscatory and draconian regulations on vehicle fuel mileage (can you say C.A.F.E?). What happens when vehicles do not use as much fuel or become too expensive to drive and remain on the driveway? You got it, they don’t use as much fuel. When enough people don’t use enough fuel (since they now drive more hybrids), the amount of fuel used as a whole goes down and therefore, the amount of tax revenue generated to the government goes down. Knowing that government can never do with less, they have to find a way to get around this debacle of their own creation. What do they do? You guessed it again, find another tax source as a replacement. In real life, the same government that is enforcing rules to limit fuel consumption for the “betterment” of our environment (to the great detriment of our auto industry now being partly run by our President) is now looking at the possibility of mounting satellite receivers on our cars to track our mileage so we’ll be effectively taxed by the mile (and on fuel consumption since that’s not going away) so the government can recoup the money it lost when it required vehicles to get better fuel mileage. Think I’m kidding? It’s already being discussed in California, Oregon and Washington (state and DC).

Long story short, you can bet government doesn’t have your best interests in mind when they passed this monstrosity. They had their own self interest in mind. It’s just another step down the path of servitude.
Thanks!Jason

Remember the windfall profits the states got as a result of the class action lawsuit against Big Tobacco back in the 90′s? Where was the money supposed to go? To schools, smoking cessation programs, health care, et al right? Well, what happened when they started running out of that money? They started drives to tax more on cigarettes to save our children’s education and the like did they not? So there was an effective double-tax implemented as a result. One when the tobacco companies were sued (they had to pass the price of that to the consumer) and one after the settlement money was burned through by the government.Well, guess what, when more smokers either give up the habit (which is always a good thing but a purely private choice) or go to the black market to get their nicotine fix; what’s going to happen to the tax revenue. It’s going to go D-O-W-N! At that point, all this money that is going to the government coffers now, will diminish and will need to be replenished by guess what…. ANOTHER TAX!!! On what you ask? It’s the government, they’ll find something wrong with something else that affects something in your body that you obviously have no way of controlling your consumption with your own free will. That new tax will be used to cover the shortcomings of the previous tax it took the place of. Then once that tax runs its course, there’ll be another one after that. And then another, and another……….

Another example, look at federal and state gas taxes. These taxes are supposed to be for transportation infrastructure mainly in the name of roads, right? We need a safe and dependable system of roads. The government relies on folks driving their vehicles to get the money via the fuel taxes to keep our road systems safe and dependable. In fact, it behooves the government to ask people to buy bigger gas guzzling vehicles so the amount of fuel folks buy is increased thereby increasing the amount of money going into the government coffers, right? But, what does government do? It levies confiscatory and draconian regulations on vehicle fuel mileage (can you say C.A.F.E?). What happens when vehicles do not use as much fuel or become too expensive to drive and remain on the driveway? You got it, they don’t use as much fuel. When enough people don’t use enough fuel (since they now drive more hybrids), the amount of fuel used as a whole goes down and therefore, the amount of tax revenue generated to the government goes down. Knowing that government can never do with less, they have to find a way to get around this debacle of their own creation. What do they do? You guessed it again, find another tax source as a replacement. In real life, the same government that is enforcing rules to limit fuel consumption for the “betterment” of our environment (to the great detriment of our auto industry now being partly run by our President) is now looking at the possibility of mounting satellite receivers on our cars to track our mileage so we’ll be effectively taxed by the mile (and on fuel consumption since that’s not going away) so the government can recoup the money it lost when it required vehicles to get better fuel mileage. Think I’m kidding? It’s already being discussed in California, Oregon and Washington (state and DC).

Long story short, you can bet government doesn’t have your best interests in mind when they passed this monstrosity. They had their own self interest in mind. It’s just another step down the path of servitude.
Thanks!Jason

Never presume malice when stupidity is a viable option… so which is it? Stupidity or a desire to ruin America?

Equally funny how the ‘tards rant about a national sales tax being regressive yet are strangely silent on cap-n-trade.

There’s tons of StarBucks around the country, heck, even our small town of 40,000 just opened up their 4th store.

Everybody must drink coffee!

Why don’t we put a $1.00 tax on a cup of coffee and think of all the money we could bring in!

:-P

You are so screwed, Dude.

Badger40 on April 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM

And can’t even afford the cigarette any longer! What a letdown.

What happened to personal responsibility? Oops, I forgot. Never miss a chance to bash Obama.

Grow Fins on April 2, 2009 at 10:40 AM

You mean like personal responsibility to choose to smoke or not? Or take care of your personal health how you see fit? Or shouldering the responsibility of the consequences of those choices? How about the opposite of the Gov’t making you choose their choice by making it so the ‘wrong’ choice so expensive you have no other option.

I seem to recall another progressive movement that resulted in an amendment to the constitution that ultimately was repealed because it caused so much chaos and illegal activity. The same situation will arise from this. Contra-ban will be the wave of the next era. Canada already experiences this. In the early 90′s they passed taxes on cigarettes that were so high, they lost revenue as the smokers just imported their smokes from us illegally. Cases of cigarettes were trucked, shipped, and smuggled in a myriad of ways. All in an effort to not pay the taxes. The funny part was the explosion of sales on cigarette cases, like from the 50′s, stainless steel and all that so you didn’t know if the cigarettes had been taxed appropriately.

Do you suppose Obama buys his fags on the black market to avoid the taxes like all of his cabinet appointees? Is “black market” racist? Crap!

jimmy2shoes on April 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM

You are racist and homophobic.
You are so screwed, Dude.

so according to you, the poor and working class are more sinful than others? (wanna help the poor and the working class? donate to acorn!)

sesquipedalian on April 2, 2009 at 7:51 AM

Not more sinful. Just without the resources to, say, deduct the cigs as a business expense bcs we can’t afford to hire create accountants.
Donating to ACORN would be the same as donating to the Communist Party.
No thanks.

bonnie_ on April 2, 2009 at 10:30 AM

Sorry for you.
Hey I got the he!! beat out of me while I was growing up.
I think they should tax boxing.

Who is going to decide what gets taxed next? McDonald’s?
It’s coming.
Don’t encourage the slippery slope bcs of a bad childhood.
I don’t.

TrickyDick on April 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM

I think TJ would agree we need a revolution today.
He would have been at the forefront-along with other crazy liberty-lovers like Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc.

“When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

But taxes on cigarettes are good for you, and so are the trillions spent on everything but stimulus, so that means the taxes to pay for those trillions is good for you too.

We’ll all be taking “bus” tours to states/Indian reservations/etc., where we can purchase, stealthly, cartons of cigarettes. *haha

Then, we’ll see the news.

:)

Obama’s federal tax will turn people into criminals, technically.