So where DOES it end? How legal and fair is our government? Not very, in my opinion. In fact, it's disturbing to see how bad it has gotten over the years! Also, for your own entertainment, check this out.

It's a link to Yesmoke.ch, which has been through a never-ending battle against The Phillip Morris Co. I'm not aware how many of you have read this before, but it definitely is amusing. I'd definitely recommend this article whether you're a smoker or not!

Why should it end? Personally, I have no problem with taxes forcing cigarettes to cost $100 each.

Personally, I have no problem with taxes forcing the price of kittens up to $10,000 each.

If this is going to turn into an exchange of one-liners, I will close this thread.

Debate the topic in a constructive fashion.

I think higher taxes help in the sense of reducing smoking, but that has to be balanced against the damage that punitive social-engineering taxes do to our constitutional and property rights. Taxes on cigarettes seem to have gone way beyond recovering costs to society.

I agree with Platypus here - I have no problem with taxing tobacco in proportion to its costs, however a balance needs to be struck - it is a dangerous precedent to pick this product as a "pet" revenue producer.

What interested me more about the Yesmoke story is PM wanting to bar American customers from purchasing the European Marlboros with fewer nitrosamines.

It seems to me that it is always a bad idea to attempt to effect social or behavioral changes through the tax code - and unfortunately, that happens quite alot. "We want you to buy a house" - so if you buy a house, you get huge tax breaks on interest, etc. that you don't get if you don't want to buy a house, or can't afford one. So-called "sin taxes" on products like alcohol and tobacco are the same sort of thing. The purpose of those taxes at least in part is not to raise revenue, but rather to punish people for their "vices". I don't like the idea of punitive tax law at all. Taxes should be assessed to raise needed revenue for the operation of our government - period.

I agree. There are virtually no taxes on alcohol (my only vice), and the health-related costs to society are high. The government is receiving tremendous proceeds from nicotine addiction

Well then, by that argument, cigarettes are taxed to raise revenue to fund government health care (Medicare and Medicaid) for the people that make themselves mortally ill by smoking. Even at a deeply cynical level (pure $$$ and not lives), smoking is expensive for America and should be highly taxed.

Further, I think the best type of government is one that uses the free market to better society. Sensible tax incentives are the best type of policy.

The idea of a sin tax is not to punish people, but to make the people that choose to use risky products pay society back for that usage. There is no judgment in these taxes other than the judgment of activity. If you participate, you contribute; if you don't participate, you don't have to subsidize those who do.

It is an elegant solution that assigns benefit and cost in a more equitable fashion.

Tobacco is not a healthy product, why that in itself i don’t see as a reason i guess to price related products namely cigarettes so high, it is a move i agree with, though i have heard some poor working people complain about it, as cigarettes were a quicker way to death.

Even non-smokers eventually become "mortally ill". That's caused by something called "old age", so, by your argument, old age should be taxed. Come to think of it, if a person dies from smoking before they become eligible for medicare, there is a net savings to the government. Even if a person lives long enough all of the studies would indicate I believe that smokers tend to die earlier than non-smokers do. That's a savings on Social Security and pensions, etc. Perhaps, using your argument, we should tax non-smokers for not smokiing and I have no doubt that if they thought they could get away with it, the politicians would.



I must say, this is one of the more unique definitions I have seen of a "free market". I'm not quite sure how you get from a "free market" to an arbitrary decision to tax certains kinds of behavior and the products associated with it. A more appropriate definition of "free market" might be that health insurance and life insurance companies charge higher premiums for smokers than they do for non-smokers. That has nothing to do with government taxes though.



That's the pro-tax line, no question, but the dirty little secret is that the reason we have sin taxes is because the politicians know they can get away with them. "Tax reform" means "I pay less" to the voters. This is just a way for the government to grab more money from certain people. They can try to justify it all they want with all kinds of cost benefit analysis, but the bottom line is they do it because they can.

Campbejm, I wouldn't have a problem with the higher taxes, if they in fact went to help pay for smokers in medicare, medicaid, etc. The problem is, they don't. Those taxes go straight into the general fund, and medicare, et. al. Those programs end up underfunded, because instead of using the taxes to cover the additional health costs of smoking they are used as an excuse to reduce program funding by the amount of the cigarette taxes collected.

Besides, if you talk to smokers, you'll find that the increased price is very little incentive to quit. My brother was a longterm smoker. He always said that he would quit if cigarettes reached $1.00 a pack, then $1.50, then $2.00, etc. He didn't quit until last year, with his first heart attack. Price had nothing to do with it.

People, please realize... Everyday situations gather up into a larger and larger pile of excuses. To many, it is these very excuses that strip of us rights and, in some cases, sanity! It is a very ignorant way to look at things. To say excessive taxation on a product will decrease usage, especially when dependacy is a key element, is simply obsurd.

If the multiple purposes of such extreme taxation is only to benefit, then why hasn't there been any funding in making cigarettes LESS harmful? Nicotine and Tar aren't the only "killers" in a cigarette. In fact, reduction of such elements creates a lot more chain-smokers! Carcinogens such as, nitrosamine, are a greater health risk, especially since the levels of such carcinogens is completely ignored! Sure, that to many, looks like I'm giving excuses for myself along with every other smoker... However, have you ever ripped a cigarette apart to examine it? This was one of the great arguments at Yesmoke.ch that I was extremely surprised and happy to see brought into light. You will find quit a unique blend, indeed, like wood chips for example!

Cigarettes ARE bad for my health and anyone standing around me... However, the chances of cigarette smoke effecting someone outdoors isn't extreme. I do agree with non-smoking facilities as well as smoker-designated seating. Why should someone who doesn't want to inhale have to deal with it? I'm not one to choose for you. However, that isn't where it ends. You have the very people who are leaders in the cigarette co. (Phillip Morris) creating "special blends" worldwide for global savings. This is an enemy to everyone, smoker or not. You absolutely CAN NOT expect people to realize what is ADDED to the tabacco. Foods, medical drugs, and drinks all require active ingredient labeling. Why shouldn't cigarettes?

Billions of people smoke cigarettes. It's not a lie and it's not a secret. Extreme taxation means enormous "sin" funds are gathered at an hourly rate! Yet, they won't bother to better educate you to make what decision you have choosen a better one. Sure all tabacco is harmful, but better produced products will REDUCE health issues. Loose fiberglass particles aren't a joke and definitely increase addictions and cravings. Why don't they mandate usage of such particles, then? Why is it that we are left with no say-so whatsoever in what we choose to do?

Bare with me, don't look beyond what i'm saying. I completely disagree with anyone who says they do not have the will power to stop smoking. However, to say someone who smokes should be punished? It isn't a crime, so then why am I pressed for it as one? Why do we (smokers) pay "sin taxes" when we have animals that are locked up in cages and tested daily with products that aren't "sinful" in the eyes of the public? What about Aerosol products? Do they not destory the ozone? Isn't that a bit, oh i don't know.. SINFUL!? Or our abuse of petroleum based products... It's not biodegradable, yet you will find anything from coke bottles to industrial sheets of plastics and rubbers that we cannnot dispose anymore. Since everything isn't recycled, isn't that technically sinful? Yes, I do firmly believe all these products DO affect life. Maybe not yours or not even another humans. Does that mean it's not sinful for birds to get wrapped up in plastic items (such as soft drink retainers for cans)?

Take a look around you. If you aren't willing to realize that everyone has their own views on certain aspects to life and the indirect effects from them, then you are definitely leaning towards being too narrrow minded regarding issues. Instead of punishing, we should all work together to create better alternatives. We'll be here for a while and have more then enough time on our hands. It's a matter of patience and acknowledgement for problematic situations that we can all overcome some other way.

One other thing, if my tax dollars were really spent on medicare and medicaid, that'd be a different story. Hell, no one REALLY knows what any tax dollars really go to!

Sorry for the lengthy reply...

Neno

Amen, brother! I have yet to meet a smoker who has a price that will cut him off from smoking.

Locally, a merchant in a poor area of town, in trouble for something else was featured in a news story. One of the things that came out in the story was that the customers mostly shopped there because he would sell them individual cigarettes (illegally) at $1.00 apiece, if they couldn't afford a full pack.

My father-in-law in my first marriage smoked two packs a day until he had a lung removed, then cut down to a pack a day. He was also a heavy drinker. In the hospital to cut out the cancerous half of his remaining lung, an alarm went off that his heart had stopped. He was found with an open whiskey bottle and a lit cigarette.

Let's see, all four of our daughter's grandparents are dead of smoking related illnesses. One of the first sentences she learned was "Smoking is stupid and dangerous." She has repeated it every time a "friend" lights up since the age of two. Her definition of "friend" for this purpose, is anyone who has ever spoken to her. I quit smoking the day that I met Paladin Elspeth, over 16 years ago. Yesterday, I stopped to take a long look at the pipes and tobacco display in the drugstore. As an AA member would say, I am a "recovering smoker;" the temptation to light up again is very real.

The FDA has attempted in the past, I have been told, to regulate cigarettes. Among the obstacles they encountered, were legislators addicted to taxing cigarettes.

This post approved by Spell Check

How much tax are we talking, here? A pack of 20 cigarettes typicallly costs about £4.50 in the UK - around $7.50 - and probably 75-80% of that is tax.

What does a packet cost in the USA? And, if it's around $3-4, how does that constitute high tax?

The taxation-to-fund-healthcare argument is much easier to make here, by the way, as we have the NHS. (The National Health Service; comprehensive healthcare for all free at the point of delivery, funded form taxation. Socialised medicine, if you will, and none the worse for that.)

Depends on where you're at Julian.

It's not just federal taxes over here, it's also state and (in some cases) city taxes. Where I live for instance, cigarettes run about $3.50 a pack, I guess. When we visited New York City a couple of years ago, I stopped at a convenience store to get some gas. While waiting in line to pay for it, I noticed that a sign in the store was advertising one of the major brands on sale at like $7.75 a pack. So, it can vary greatly, depending on how much the local taxes are as well as the federal.

I quit 6 months ago and price had everything to do with it. I am sure if the price of cigarettes increases, less people smoke. If you don't buy that, then you don’t believe in capitalism. Yes, cigarettes have more inelastic demand than most things, but people quit when the price increases.





It's all one big pot. The outlays have to come from somewhere. If you eliminate taxes in one area, then you have to increase revenues somewhere else. And quite to the contrary those areas DO NOT go under funded. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid represent about one third of our national budget. To put it in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects defense outlays for 2003 at $407 billion and outlays for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid at $745 billion.

SSI is one of the biggest election hot topics and will NEVER go under funded or be reformed until it is too late.





Two things:

1) Dieing as a result of cancer or emphazema is NOT AT ALL the same as dieing of old age.

2) More poor people smoke than rich people. Poor people are more likely to need government help for healthcare. Smokers are sicker more often than non-smokers. So: less smoking = less sick people needing government help. Conversely, as the number of people smoking increases, the needed government outlay for healthcare assistance increases. Why shouldn't the increase in outlay be matched by increasing the tax on an activity that causes the increase in expense.

Do you think it is more fair to spread this expense around to the people not causing the cost?





A free market is one in which consumers can respond to all costs. Free market doesn't mean you can do what ever you want regardless of the costs on society. A functioning market is one in which the prices of goods reflect ALL costs. Therefore, taxing cigarettes sends a more correct price signal to consumers than untaxed cigarettes since there is a large societal cost. (When I say cost, I not only refer to government outlays in real dollars, put also things like lost productivity in the economy resulting from the poor health of smokers. I use the word in the economic sense.)





You're right. The failings of democracy are many, but it’s the only way I'd want to live.

Now its starting to get to me. First they say we can't smoke at work. then it was restuarants, then the taxes, then the bar (I can't take my beer out or bring my cig in .) Now it seem we can't even smoke in our own house.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housin...smokehome_x.htm

Yes as the price increases more people tend to quit, or use yessmoke.com, but more states are starting to raise their taxes to compensate for the loss of revenue due to this mass exodus. It's vicious cycle. And to add why do the always take it out on us smokers. We obviously pay more taxes, and die young. Therfore we do not recieve Social Security that we pitch in to. You oughta thank us when you see us lighting up. Atleast give us more miles on a pack of Marlboros.

Cool. If you can get that law passed, more power to you.

I am sure once every possible dollar is drained from smokers that a tyrannical majority that wants more government, without them personally having to pay for it, will find another product to tax unfairly.

Just FYI: Social Security doesnt just go to old people. Government medical aid doesnt just go to old people either. When someone smokes, we all are hurt. I dont disagree that you're the one with the most to lose, but smoking is not some isolated personal choice. It has a very real effect on everyone (and I'm not talking about second hand smoke).

The argument that smokers die young and are therefore not a burden is silly. Most smokers don't die young. It's not like everyone who smokes gets cancer. That's a falacy. The one thing you CAN say though is that smokers lead lives with more illness than non-smokers.

Does anyone see the alcohol tax coming. Maybe birth control, since they prevent future tax payers they need to compensate somehow.
Tell that to my life insurance company, and my 50 year old grandfather, sorry he died. The thing is in the past 4 years I have seen a pack of cigarettes go from $2.75 dollars a pack to $8.00 a pack and on top of it we can't even light up anywhere, not even our own homes anymore. The treat us like drug users. If they truly wanted to stop people from smoking then they should outlaw it like drugs. The only reason they don't is cause they are making to much money on our addiction. (They could atleast build us some huts with a heater in the winter time. preferably not the see through ones, they make me feel like an animal in the zoo.) While your at it how about banning alcohol too. Think at all the liver problems and drunk driving. Lets just ban anything that can possible cause an injury. BTW I was joking in the last post. I feel sorry for non smokers. They have no idea of how it feel to truly want something and to get it over and over. < Look another joke.

Smokers, on average, die earlier than non smokers. Thati s no fallacy. The fact is, as Jocelyn Elders stated "Everybody's gotta die of something." At some point non-smokers also burden the healthcare system. Smokers have excessive health care costs at an earlier age than non-smokers. That may be more than offset by reduced benefits due to earlier mortality.

Taxing a product (any product) raises the price to the consumer. A higher price means less demand. Therefore, taxing cigarettes lowers demand for cigarettes. There is no denying that.

However, you get into a Catch 22. Now, there is a good revenue stream to the government from smokers. Not wanting to lose that revenue, the government will never outright ban smoking. It also will not raise taxation to a level equivalent to banning ($100 a pack or so).

The issue shifts from one of "burden on society" to one of revenue stream, period. I do think it is disengenuous to say that cigarette taxes indirectly go into government health care. They do not. The states spent their cigarette windfalls on pork projects and it's now gone. The Federal government compartmentalizes revenues and there is no correlation of Medicare/Medicade benefits being funded through any type of "sin" tax.

A tax of this type is regressive, as well. The bane of many liberals. The poor should not fund their own habits and the ill effects reaped from them, should they? Since the poor disproportionately smoke, shouldn't non-smokers (more likely to be wealthy) fund the habits of the smokers?

The whole issue is too political. I am sure that the original intent was worthy. Since the use of the tax revenue isn't used to offset the healthcare costs, the whole thing simply becomes another revenue stream and is thus unfair.

I think the reason the government doesn't outlaw smoking is probably a lesson from prohibition. Taxes are a good way for them to do the right thing without getting people violently killed.





The Congress and the CBO do not spend based on revenue source. If you think that social security withholding in your pay check goes to a different place than the income tax withholding you are mistaken. It is all one big pot of money that Congress has to work with. Yes, there are window dressings that make it look like the money is earmarked depending on its source, but that’s not the way it works.

Take a look at the COB’s web site (www.cbo.gov) to see how revenue is counted.

You’ll find the following categories: individual income, corporate income, social insurance, and other.

Hi, I'm Neno, Smoker... I never stopped smoking because of excessive taxes because fellow smokers, Yesmoke.ch, aided me through the roughest years of my life - My government is trying to get away with murder for a pack of cigarettes! I, too, am surrounded by people who have fallen to cancer. However, this sinful stick is a helpful tool to me. You see, there are many ways you can look down on life. I just so happen to believe in the good ole saying I've said since day one: Either make it short 'n sweet or long and dreadful. I honestly DON'T want to live to see grown man buttock wipes or diapers with *wings*. Short 'n sweet and that's all she wrote!

I'm sure one or two people might quit smoking for high taxes, but do you honestly think those people will quit forever??! Out of over 32 friends who've quit before, only 1 of them doesn't smoke anymore. He's a healthy cheebah smoker, but even that is sinful. Totally different topic there, though! Do you honestly feel your endangering your life walking beside a smoker out on the streets!? Indoor smoking is a rarity nowadays, especially in my town, Skokie, IL, where smoking in public areas is BANNED. It gets better, cigarette prices have escaladed in some regions of Skokie up to a whooping $6/pk. Sure, that isn't as bad as other places in this Nation, or even the world, but this is a $2 leap within 2 months of time. WOW!!! So much for freedom. Here's a humorous one my buddy told me... "First our nation was divided by race and now it's because of our choices in life, like a stick packed with tabacco that they aren't smoking... Just imagine how horrible the down wind from that burning stick is to someone who doesn't smoke!" Sure, that's a little pro-smokers, but I smoke and feel harrassed by the entire nation for that! You go out and buy something you enjoy on the everyday basis with a fat tax tab on it and tell me how proud you feel for being marked as a "Code Red"! Nevermind those ladies, or even men, that smell like a saloon on feet! I betchya those vapors will take a couple hours of my life! I SAY PUSH TAXES 10x HARDER!

P.S. - You can take BOTH my lungs by the time I'm 40, because lung transplants will be a reality by then! If, of course, I ever GET lung cancer. (might get hit by a car first, oh wait.. MAYBE WE SHOULD TAX CARS MORE NOW TOO!)

Well, I'm in the process of being an ex-smoker and though I've been shown pictures of the effects of smoking can do to you long term and I've already began to feel weaker and having light chest pains (when I exert myself in intense physical activity); I'd say the biggest deterrent for me from smoking is the price. I'm on a limited budget and have smoked for 10 years and in the short amount of time that I haven't smoked, I've been amazed at the extra cash I've had in my pocket. It's really shameful to think of the amount of money I threw away...