1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    05 Jun '12 19:30
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The United States decided in 1791 to remain with a somewhat stronger Federal government than under the articles of Confederation, but still with the States retaining the bulk of legislative and taxing power.

    I don't want to be subject to the silly whims of California or its people. I choose to not smoke, but I don't choose to persecute and over tax those who still desire to do so.
    But that comes back to bite us in the asss when smokers get lung cancer and have no insurance and the taxpayer pays the bill for his affliction which could have been prevented by not smoking tobacco in the first place.
  2. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    10 Jun '12 22:191 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But that comes back to bite us in the asss when smokers get lung cancer and have no insurance and the taxpayer pays the bill for his affliction which could have been prevented by not smoking tobacco in the first place.
    A person without insurance or resources who gets lung cancer and dies relatively young probably saves taxpayers money in the long run.
  3. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Australia
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    384997
    11 Jun '12 06:041 edit
    Possibly. But the lung cancer case is outnumbered 20 to 1 by the emphysema and cardiac cases which often live a long and medically-expensive life, clogging up hospitals and nursing homes and demanding care that they can't afford to pay for themselves.
  4. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Jun '12 02:12
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    My answer would depend on how much money the state already spends on medical expenses related to smoking-caused lung cancer.

    Ultimately, I would suspect that the short-term investment in prevention might pay off in the long run.
    Does it matter?

    People who die of lung cancer collect social benefits shorter periods, and save the government money.

    If cessation programs were successful (fewer smokers) then the tax would raise little or no money.

    Eventually, tobacco farmers would lose their subsidies, and become welfare recipients, or learn to grow soybeans.
  5. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Jun '12 02:16
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    But that comes back to bite us in the asss when smokers get lung cancer and have no insurance and the taxpayer pays the bill for his affliction which could have been prevented by not smoking tobacco in the first place.
    That's a slippery slope, and somewhat misguided. Do we really want the State to tax everything that might have a cost not paid by the user?
  6. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Australia
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    384997
    12 Jun '12 08:571 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign

    Eventually, tobacco farmers would lose their subsidies, and become welfare recipients, or learn to grow soybeans.
    Are you seriously telling me the US subsidises people to produce tobacco? When the rest of the world is trying to get people to smoke less or not at all?
  7. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    12 Jun '12 15:30
    Much like with alcohol and marijuana, attempts to ban or tax cigarettes out of existence are doomed to fail in the US.
  8. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    12 Jun '12 15:331 edit
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Possibly. But the lung cancer case is outnumbered 20 to 1 by the emphysema and cardiac cases which often live a long and medically-expensive life, clogging up hospitals and nursing homes and demanding care that they can't afford to pay for themselves.
    The exact same could be said for people who eat too much ice cream (well, maybe not the emphysema part).
  9. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Jun '12 23:37
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Are you seriously telling me the US subsidises people to produce tobacco? When the rest of the world is trying to get people to smoke less or not at all?
    Sounds nuts, but the entire government policy on tobacco is pretty weird.
  10. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    12 Jun '12 23:40
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Much like with alcohol and marijuana, attempts to ban or tax cigarettes out of existence are doomed to fail in the US.
    With taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products so high, and government units becoming more and more dependent on the revenues, you may just see governments promoting smoking, just as they now promote gambling.
  11. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    15 Jun '12 10:331 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Sounds nuts, but the entire government policy on tobacco is pretty weird.
    And then they have the gall to be putting people in jail for smoking marijuana.

    Lets see, tobacco KILLS hundreds of thousands of people a year.

    Ok, lets tax tobacco so the medical bills can be partially offset.

    Ok, now lets pay farmers who grow tobacco a subsidy so they can keep on growing tobacco.

    Ok, now we have to jail all those evil marijuana smokers

    Tell me again how many people have DIED from smoking marijuana?

    Oh, I get it. The tobacco subsidy is a POPULATION CONTROL method and making marijuana illegal is just the government's way of keeping people hooked on tobacco.

    Yeah, I see, it all makes sense now.......
  12. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    15 Jun '12 10:35
    Originally posted by normbenign
    With taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products so high, and government units becoming more and more dependent on the revenues, you may just see governments promoting smoking, just as they now promote gambling.
    What?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree