• 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!

Oregon raises smoking age to 21

Is pot legal in Oregon? If so, will the age for and tobacco be the same?
 
Reagan BLACKMAILED all states by threatening to withhold FHMFs to force states to move legal drinking age from 18 to 21; YES, it was BLACKMAIL ...........
 
Legal adults (specifically, 18-20 year olds) are still kids in many ways. See also: alcohol.

I don't think that should be 21 either. In Canada the drinking age is 19 and all hellfire and brimstone somehow hasn't fallen there
 
Oregon Senate approves raising legal tobacco age to 21

Just stupid, why should legal adults not be permitted to purchase a legal product? Why not just ban the retail sale of tobacco period if smoking is so bad?
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...

1) It does bring in revenue,

and

2) They know that outright prohibition would be a huge cost in enforcement and crime related issues.
 
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...

1) It does bring in revenue,

and

2) They know that outright prohibition would be a huge cost in enforcement and crime related issues.

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.
 
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.
Possibly, but that doesn't touch the added costs from the resulting crime and attempts to enforce outright prohibition.
 
Possibly, but that doesn't touch the added costs from the resulting crime and attempts to enforce outright prohibition.

I agree and I am against prohibition for that reason. I am just saying that tobacco taxes hardly cover its health costs to society.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
I don't think that should be 21 either. In Canada the drinking age is 19 and all hellfire and brimstone somehow hasn't fallen there

In Alberta the drinking age is 18 and I believe Sask is the same
 
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.

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_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm

I don't smoke, so why I should I have to pay for that?
 
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_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm

I don't smoke, so why I should I have to pay for that?
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/California_Proposition_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?
 
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/California_Proposition_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?

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.
 
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.

The problem there is, people politically supportive of smoking bans and high taxes love to claim the entire bill for treating those conditions across society as the costs of smoking even though many people who do not smoke will develop heart disease and lung cancer and the majority of costs are born by private insurance and not the public. So the reality is, tobacco taxes for a state legislature are free money. Just like the lottery, the Feds are covering the welfare benefits while the benificiaries are spending their disposable income on lottery tickets
 
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.
That sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. It's already bad enough that sin taxes are always foisted upon the politically weak. Who's next? Will it be something that you or I do*? I hate sin taxes as a general concept, but they would be easier for me to accept if the proceeds stayed wholly with the "sin". To me, additional insurance costs probably has more legitimate merit, but it's still a form of sin tax.

*- I do not smoke, never have, but I do believe that we treat smokers unnecessarily shabbily and with a great deal of inequality.
 
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_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm

I don't smoke, so why I should I have to pay for that?

I mean we could change your last line to anything. I don't have unprotected sex with men so why is HIV my problem? Why spend a dime treating it? And since I don't knock up women either why should I pay taxes towards WIC or child care or anything?

Claiming you shouldn't have to cover the costs of other people's decisions is s lost argument in this society
 
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.

The problem with excise gas taxes is if im using gasoline for my lawn mower, dirt bike, chain saw ect I am not using a vehicle so I pay a hire price for gas to fund roads im not using.
Excise taxes on tobacco harms dip users as well. My use of dip tobacco doesnt harm you or others. I ok with health insurances increasing my premiums if i am a tobacco user.
Alchole excise taxes punishes casual occassianal drinker at an attempt to punish alcholics
Now we have a sugar drink excise tax that punishs soda drinkers under the notion that the tax revenue will help pay for someone with diabetes?
Excises taxes are unfair in natural by eleminating free markets prices and sets up a PATERNALISM by the government and you also get doubled taxed through sales tax.
 
Back
Top Bottom