Smokers

[guy07]

I don't know if you guys got this in the states, but if you got any indian reserves around they usually sell cheap smokes. like 10 bucks for a bag of 100 or something. and yes, it comes in a bag.

[aesling]

In Canada, everything comes in a bag.

[godix]

I dunno. I am OK with a "sin tax" to be honest. It's like the lottery, though, like you said. It's a tax on the lower classes. As for the crap they are trying to pull on soda, that is crap. It's food/beverage. That should not be taxed so high.

It's not the government's job to regulate peoples behavior. If something is legal, that should be the end of the governments concern. If someone wants to get drunk & smoke while gambling, eating junk food, and guzzling a two liter of Mt Dew then why should that concern the government? Those are all legal behaviors. That should be the end of the discussion really. Otherwise you end up with absolutely moronic statements like 'It's ok for the government to try and control people in the case of one perfectly legal thing, but it's crap that they're trying to control people on this other perfectly legal thing'. From a logical point of view, your argument is bullshit. Either it's reasonable that the government tries controlling citizens or it isn't. Being all for it when you don't like the behavior but whining when it's a behavior you do like is just crap.

Not that it's important in this topic, but I go the other way as well. The government shouldn't be giving tax breaks to encourage owning homes, drive green cars, install solar cells, go to college, save for retirement, or whatever else you can get a tax break for. The tax code was not invented by Pavlov, it should not be viewed as a behavior modification tool.

Perhaps more inline with the topic: I smoke. Intellectually I know it's bad and I should quit. It just hasn't registered with me emotionally enough that I have seriously tried quitting.

For those that do smoke and are concerned about the costs, check the smoke shops in your area. They may have little cigars. There are only two differences between cigarettes and little cigars. First, cigarettes are wrapped in paper while little cigars are wrapped in tobacco leaf. They taste pretty much identical. When I first tried little cigars I put a cigarette and cigar on the table, closed my eyes, then randomly grabbed and smoked one. I honestly couldn't tell which I was smoking. The second different is price. A carton of name brand cigarettes in my area is ~$45. A carton of little cigars is $11.95.

[ZephyrStar]

I think the only time I smoke actual cigarettes anymore is when Brad or Liz offer me one. Otherwise I really enjoy a cigar among good company, so I get a pack of them a few times a year. They're also really good with whiskey or brandy. Good times.

[Otohiko]

I think the only time I smoke actual cigarettes anymore is when Brad or Liz offer me one. Otherwise I really enjoy a cigar among good company, so I get a pack of them a few times a year. They're also really good with whiskey or brandy. Good times.

x2, although I really can't handle cigarettes. I don't like the taste and I don't enjoy the nicotine buzz you get from them - I actually find it really unpleasant. Cigars are just for taste, pretty much, and in that they're pretty bloody good - once or twice a year, as a social sort of thing.

[BasharOfTheAges]

@godix: 1st world countries have social welfare programs that aim to help the poor, the old, and the sick. These programs have staggering support when you have a lot of people that benefit from them. Things like excessive smoking, drinking, eating shit, and generally behaving in an unhealthy manner hurts the system by putting too much strain on those programs (mostly by making more people and the people around them sicker). Coming at the issue from a ultra-libertarian viewpoint like you seem to be (everyone is responsible for everything they do to them selves and should be allowed to continue doing it damned be the consequences) would significantly bring down the standard of living for the country as a whole. I'm all for letting the stupid people kill themselves however they see fit, but it's willful ignorance to think that that mindset won't end up fucking you over too through even more through strains on public services (like police, fire, EMT services) and in the health care arena where costs go up for all those emergency room visits that go unpaid for.

[mirkosp]

For those that do smoke and are concerned about the costs, check the smoke shops in your area. They may have little cigars. There are only two differences between cigarettes and little cigars. First, cigarettes are wrapped in paper while little cigars are wrapped in tobacco leaf. They taste pretty much identical. When I first tried little cigars I put a cigarette and cigar on the table, closed my eyes, then randomly grabbed and smoked one. I honestly couldn't tell which I was smoking. The second different is price. A carton of name brand cigarettes in my area is ~$45. A carton of little cigars is $11.95.

Third difference: if you're going to get a tumor due to smoking, with the cigarettes it's likely going to be in the lungs, with the cigars it's more likely to be in the mouth.

[Garylisk]

godix, good points, I enjoy your libretarian rants, but I just have a different place where I put my foot down. I am OK with sin taxes, and I will tell you why: as a large first world nation, we need to tax a lot of things, especially as we are at the moment. Raising tax on cigarettes, liquor, and other non-essential things is actually the least intrusive way to do it. Tax on food is high enough, and people need that to live. Tax on gas is already high enough, and people generally need gas to get around so they can make a living. So many things are at a point right now where if we tax them anymore, it would be disruptive. Taxing "sin" aka nonessential items like cigarettes and liquor is fine by me, truly.

And if you want to look at it from a more antagonistic point of view, if you raise taxes on things like cigarettes, which people become addicted to, they are much more likely to pay a higher price for the item. I've paid 8 bucks for a pack of smokes before, I know plenty of people pay even more. You want your fix? Pay into the system. I personally think they should legalize pot and tax the crap out of it. It could save California lol

Anyway, to not disagree with you on one point, I do think the tax credit madness is going too far these days. You are spot on about the pavlov reflex, but it's the same as the high taxes on smokes. Condition someone to smoke, and they'll pay more taxes. Checkmate.

[CodeZTM]

I remember an assignment somebody in my business class did, recommending they put a heavy tax on condoms and birth control pills in order to stifle sexual activities and use it to pay off the healthcare debt. We all [including our teacher] face palmed, and I head desked until my forehead was bleeding.

Not everything should/needs taxes. :O

[godix]

For those saying I'm ultra-libertarian, I will note one thing: I was speaking of legal products. If cigarettes are such a public health menace that Congress decides to declare them outright illegal, then alright. I may not agree with it, but I'm not going to try claiming Congress can't declare an activity illegal. I also have no problem with restrictions. A ban on smoking in a hospital for example is quite reasonable, although I do think some of the broader bans go too far(some cities have said that city employees can't smoke, even at home, or else they're fired). Regulation is perfectly acceptable, if it was decided that cigarettes can't add chemical XYZ to the smokes and they enforce that on cigarette manufactures then that's within reason, the FDA already does exactly that sort of thing with other products and (usually) with good results. My comments were strictly about end use of a legal product. The government hasn't said it's illegal, it has enacted restrictions but not completely outlawed it, and cigarettes don't have much oversight on how they're made/what gets added. Under existing conditions, the government has decided the product is fine as is. Once the government made that choice, they shouldn't be involved in changing my behavior.

BasharOfTheAges: The problem with your argument is that it's so vague that it can be used to control almost anything. Yeah, I know, slippery slope is a fallacy and all that, but look at the arguments used against fast food and soda and tell me that this isn't a real life example of the slippery slope argument being right. Plus there could be a valid debate about the government should increase the quality of life as citizens choose to live it, not try and regulate and manipulate citizens to live the life some official wants them too. Yes, health care and social safety nets and all that should be part of a decent and civilized nation. However that does not mean the nation should try controlling the activities to make the job easier on themselves. The government is here to serve it's citizens, we are not here to serve the government. If someone wants to do a dangerous, but legal, activity then the gov should work around that rather than trying to discourage that. If it is REALLY all that bad, then make the activity illegal. You know, really where I think your argument fails is that I could quote you verbatim to make an argument that homosexuality should be regulated and discouraged by the government because of AIDS and other STDs. I'm not saying you would make that argument or agree with it, but when your exact words could be used in support of something extreme like this without twisting your words at all, perhaps you might want to think about how valid and far reaching your reasoning is...

mirkosp: We're talking different things. Little cigars are for all intents and purposes cigarettes. The only difference is instead of being wrapped in paper, they're wrapped in cigarette leaf. The chemicals added, nicotine levels, taste, etc is all the same. Everyone thinks those big huge stogies the stereotypical fat cat rich guy smokes when they hear 'cigar', but the definition of cigar is loose enough it can cover what is essentially a cigarette. Since most taxes on cigarettes don't apply to cigars, this is basically a loophole in the law and I encourage people to take advantage of it while it exists. I'm sure somewhere along the line some politician will close the loophole.

Garylisk: The problem with your argument, and I think you mentioned this originally actually, is that it hits the poor the most. Yes, given the US budget, taxes should be raised. And if they are raised, then it should be as non-disruptive as possible. Now how is increasing taxes on products where the majority of users are in the bottom income levels not considered disruptive?