Raising Tobacco Taxes is Dumb
by Lawrence MeyersIsn’t it interesting how every time a state government is in fiscal trouble that the first thing they decide to do is to raise taxes on the sale of tobacco? Somehow, legislators have it in their heads that the only people who might be upset by raising the cost of tobacco are smokers. And, since smoking is bad for smokers, and smokers shouldn’t be smoking anyway, maybe making smokes more expensive will dissuade smokers from smoking.
Of course, this is government we’re talking about. So it never works out they way they think it will, no matter who tries to tell them. In fact, this plan to raise revenue from tobacco taxes doesn’t actually work at all.
See, governments don’t understand free markets. If you raise the price of a certain good or service beyond a certain point, people who want the product badly enough will find a way to procure it more cheaply. Remember Prohibition? Same thing. To avoid paying the higher taxes, they will cross state lines, buy from an Indian reservation, buy over the internet, or even resort to black market purchasing.
And, if raising taxes does actually cut down the number of smokers, then the expected revenue from this tax increase will be less than expected…because there will be fewer smokers!
It didn’t work in D.C. in 2001. It didn’t work in New Jersey, and they even tried it twice! The list goes on and on. If a demand for a product exists, a supply will be sought out, and at the best possible price.
The truth is that the number of smokers in the U.S. is affected more by tobacco marketing than anything having to do with public policy. And in an example of colossal governmental stupidity, that grand settlement fund from a few years ago –you know, the one where the tobacco companies all had to pay a bunch of money to anti-tobacco education programs – it’s actually had the opposite effect that was intended.
In Martin Lindstrom’s book Buyology, the author describes a series of neuroimaging experiments involving anti-tobacco messages and how the brain perceives them. It turns out that when viewing any kind of anti-tobacco ad – even photos of diseased lungs – that these messages actually stimulated the part of the brain responsible for cigarette cravings. That’s right, I said these anti-smoking messages stimulated cravings. Didn’t anybody in the government think to research this? Of course not.
Instead of trying to get the average citizen to kick their smoking habit by raising tobacco taxes, maybe government should kick its spending habit and impose some serious fiscal discipline. It’ll be better for everyone’s health.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
114 Comments
What I don't understand is that they always claim smoking, sugar, salt, transfats, exc…. are bad and by raising taxes it helps force people to make better decisions. If that truly is the case then why don't they tax abortion? I've heard many Liberals not just Conservatives say that they would like to see the number of abortions reduced, and this fits right into that bracket doesn't it? Of course I'm an evil hatemonger that is stupid for pointing this out.
The thing that gets me is that the states with the highest tobacco taxes are now legalizing pot so that they can tax it. In my opinion if you have legal pot, you don't need cigarettes, plus on a health concern basis, smoking a joint is 12x worse than smoking a cigarette. But of course, they just have your best interests at heart.
Right now their is a guy in a Queens NY basement, running a cigarette machine, laughing all the way to the bank.
Right on, Cowboy… It's the ol' 3% at a crack increase…. "They'll never feel it"… Of course 32 years later some smart guy has a closer look and discovers.. ZOUNDS ! These here cigarettes DOUBLED in price… If that 3% is compoounded then the term is a mere 17 years…. Now, apply that to your past, current and future tax liabilities ! SURPRISE ! Oh my…. God Bless them all, Cowboy….
The government has no business manipulating the free market by deciding what or who to tax at a different rate than that applied to any other product, person or business. Equal protection under the law applies to taxation as well. The government has no place deciding winners and losers. We need a flat tax system.
I quit smoking as soon as Obama announced the taxes in 2008. Glad I did it. It gave me lots of free time time for blogging. It is weird to have a smoker-in-chief and obese Surgeon General.
But that's when the government steps in a demonizes the companies that make the taxed products. Gas isn't expensive because the average gallon has around $.40 in taxes added to it. It's expensive because the big oil companies (who make less than $.10/gallon in profit) are price gouging you.
If there was actually a law that every cost to an item was labeled clearly, people would die of shock at how much they are really paying in taxes.
Obama is paying for the children health insurance from the taxes coming from the stuff that is killing their parents!
For heavens sake. I don't even smoke and I can give you the names of at least 10 "native americans" who make a living re-selling cigarettes form their reservationson the net. Hell, I've even thought about becoming a butt runner from the reservations here in Colorado and selling them to old people who can't do the net, but want cheap smokes. Ther's LOTS of them
IF…. The premise is that TAXING a commodity might result in adding incremental expense so the user USES LESS of that commodity then why not….
TAX welfare payments to the able-bodied welfare rats….
TAX abortions so we MIGHT end up killing LESS future productive human assets….
TAX the Congress on all pork projects apportioned to all 535 members….
TAX the illicit lovers of all members of Congress based on "stroke" technology…. (starting with Massa)
And the list goes on…..
Missouir was actually smart enough to avoid this trap in one instance. The state wanted to impose a new tax on cigarettes to pay for a state-run health care program. Thankfully, it was rightly and smartly pointed out that the spending on the program was not a closed loop deal, so when the cigarette tax revenue fell off, we'd all be stuck paying for the program.
No sin tax should ever be allowed unless its revenue was in a locked closed loop so that the diminishing returns of the tax matched the diminishing needs of the program paid for. Since that's virtually impossible, I guess sin taxes just shouldn't be allowed.
govt.s detest free markets because in a free market the consumer, the people are soverign. They make the econonmic choices on a free market and the producers who are the most efficient make profits. Each dollar a consumer uses to buy a service or product is a "vote" in a free market on the products and services they want, and the companies that fullfil their desires make profits which allow the products and services to continue to be brought to market freely.
the govt. want to usurp the consumers economic vote on a free market by using force to decide what products and services will be givent to consumers/the people.
My great-grandfather died at 98, he had been a chain-smoker who drank regularly for as long as I had been around. His typical breakfast was 4 eggs scrambled with plenty of butter, home-made bisquits made with lard and well buttered, plenty of coffee well sweetened with sugar. He weighed over 400 pounds when he died, and he friggin'-well died a HAPPY man, always ready and willing to help anyone that he saw needing it, and a ready smile on his face and chuckle in his voice.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! This is CRAZY!!!!!!!!! They are cutting their own throats!!!!
I have quit buying them at the store anyhow, these new FSC Cigarettes are AWFUL and they taste like CRAP! I have switched too loose tobacco and I am now rolling my own!!! I suggest you do the same! The FSC smokes now have a chemical on the paper that is the same as CARPET GLUE, they go out if you don't continually smoke them, they have made them more dangerous by doing this rather than taking out the chemicals (salt peter) that keeps them burning and then they would go out by themselves!
More SOFT TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Our GOV is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Liberals thought process always starts with 1) raise taxes/get money 2) make up altruistic reason to do it
You seem in a better mood today. That sounds like an awesome breakfast.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Thank God they don't tax all of my sins!! I wouldn't have money to tithe!
Thats funny.
Do you know what the Veterans Administration's policy is for Vets in the VA Homes, who have emphysema? Wheel them outside in the shade in their wheelchairs and oxygen tanks, and give them cigarettes………
I particularly enjoyed the comment about anti-smoking ads actually increasing the number of smokers. I've never been a smoker — the one or two times I tried made me feel ill. But if anything ever made me wish I could start smoking it was that stupid series of TRUTH anti-smoking ads that were all over TV and even before movies in the theater. They were so over-the-top, annoying, and condescending I wanted to light up a couple of lung darts on the spot just for spite!
I go to the Indian reservation in NY to buy cigarettes. $2.23 a pack. Suck on that.
lol, reminds me of this wedding I was at, and grandma was smoking at the reception with the tanks on, son can you turn that up to four for me?
Not to mention the Health Insurance companies, who have a 2%-4% profit margin while the hospitals, medical manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies run 2-3 + times higher profit margins.
Meanwhile the government (federal, state, local) earn upwards of 20% "profit margin" for each product sold, also known as taxes.
Now that is capitalism in action!
And Kansas City is closing down schools because they don't have enough children attending each one, so why pay all the additional expense when the service is not being used.
but with all the new taxes coming, how many poeple will drop dead from all the extra work needed to try and live a normal life, while trying to pay the bloated tax bills for more spending at all levels of government. when will they propose a tax on taxes?
Both of my parents died of tobacco related illnesses, lung cancer, bladder cancer, uterine cancer, enphysema, alzheimer's just to name the major things. It was a long painful, debilitating, expensive and terrible situtation that my sister and I endured with our parents. Nobody should ever have to go thru this. If you ever had first hand experience with this situation your views would be different. Walk a mile in the shoes of my family. Tobacco is clearly a lethal product when used as it is designed and intended, there is no doubt about that. It not only kills the user it also effects the health and longevity of those around them that do not smoke. These are undeniable facts.
Take you heads out of your backsides and see tobacco for the poison that it is. No other product could currently be introduced on the market with all of the proven health hazzards of tobacco, it would not be allowed.
Would you buy and use a poison that you know will kill you? The people that defend tobacco are the addicts or the pushers of the poison. Why has tobacco not been taken off the market? Big money is the answer, it has nothing to do with personal choice or liberty. Do you really think that tobacco companies care about your personal choice of liberty? Big tobacco companies only care about money and do not care how many people they kill to get it. As I said, walk a mile in my families shoes and maybe you will see things clearly as I have. If you smoke, do what ever it takes to quit and think of you family as your motivation.
It was amazing that not that long ago you could buy a carton in Missouri for around $23 or $25 dollars.
"they'll never feel it". Same theory applies to the inflation tax.
This is where I love the Hypocricy of the left. Tobacco is now regulated by the FDA. If any other product had the same side effects as cigarettes, the FDA would ban it in in a heartbeat. So why are cigarettes legal?
Does the FDA have some sort of newfound Libertarian streak when it comes to consumer choice? No, the truth is ,they don't care if it kills you or not, because the the value of the tax revenue is greater than your life. Yet Obama wonders why people are skeptical about government run healthcare? Gee I wonder…..
I'm going to be very curious to see what all these state governments do when their Tobacco settlement moneies all dry up and the last of the smokers die off. Remember, all this money was just to "compensate the states for the cost of smokers care" so when these people die off or quit smoking, and all that money runs out it should be a wash right? HA HA HA… RIGHT! I'll believe it when I see it.
I think that's the VAT tax the so-called deficit commission will undoubtedly suggest.
It was probably just a cyber-gremlin glitch. That happens to me every now and then (almost always on the well-thought-out comments). Don't take it personally.
Sin taxes are nothing more than Prohibition through taxation. Higher taxes on cigarettes just mean that you have to give up something else so you can afford your smokes. Now I hear they want to ban salt in restaurants. I bet even in the former communist soviet union they were allowed to salt their food. Give me a break.
You will be rolling your own with loose tobacco for only so long, because there is a bill in the House of "Representatives" (HR 4439) which will increase pipe tobacco by 775%. No typo here -775%. Some of the tobacconists say that will amount to about $24 TAX per pound of loose tobacco. This will make a pound of pipe tobacco anywhere from $50 to upward of $100 per pound.
If the bill becomes law, then what person can afford that? In effect, they will be BANNING tobacco -one of the products which made America wealthy and put us on the world map. Oh, but I forgot -Obama and the progressives are trying their darndest to take us OFF the world map.
You make a good point in that by giving up something else, one is taking money that might be spent on other goods and services and handing it to the government.
The only legitimate excuse for government meddling on cigarette smoking would be the ostensible danger of "second hand smoke." A 44-year study on second-hand smoke resulted in a finding of NO significant difference in non-smokers' susceptibility to smoke-related diseases between those who had been long-term subjected to second-hand smoke and those who were in smoke-free environments. Nada. Zilch.
The response from the tobacco nazis? Bury the information, don't let anyone hear or read about that.
[...] post by Lawrence Meyers and software by Elliott Back Comments [...]
As soon as switched to a FSC (fire safe cigarette), I started getting a smoker's cough. I just may start rolling my own.
The smoking bans were claimed to be about workplace safety. That is OSHA's department. There should have been a parts per million and exposure limit of each danger listed on on an MSDS. That does not exist. good point there roundup. It is one I argued endlessly trying to stop the foolish bans infringing on private property owners' decisions about legal products and their use.
If we had any legislators with working brains, they would reduce the cigarette and tobacco taxes and re-capture the revenue they are losing to the Native American shops, the black market and the Internet. Alcohol and tobacco use will always be with us and those who choose to use these products will always get them at a price they are willing to pay. This anti tobacco jihad has about run its course. Smoking is at its' lowest rate in history, yet health care cost are at their hightest. We have been told for years reducing tobacco use will cut health care and insurance cost. In whose lifetime?
As a non smoker, I would prefer a tax cut so my states smoking citizens will shop at home, supporting local businesses and feeding the our state treasury, to fund the programs our legislators are slicing and dicing.
From the Cato Institute:
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811
Quote: It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion.
http://www.mskcc. org/mskcc/ html/12463. cfm
This prediction tool from Sloan Kettering can assess a long-term smoker’s risk of developing lung cancer in the next 10 years based on the person’s age, sex, smoking history, and asbestos exposure.
I used a 51 yr old female who smoked for 39 years at 15 cigarettes per day. Results: Over the next 10 years if she does not smoke the risk of developing lung cancer is 2%. If she continues to smoke her risk of developing lung cancer is 3%.
For a smoker? A 3% chance after smoking for 39 years? These nuts would trample private property rights for that? If that smoker has only a 3% chance, and these bans are to protect people who don’t even smoke, do bans and high taxes even make ANY sense? Does it?
My Dad always told me you can "take a horse to water but you can't make him drink". Our Government is standing in front of the water all withered up acting as if there not thirsty. Anyone who can reason logically knows and has know for some time that all of these special taxes just hurt America..and actually in the end give the dumb bastards less tax money to waste They know what there doing doesn't work. With the billions they waste every year I'm sure on of em has a chart stuffed up his or her a**. It's time for us to get some different horses.
You are correct – it was OSHA's turf and not the EPA. I've read studies that say it would take 64 packcs of smokes burning simultanious in a totally enclosed room 10' x 10' x 10' for any level of exposure to be reached that would be considered dangerous to your health. When the anit-smoking group first approached OSHA, they said fine, they would establish exposure levels and that's when the anti-smokers went the city and state government route instead. Another farce from the loons. . . . .
They tried the same with rounds for weapons and also the products used by people who self load their rounds.
That's what a lot of us smokers do………………..find a way around the confiscatory taxes, by buying cigarettes in a different state, roll our own, buy from the Indians. Sure, some people quit, but the outcome is always raise the tax, lose even more of the tax money.
Give that man a cigar, before it is taxed out of existence!
We have two reservations in Albuquerque, with one inside the city itself. You should see the cig and gas sales there.
Well, now the ubiquitous "they" want to tax soda ( that's POP, for you living in the midwest ) and everything else that contains sugar. That is going to hit a lot of the anti-smokers who cheer every time cigarettes are taxed to death.
Black market was 10% to 20% of the Soviet Union's GDP. Back then when one went behind the Iron Curtain, one would enter with 20 pairs of jeans and leave with maybe 1 pair that they were wearing. Capitalism in action.
The problem in a nutshell so to speak Jan. I think legislators have their brains disconnected as soon as the election is over and they win.
well, i suppose when we all switch to iced tea, they will tax that, and then we can have a real tea party!! woo hoo!!
What also must be remembered is that companies like Phillip-Morris SUPPORT these taxes and advertisement regulations because it cuts out their competition, and makes entry into the tobacco market much harder. Though they make take hits by paying the taxes, they get a much larger share from cutting out competition. Its not just the government at work here, the big tobacco companies are getting huge dividends from these taxes and regulations as well.
Not free market.
I don't drink soda, but I do drink homemade ice tea……………..so count me in!
@Denverbuilder
Go for it….Entrepreneurism in action…fill a void, supply a need, make a buck.
Rick
Before you hit submit comment copy your comment.
A study i've read on the face equated spending 8 hours in a smoky bar (i don't remember the definition of smoky, but none the less) to be the equivalent of smoking .001 cigarettes. I don't mind it if you say you don't like the smell of the smoke, but don't come bitching to me about health affects.
Maybe they should ban jogging. Although the exercise is good for you, many people jog in close proximity to traffic which only causes them to inhale larger than normal volumes of polluted air leading to asthma and other lung diseases. Actually, being born is quite traumatic and dangerous to your health. Some babies are born with issues or even dead. We should just ban being born too. That way no one can ever harm themselves ever again.
Small change of subject:
I know several people collecting out of date hardware, loading it with Linux, and selling or giving it to people who are not on the net.
Of course this would not apply to our Politicians.
Here in Arizona the tobacco lawsuit money went into the General State fund, even though the lawsuit was based in the costs to the state for dying smokers…Plus, we have a state law that says that any new expenses must be "paid for" in the referendum….e.g. you come up with something you want the state to do, and its going to have costs, you must show where the money comes from to pay the costs.
So, guess what happens…every nanny group who wants to expand government power in any way does it with Tobacco Taxes….And, even though Arizonans traditionally vote against ANY tax increase…the majority are not affected by Tobacco Taxes…Hey, a tax I don't have to pay? Sure, why not? What happens when people quit, or find other options, and the program is already there? Nobody votes that far ahead!
While we're at it, taxing abortions, why not tax tattoos and body piercings?
Yes, it is government for governments sake.All laws that impede on personal choice will blow back into their face.Then they can do what they do best..make more laws!!!!This is the definition of INSANITY!
recently posts that have the word sociaIism in it get bounced. Replace the lower case L with an upper case i and it'll pass.
Great analysis Bar. You need to pass that on to Hannity or Gutfield. They would have a lot of fun with that idea.
But Emir O doesn't pay for his butts, so he doesn't care. Of course, he's hooked on them, so whatever they cost, we will foot the bill. And addict for our Emir, Mmm mmm mm! What will our children say?
They hid FDR's polio, and they hide O's addiction. What else are they hiding about O?
If I was running for congress or the senate this would be my platform Food stamps can only be used for NON-SUGAR items, soap!!!!meat, vegatables,etc,etc, sugar items would automaticly destroy the strip on their card. That will solve Michelle Obama's Obesity CRISIS.Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm I was a checker in the supermarket business and saw so much abuse….
I also made up my mind to stop supporting Schips I will become a non-smoker. Where will they get the money now? What a stupid question raise gas,house taxes and income tax
Exhibit A………, the madia (Media) and their giddiness to help their golfing/partying buddies in charge of sucking revenue from the herd, specifically isolated, as the "Smoking herd"!!! The Game……… present it as punishment on the "Tobacco Companies", who must raise prices to comply, which in turn brings in more revenue and the consumer picks up the bill!!! Lets go golfing/partying….y'want to, they're paying!!!
You ever notice that anything that the government can figure how to tax, is taxed? Sin taxes, loaded onto the backs of the poor, or those least financially capable of paying for it. The government, in all its infinite wisdom, with thier expert bean counters bending the curve have it 'ciphered to a fine art. Tax 'em a few cents a pack, and a few cents a gallon of gas, and they'll never know.
Just wait until the government starts taxing soda and the sugar junkies revolt. That'll be hilarious! There'll be junkies in the streets, "jonesing" for Coke and Pepsi………
but like maha rushie points out, they tax tobacco, or alcohol to pay for "x". then the program starts. once the program starts, and the demand for tobacco or alcohol is lower than expected, they then raise everybody's taxes. because once a bleeding heart program is started, they say we can't just not provide "x" to "y", think of the hardships, so they then tax everything on anybody. the tobacco tax is the getting the camels nose under the tent, once that camel gets his nose in, there is no stopping them. so you non smokers, who love to tax the crap out of tobacco, they will be coming after you, because you were for the new taxes on other people, eventually you will be the other person!
How exactly, pray tell, is pot 12x worse than tobacco? You got any proof of this? I've NEVER once heard of a pot related death. Please provide links if you are going to make a crazy claim like that.
I remember the day when I bought a Carton of Dorals when I was 15 yrs old for $2.40 a pack and on
Monday nights I served 10 cent tap beers. Had to watch out for the high school kids trying to drink…..
ALL THE GOOD O'L DAYS ARE LONG GONE !!
The government can tax a citizen to the point of changing states.
The government can tax a business to the point of changing countries.
The government can tax a product to the point of black market or underground economy.
Self destruction, internal economic and political forces, not a Jihadist hiding around every sand dune.
Excessive consumption of anything is bad for people. However, once the progressive get control then they will encourage the consumption of all these items in the name of liberty.
I live in Las Vegas, NV and in every casino I've been in walking through the Slot Machine area, you will find at least 2, yes 2 people every time that are in wheel chairs with their Oxygen Tank attached and Smoking like a Chimney while they play those penny slots……
you have to wonder WHY, if you're in that bad of shape and you keep Dragging on the BUTT.
I finally said the hell with it and switched to ecigs after the first of the year. It's cheaper for me, I'm not smoking cigarettes anymore and I don't have to pay outrageous taxes.
You can actually purchase a box of empty tubes/filters, alongside a reasonably affordable gadget made of plastic, that somehow fills the tubes with tobacco in seconds. At least from my own memory I can tell you they taste about the same as Marlboro cigarettes, etc. For $20 I could buy all three in Los Angeles back in summer 2002. I can only bet the price has increased since then, but it sure beat paying upwards of $5 for cigarette packs to last a single day. While I quit years ago I still sympathize with your situation. There used to be a little shop on Sunset Blvd. near to Ralphs and La Brea where I had found it, but the internet is sure to help you there if interested, obviously. I hate to be ironic but the "homemade" cigarettes are a bit of a lifesaver in rough times.
Funny.
Salamanca? I have some old friends there. They used to sell cigarettes out of the trunk of a car. Now they own the casino.
Please tell me why my comment was deleted. It was long and I was notified of that so I broke it down and submitted it in two parts. What else could I do? I spent a lot of time and thought on it and hate to think that I wasted my time. If this is your process shouldn't you warn people ahead of time?
The same with these anti-piracy commercials you see on particular DVDs. While I prefer to buy music at stores for the mere sake of leaving home, these commercials always tempt me to download a hundred thousand songs in one night just to screw these folks. I never do, of course. They even provide the perfect soundtrack for piracy (if you saw the commercial I refer to: Duh-d-d-duh-d-duh-d-duh.) Southpark made a crack about it. But the same folks who demonize smokers are the ones who drive around in their little vehicles on a daily basis. No offense to drivers, but how is smoking worse than driving?
Isn't it odd that the EPA has never ruled second hand smoke to be a carconogene? That's because then they'd have to apply a exposure level to it. And, if they did that, well most certainly all air handling equipment in restaraunts and office buildings would keep the levels waaaaay below any exposure limits. So, the anti-smoking tripes pounded on cities and state governments to ban smoking. But the EPA has never ruled on it – but they have ruled on our everyday exhaling of CO2.
Don't even get me started on the friggin' welfare, went to pick up milk at the store last night and it was completely packed with mexicans, blacks and old folks. most of them had buggies running over with groceries. The woman in front of me in line had a bill of over $300 mostly steaks and bread, she paid for it with the Arkansas Credit Card (what used to be food stamps.) That must be the MOST constipated family in the state.
Regular folks, just trying to make ends meet, have no chance as long as this crap continues. Everyone gripes about the redistribution of wealth when it has been going on since the Johnson administration.
The people who cannot afford $6-10 packs would roll their own. Before Obama's (and Big Tobacco's) SCHIP tax,
a 1lb bag of cigarette tobacco was $15. After SCHIP it cost $39. A $24 tax! Is there ANY other product or service that the tax is more than the product price???
Since this whole charade of harm from smoke has been fully exposed like global warming, there is only one conclusion, total control of a previously free population. There is just no other explanation feasible! This is just the beginning and people had best wake up very soon! These tobacco control nazi's are breaking the bank, and you know what happens then! Total ruin. But then maybe that is the plan in the first place! Seems this is the way the whole country is going, who will be the rescuer?
A $24 tax increase on a pound of tobacco? That is outrageous. I cannot think of another product the public would tolerate a tax increase like of that magnitude. Can people grow their own tobacco? This seems to be an invitation to do exactly that, as people during Prohibition brewed their own bathtub gin. I guess the government can put any tax they want on a product, but I think the trick is collecting it when the affected taxpayer does not support it and feels justified in seeking alternative sources to avoid such a punitive tax.
If government wants to end tobacco use, why don't they just ban it and quit punishing its' users? I don't get it.
Wait for the Penny A Text/Tweet Tax
If you smoke pot you don't need cigarette?
Nothin could be further from the truth. I remember my youth. I would sit with friends and get stoned and between tokes on a joint I would constantly light up cigarettes. I literally smoked like a chimney, chain smoked lighting a new cigarette off the butt of the one I was finishing. Pot smokers smoke cigarettes like maniacs. I could go through three or 4 packs of cigarettes in six or seven hours.
Hey guess what? You can do it yourself http://www.youtube.com /user/mellowmeadow#p/u/3/cSDcywLv3Mhttp://www.youtube.com/user/mellowmeadow#p/u/3/cS...
Lets see the governmen wants us to stop smoking tobacco and instead do pot? I guess they think stoned people will be easier to control. My $5000 question is what does Nancy Polosi smoke?
"It turns out that when viewing any kind of anti-tobacco ad – even photos of diseased lungs – that these messages actually stimulated the part of the brain responsible for cigarette cravings."
Heh. Way back, 1963, my High School showed a tobacco-cancer film: many shots of rats and mice that had been shaved and had nicotine/"tar" smeared on them, developing horrid growths.
I think every single smoker had a cigarette immediately after. At least, there seemed to be three times as many kids outside, smoking, as normally.
Honestly, I don't know what will be my side here. Increasing the tax for tobacco can really be helpful to eliminate the vices of citizens. However, it would be very difficult for them to shift their habits immediately. So in short, it's still an advantage for the government.
Gloria Cubanas for everyone!
That's why I buy my smokes from the Ukraine…Seventeen dollars a carton, twelve at a time…
Beat both State and Federal tax…
Where is government tasked with eliminating vices of the people or shifting their habits?
"And, if raising taxes does actually cut down the number of smokers, then the expected revenue from this tax increase will be less than expected…because there will be fewer smokers!" Just another example of the leftist lack of 'follow through' thinking skills.
But we could apply this logic to taxing abortions, couldn't we? Speaking of 'sin' tax…
Weird? That seems to be the only normal thing Obama represents. As for the Surgeon General, the demonization of the overweight begins with big pharma just like tobacco users. They make Splenda and the pressure overweight people experience drives the need for pharma products once again. Brilliant marketing scam that pits one population against another however.
After the Legislative Special Session here in New Mexico last week passed the 75 cent/pack tax and reinstituted our "food tax" (not sure though if it's all food, or the ridiculous "white food" tax) I propose New Mexico needs a T Party–not a "Tea"–a "T". As in "Tobacco" and "Tortilla" Party. We can toss 'em into the Rio Grande.
[...] Why tobacco taxes are crap. (Big Government) [...]
Actually, cigarette consumption has been steadily declining for over a decade, partly due to increased taxes and partly due to marketing restrictions and anti-smoking programs funded by taxes and settlement payments. Why do you support the brainwashing by the tobacco companies that lead to millions of addicted smokers, 400,000 of whom die every year in the US?
That was aided by the Surgeon Generals DICTATION that there is no amount of exposure without risk.
If that same standard was applied to other MSDS – nobody could do anything whatsoever.
Corruption as best can be exampled this is.
[...] here: » Raising Tobacco Taxes is Dumb – Big Government Post a [...]
Caffeine is next. Mark my words.
If we had a real government operating in the White House, I would have an entirely different tone with you, Nimbus, but under the present circumstances, well, I hear you.
Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/0704...
IT is not just the sugar that they are going after. They are going after anything that can be contributed to obesity.
As in movies, video games, dvds, and anything else that is considered a "sedentary lifestyle". The cigarette taxes are just a small part of the "new tax" agenda.
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/OSHA.html
How is this for a bad joke?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/health/research...
A New Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke’
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
This article states among other things that marijuana smokers have a 4.8 fold increase in heart attack risk within 1 hour of smoking a joint. Also that marijuana smoke contains 50-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarette smoke. There was also this little gem, " the strongest evidence links marijuana use and schizophrenia and/or related disorders."
http://www.drugabuse.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
It might be fine if you have a tumor, but I can assure you that the majority of people who have "medical marijuana" prescriptions have nothing wrong with them besides an addiction.
True and next it'll be the air we exhale.
Woman charged with tax evasion for having cigarettes from Indian-owned store
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/ly...
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/services/service...
[...] » Raising Tobacco Taxes is Dumb – Big Government [...]
which in turn reduces the dollars spent by taxpayers on health costs of smokers. Pretty well thought out policy since those costs are billions each year.
macnvettes, U R a total idiot for using fake disproven gov propoganda spewed forth by doctors and other professionals whom have been exposed as gov paid quacks that say whatever the gov wants them to. You've been lied to! http://www.soop.ca/potfacts/
You must be logged in to post a comment.