• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cigarette Tax Clouds Boosts Among States

Joby said:
I went to the convenient store today, and asked for a pack of camel lights.

"That'll be $7.25"

"HA! I quit."
Click to expand...

LOL, that's about what it is in Chicago. I don't smoke BTW:2razz:
 
Joby said:
I went to the convenient store today, and asked for a pack of camel lights.

"That'll be $7.25"

"HA! I quit."

As for the other conversation, aren't something like 45% of doctors in the US foreign educated? It makes no sense, we surrender the high paying jobs to foreigners but when they come to mow lawns we get all uppity.
Click to expand...

American Spirits here are like $5

Hollar at some of the lowest prices in Amerahcah.
 
So the state governments are going to tax cigarettes like crazy and make it seem like their best interest is the health of smokers all the while taking more of a profit from cigarettes companies. Gee, I wonder if cigarette smokers will ever suspect what's really going on? :roll:

Like I've said in previous posts I think that our government should follow Canada's example and regulate the cigarette companies to take the extremely harmful and toxic chemicals out of cigarettes and then put big cards on the front of all packs of cigarettes showing of the true disgusting effects of smoking. Sure some people will continue to smoke, but it is far more embarrassing and demeaning when you are getting packs of cigarettes with rotten teeth and toasted lungs on them.

If people are going to smoke they are going to smoke. Trying to **** them over from their wallet because they make a personal decision to smoke is ridiculous.
 
dclxvinoise said:
So the state governments are going to tax cigarettes like crazy and make it seem like their best interest is the health of smokers all the while taking more of a profit from cigarettes companies. Gee, I wonder if cigarette smokers will ever suspect what's really going on? :roll:

Like I've said in previous posts I think that our government should follow Canada's example and regulate the cigarette companies to take the extremely harmful and toxic chemicals out of cigarettes and then put big cards on the front of all packs of cigarettes showing of the true disgusting effects of smoking. Sure some people will continue to smoke, but it is far more embarrassing and demeaning when you are getting packs of cigarettes with rotten teeth and toasted lungs on them.

If people are going to smoke they are going to smoke. Trying to **** them over from their wallet because they make a personal decision to smoke is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Then we should regulate McDonalds and have imprints of overly obese individuals on their hamburgers.
Then we should have Tacobell attach signs to their burritos to tell one the Grade rating of their beef; Let me give you a hint, it's slightly above dog-food.
Then we should attach on every license form, and Taxi application what a mangled body looks like once it's been in a head on collision.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Then we should regulate McDonalds and have imprints of overly obese individuals on their hamburgers.
Then we should have Tacobell attach signs to their burritos to tell one the Grade rating of their beef; Let me give you a hint, it's slightly above dog-food.
Then we should attach on every license form, and Taxi application what a mangled body looks like once it's been in a head on collision.
Click to expand...

I think cigarettes are quite a bit more harmful and not to mention addictive than those things that you mentioned.
 
Last edited:
dclxvinoise said:
I think cigarettes are quite a bit more harmful than those things that you mentioned.
Click to expand...

the National Center for Health Statistics disagrees

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm said:
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
Click to expand...


I think you are labeling smokers unfairly.
 
dclxvinoise said:
So the state governments are going to tax cigarettes like crazy and make it seem like their best interest is the health of smokers all the while taking more of a profit from cigarettes companies.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you claiming that states are taking profits from the companies?

If people are going to smoke they are going to smoke. Trying to **** them over from their wallet because they make a personal decision to smoke is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Studies indicate the opposite, as a 10% increase in cigarette prices correlates with a 4-10% decrease in consumption.
 
Arch Enemy said:
the National Center for Health Statistics disagrees

I think you are labeling smokers unfairly.
Click to expand...

Ah, so those things that you listed are addictive like cigarettes are and cause second hand smoke that affects others as well? And no, I'm not giving cigarettes a bad rap. I don't need to. They've had one for years and rightfully so.
 
RightinNYC said:
I'm not sure what you're saying here, are you claiming that states are taking profits from the companies?
Click to expand...

I think that the high taxation of cigarettes is a roundabout way of doing that, yes. Then again, I'm highly cynical.

Studies indicate the opposite, as a 10% increase in cigarette prices correlates with a 4-10% decrease in consumption.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you increase the taxes so much that people can't afford them that is bound to happen. I just don't agree with that method. People should be allowed to do what they want. Why not just regulate the poisonous **** that tobacco companies put in cigarettes. It's not as if those toxic chemicals are a necessary thing for cigarettes to exist. If a company was putting poisonous chemicals in food the FDA would be all over their ass. Why not hold cigarette companies to the same standards?
 
dclxvinoise said:
Ah, so those things that you listed are addictive like cigarettes are and cause second hand smoke that affects others as well? And no, I'm not giving cigarettes a bad rap. I don't need to. They've had one for years and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Addictions are genetic and environmental.

I support the smoking bans in public areas.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Addictions are genetic and environmental.

I support the smoking bans in public areas.
Click to expand...

Some people are subject to addiction more than others, this is true. However, nicotine is a highly addictive chemical and can even get those people who aren't subject to addiction as much as others are.

Good. Do you also agree about regulating tobacco companies so that they no longer put unnecessary poisonous chemicals in cigarettes?
 
dclxvinoise said:
Some people are subject to addiction more than others, this is true. However, nicotine is a highly addictive chemical and can even get those people who aren't subject to addiction as much as others are.

Good. Do you also agree about regulating tobacco companies so that they no longer put unnecessary poisonous chemicals in cigarettes?
Click to expand...


I have a genetic affinity for cigarettes, however I am not addicted to them. Why is this?
Well, simply because I have a control of my situation. I do not need cigarettes to relax. I did not grow up with friends and family (except my brother whose been smoking since 15 haha) who smoked (my dad had a bit of stint, as his dad and his step dad, and his dads dads, and his dads dads dads were avid smokers).

I am however, addicted to running during running seasons, and caffeine all those other times. I think it is hard to be addicted to multiple things at once, as your allocation of time differs whenever you have an addiction.

One has to choose their poison.
(I am not totally serious about addictions to caffeine, I just love the hell out of it).
 
dclxvinoise said:
I think that the high taxation of cigarettes is a roundabout way of doing that, yes. Then again, I'm highly cynical.
Click to expand...

I just don't see why that's a bad thing, provided that the funds are being used to cover the costs of healthcare for said individuals that would otherwise be coming from the public.

Yeah, if you increase the taxes so much that people can't afford them that is bound to happen. I just don't agree with that method. People should be allowed to do what they want.
Click to expand...

How is this preventing anyone from doing anything they want? Disincentivizing is not the same as prohibiting. A 10% sales tax makes it more difficult for me to buy a big screen TV, but the state isn't preventing me from buying one if I want to.

And you'd be surprised what lengths some people will go to in order to get their smokes. A poster on here that I haven't seen in a while, (john1234 I think), had a gross annual income of around $11k, constantly complained about how hard it was to live in poverty, and still managed to spend $4k+/year on cigarettes.

Why not just regulate the poisonous **** that tobacco companies put in cigarettes. It's not as if those toxic chemicals are a necessary thing for cigarettes to exist. If a company was putting poisonous chemicals in food the FDA would be all over their ass. Why not hold cigarette companies to the same standards?
Click to expand...

I don't particularly disagree.
 
Arch Enemy said:
the National Center for Health Statistics disagrees

I think you are labeling smokers unfairly.
Click to expand...

Smoking drastically increases the chance of death from each of the first four of those things.
 
RightinNYC said:
I just don't see why that's a bad thing, provided that the funds are being used to cover the costs of healthcare for said individuals that would otherwise be coming from the public.
Click to expand...

Yes, but are all of those high taxes on cigarettes going to that?

How is this preventing anyone from doing anything they want? Disincentivizing is not the same as prohibiting. A 10% sales tax makes it more difficult for me to buy a big screen TV, but the state isn't preventing me from buying one if I want to.
Click to expand...

Nor does regulating the amount of chemicals that they put in cigarettes. It's merely the government not allowing tobacco companies to blatantly poison people like they currently are.

And you'd be surprised what lengths some people will go to in order to get their smokes. A poster on here that I haven't seen in a while, (john1234 I think), had a gross annual income of around $11k, constantly complained about how hard it was to live in poverty, and still managed to spend $4k+/year on cigarettes.
Click to expand...

Which illustrates that the high tax on cigarettes aren't entirely affective. It would be one thing if cigarettes weren't addictive. I realize that people who are in poverty are screwing themselves and making their own choice to buy cigarettes, but it's harder for some people to quit than others. I quit 4 years ago and was lucky as hell because it was fairly easy for me. I just think that the high tax is unfairly punishing people who are addicted to the poisonous **** that the tobacco companies are putting in cigarettes to begin with. Why not just regulate the tobacco companies?
 
Arch Enemy said:
I have a genetic affinity for cigarettes, however I am not addicted to them. Why is this?
Well, simply because I have a control of my situation. I do not need cigarettes to relax. I did not grow up with friends and family (except my brother whose been smoking since 15 haha) who smoked (my dad had a bit of stint, as his dad and his step dad, and his dads dads, and his dads dads dads were avid smokers).

I am however, addicted to running during running seasons, and caffeine all those other times. I think it is hard to be addicted to multiple things at once, as your allocation of time differs whenever you have an addiction.

One has to choose their poison.
(I am not totally serious about addictions to caffeine, I just love the hell out of it).
Click to expand...

It's fine to have a cavalier attitude about cigarettes when you are young, but when people close to you die because of smoking it kind of changes things a bit for you. When it starts affecting your health and you realize that you are going to have to quit at some point or your health will get continue to worsen it's different. I'm not saying that you are like this, but I remember when I was 19. I had a very similar attitude about cigarettes.
 
RightinNYC said:
Smoking drastically increases the chance of death from each of the first four of those things.
Click to expand...


Sorry for a bit of an amateur question,
but how is "smoking" defined; I've always found it a bit exaggerated, the relationship between chronic/life threatening ailments and amount of cigarettes.

It's like saying "eating" will give you heart disease...
 
RightinNYC said:
Something else worth noting:

Unlike other graduate disciplines, there are no bad med schools (not counting the Caribbean). Anyone who gets accepted to any US med school is incredibly intelligent and hard working and has the necessary tools to become a good doctor.

I see no reason why the government shouldn't be more proactive about addressing the ridiculously high tuition by subsidizing the cost of med school. My girlfriend will be graduating with $300k in debt, and will then spend 7 years in her residencies making between $45-55k. Her debt has served as a huge factor for her in deciding to enter a field where she can pay it back as soon as possible, as opposed to entering a field that she might like more and that would better serve the community as a whole.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I have a hard time feeling sorry for a professional who will eventually be making some serious dough down the road. (This is addressing your girlfriend's debt. No offense to your girlfriend.)
 
dclxvinoise said:
Yes, but are all of those high taxes on cigarettes going to that?
Click to expand...

Some states supposedly require it, but I've got the feeling that it's enforced about as well as our SS payments are "set aside" for us.

Arch Enemy said:
Sorry for a bit of an amateur question,
but how is "smoking" defined; I've always found it a bit exaggerated, the relationship between chronic/life threatening ailments and amount of cigarettes.

It's like saying "eating" will give you heart disease...
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that eating can in many ways be good (and is in fact necessary) while smoking is bad. "Eating fatty foods without working out" is a better analogy.

aps said:
Hmmm. I have a hard time feeling sorry for a professional who will eventually be making some serious dough down the road. (This is addressing your girlfriend's debt. No offense to your girlfriend.)
Click to expand...

None taken, but it's really not as much as you might think. If she went into the field she originally wanted, the average salaries are around $140k/year. With her $300k in debt, that would mean that after spending 4 years in college, 1 year getting a masters, 4 years in med school, and 5-7 years in residency, it would take 20 years of $28k/year loan payments before she'd be in the black. I can't think of any other field where you spend that long in school and work such ****ty hours and are in debt until you're 50+ years old.

Plenty of people shy away from going into medicine because of the much delayed payoff, choosing instead to cash in by going into other fields where the rewards come quicker. If it weren't for Indian parents who put ungodly amounts of pressure on their kids to become doctors, the country would be ****ed. :lol:
 
RightinNYC said:
Of course.

It just so happens that your foible is particularly discrete and directly correlated to health problems, thus making it susceptible to punitive taxation.

That being said, I've got no problem with increases in alcohol taxes, even thought it would cost me more money. I recognize that alcohol causes increased societal/economic costs in terms of healthcare, and am willing to pay my share of that.

Food/exercise is a lot more difficult administratively, but I'm in favor of reducing benefits for people who suffer from ailments related to obesity if need be.
Click to expand...

Do you value being a FREE person? Do you really want the gov. this involved in your own personal life? Because the next step is telling you what you can or cannot consume. Do you really wish for a total Big Brother World? :shock::(
 
dclxvinoise said:
Ah, so those things that you listed are addictive like cigarettes are and cause second hand smoke that affects others as well? And no, I'm not giving cigarettes a bad rap. I don't need to. They've had one for years and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

If we wish to get into how second hand smoke effects people? What about parents that constantly feed their kids crap? I have found that if the parents eat non-healthy crap that is the same kinda crap they are feeding their kids. And of course this does affect these kids and probably why we have such a high obesity weight in kids these days. So maybe we should start taxing junk food to death too?

Maybe we should just start being a Police Country and everything that goes into your body is controlled by our gov. Do you really think that is a good idea? Do you trust the FDA to be your body police? Cause I sure as hell do not! :shock:
 
Kali said:
Do you value being a FREE person?
Click to expand...

Sure.

Do you really want the gov. this involved in your own personal life?
Click to expand...

By "this involved," you mean "taxing a product that they already tax and have taxed for decades"?

Yea, I'm really not tripping.

Because the next step is telling you what you can or cannot consume.
Click to expand...

HI! I'm the FDA. I see we haven't met before.

You do know that they do this all the time, right?

Do you really wish for a total Big Brother World? :shock::(
Click to expand...

I wish for a world where people like me aren't stuck paying for the healthcare of people who end up as drains on the system because of their cigarette smoking. If that means that people who choose to smoke pay an extra buck a pack, I'm okay with that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The article is insinuating that because states are also raising taxes on cigarettes that it will curb use, which reduces funds for SCHIP.

Who will they collect from when there are not enough taxes from cigarettes to fund the program?
Click to expand...
Over time the cost of everyone's health care will cost less comparatively because a relatively significant drop in smokers will directly reduce the high cost that smoker's poor health (due to smoking related illnesses) and this will "balance" the lower revenues generated by less folks smoking...this is a good thing.
 
Kali said:
I think it is total B.S.! Smokers get screwed once again:(
Click to expand...
Smokers deserve to "get screwed" because they're a severe burden on society and they're "Typhoid Marys" who spread disease all over the country.

Nothing good is associated with smoking cigarettes, nothing. It's poison. It's a killer. How many products in America are sold for consumption with warnings that continued use of the product will kill you?
 
Sergeant Stinger1 said:
-
I just got back from the computer show in Rockingham, New Hamphire and I brought 50 cartons back to the guys at $30.00 a carton. There is no sales tax in New Hamphire. Even at that thats a $3.00 savings per pack.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how wise it is to post on a public message board that you've broken the law in a significant way..then again now that Bush is no longer President maybe the FBI will get back to protecting America rather than protecting political rhetoric concocted by the Bush Administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom