That's what I've been saying for years, and I think that's what they'd really like to do, but won't for two reasons...Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle
1) It does bring in revenue,
and
2) They know that outright prohibition would be a huge cost in enforcement and crime related issues.
Roy L. Fuchs: I'll tell you something. This country is going to the dogs.
You know, it used to be when you bought a politician, that son of a bitch stayed bought.
I would imagine that any revenue it brings in is more than offset by the health costs of it. You would have to pay a lot of cigarette taxes to offset the costs of lung cancer treatment, COPD, and heart disease.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
Possibly, but that doesn't touch the added costs from the resulting crime and attempts to enforce outright prohibition.
Roy L. Fuchs: I'll tell you something. This country is going to the dogs.
You know, it used to be when you bought a politician, that son of a bitch stayed bought.
I agree and I am against prohibition for that reason. I am just saying that tobacco taxes hardly cover its health costs to society.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
A better question is why a state is allowed to have such a high margine of tax on a product? Why not a soda tax, a gasoline tax, an alcohal tax. Oh wait they do have those. Democrat lead governments tax products they dont like in society as a way to fund their agendas instead of taxing all products the same and allowing the free market determine the prices. Its a form of social control instead of allowing freedom.
Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal.
It all boils down to political clout. The amount of all sin taxes are based on political clout. Smokers used to have it, 40+ years ago, now they don't.
Lose your clout, become an insignificant voting minority, your taxes go up.
Roy L. Fuchs: I'll tell you something. This country is going to the dogs.
You know, it used to be when you bought a politician, that son of a bitch stayed bought.
In Alberta the drinking age is 18 and I believe Sask is the same
Ignorance is Bliss
You seem very happy today
Seasons Beatings
You don't have "freedom" to impose the costs of your choices on others. We have gas taxes because they fund the roads vehicles drive on. We have tobacco taxes because tobacco use has a very high health cost on society. Smoking related illnesses cost us some 300 billion a year. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...acts/index.htm
I don't smoke, so why I should I have to pay for that?
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
Ok, fair point. Now, in the spirit of fairness, it is not uncommon for smoking sin taxes to fund things that are not smoking-related at all, like child care programs. Why should smokers have to pay for that?
Here's just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...tion_10_(1998)
I've heard some say that good childhood development benefits everybody. Ok, I can go with that, but then if everybody benefits shouldn't everybody be taxed for it? Why only the politically insignificant smokers?
Roy L. Fuchs: I'll tell you something. This country is going to the dogs.
You know, it used to be when you bought a politician, that son of a bitch stayed bought.
I think a better solution than cigarette taxes would be to allow insurers to charge smokers whatever actuaries determine warrants their actual increased risk due to their smoking habit (insurers can charge smokers more now, but not that much more) and to increase Medicare taxes for smokers to whatever actuaries would determine is needed to cover their increased health risks.
"You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote