Silent Acorns

At a minimum, in Canada at least, increasing cigarette taxes has been shown to decrease cigarette usage by youths. In the early stages of their "smoking career" teenagers are very sensitive to prices. As a result, even if you don't have less teenage smokers, you'll have teenagers with less severe smoking habits (i.e. less packs per day).

It's much easier to quit a 1/2 pack a day habit than a 2 pack a day habit.

Comquirk

Plus, as we have a social health care system, we use these taxes to help cover the cost of smoking related ailments.

abe smith

Taxing cigarettes (like taxing other "vices" = the enormous taxes by all govt agencies on alcohol) is a very effective for govts to RAISE MONEY!

In Newfoundland taxes on "backy & booze are enormous! in part,or even primarily, to discourage those vices for health reasons. And perhaps here in the US of A, raising taxes on cigs DOES discourage the young from smoking. those silly young twits. Those who can, do; those who can't, smoke.

People will pay extreme amounts of cash (especially low-income people) in order to continue using their favorite DOPES. Look at how much the Umurrkin People spend on prescription & OTC "drugs", most of which are probably contraindicated & Bad For Ya. not to mention ineffective. Winter "cold" remedies..... Look how much we spend on all the kinds of BOOZE and backy. and guns.

The Brits taxed SALT when they ran India; and as a result India became independent at-last. The trick is not to tax NECESSITIES, but only optionals. Too bad the BIG MOTHER C forbids taxing RELIGION/religious practice & real estate.....

Also by the bye "the Power to TAX is the power to destroy". think about that. The American Revolution was about TAXing, don't forget. The colonists stopped drinking TEA (threw the stuff into Boston Harbour) and ultimately went to war when adequately -provoked.
Of course, now, as an EX-smoker, i watch my fellow-beings smoking themselves to death, and laugh. It's Their money.

abe smith

OH! my elderly neighbor down-the-hall after having smoked eh, 65 years or so, at least a pack a day; coughing, spitting, eugchk!, QUIT COLD TURKEY, BANG! about 6 weeks ago. Unbelievable. Not certain which of the many reasons moved him; all/several perhaps. He just STOPPED! I consider that one of the major miracles of 2004, I tells yer.

explainyouranswer

Taxing cigarettes is wrong. It is not the governments job to protect citizens from themselves. What if the government decided on a heavy fast food tax which tripled the average price? The ends never justify an illegitimate means. Although many people might benefit from not being obese or having clogged arteries, it is still not a proper function of the government.


This all depends on where it takes place. A bar or resturaunt, believe it or not, is private property. What does this mean? It means that the owner, and only the owner, has the sole right to it's use. Only the owner may dictate the rules of his or her private property, not the government, not "the public," and definitely not "society."

There is no "my right to someone elses private property." You do not and cannot have that right. If you don't like the smoke, you don't have to eat at that resturaunt. As we can see, no rights are being violated at any time. If you get cancer from second hand smoke in a resturaunt, that is a risk that you voluntarily took.

Let's define this "society" for once.

No, really it isn't. How is "the public" harmed by smoking?

The ends never justify an illegitimate means. I'm a smoker, I love smoking, it is my choice, my inalienable right. Sure I'm trying to quit because of the negative effects it has on my health, but again we see that the choice is up to me, not the government.

The ends never justify an illegitimate means. It is the role of parents, not the government, to put an end to underage smoking. Who is at fault if a teenager is smoking? The blame is co-opted. It is partly the teenagers fault, but since this teenager is not in a position to be legally responsible for his or herself, the blame goes to the parents not keeping an eye on their children.

Mat Wilder

I am not saying that drinking never leads to someone else being harmed (i.e. drinking and driving), but drinking by itself does not cause harm to other people. On the contrary, smoking (e.g. in a restaurant) can directly harm other people.

Gawdawful

Since smoking has been shown be a major contributing factor in several major health problems such as lung disease and heart disease and often these diseases do not manifest themselves until older years, often only after the victims of these diseases have gone onto government assisted healthcare programs, i.e. Medicare, then I think by all rights, the costs associated with smoking should be recoverable by that government that is expending the resources caring for those made ill by the very substance being taxed.

I don't think cigarette tax increases were necessarily intended to have any impact at all on second-hand smoke, i.e. polluting public spaces, that is where the no-smoking laws come in. I think the taxes were increased more to recompense the government for the costs of smoking and to deter smoking rather than to impact second hand smoke.

Unfortunately, the tobacco lobby is strong enough that the taxes haven't gotten sufficiently high to have a large impact on useage. Even if they did, for revenue collection, it would be a self-defeating tax; the higher the tax, fewer people will smoke, eventually leading to fewer taxes collected, thus requiring additional taxes to maintain revenue stream.

My home state of Oklahoma did have one of the lowest tobacco taxes in the nation, but recently was bumped by over a half dollar per pack. Oddly enough, only Oklahoma, Missouri and New Hampshire have enacted legislation requiring tobacco taxes expressedly be spent on tobacco-related heath care issues. Some other states, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia and Wyoming have proposed spending extra tobacco revenues on Medicare. The rest of the states, I presume, just put the money in their general revenue funds, to be spent at the discretion of their state legislature.


Warren

Gawdawful

Second hand smoke not as harmful as thought.

Another article citing a study backing that up.


Warren

Adora

Yes, and if this were the case, there would never be the hooha in society about where private injecting rooms, brothels or liquer shops are placed (eg- near schools, parks etc are not allowed).

A "private" establishment, even before it is built, has to conform to certain regulations that dictate it's use. It has to get the go-ahead from the council, a representation for the public. If it violates that agreement during it's use, the public can make a complaint, and it gets shut down.

It has nothing to do with someone's "right" to your property. It has everything to do with what happens on that property. You can "own" a piece of land for 30 years, but if none of your designs, ideas, or desires for that property ever pass through regulatory bodies, that property is useless.

Okay, let's try "people who don't smoke".

Passive smoke. Ever heard of it? I get a gutful of the shit when I just stand at the street crossings in the city. Yes, having a sore throat and scratchy voice for the rest of the week isn't being harmed at all. Children getting lung cancer from the passive smoke from their chainsmoking parents isn't harm either.

explainyouranswer

Then don't eat at a resturaunt which permits smoking.

The typical socialist logic. The solution to all problems is to remove freedom, and if that presents problems, remove even more freedom, and if that becomes a problem then remove some more. The point here is to make the socialist program work.

Illegitimate government function.

The point here is that the government needs money, not whether or not people are being helped. The object here is for the government to capitalize off of tobacco in any way possible.

And there shouldn't be.

Another illegitimate function of the government.

In a capitalist society, the only thing regulated is the government.

What about when society hurts themselves? Do we blame society?

The streets and roads are government property, and they have a legitimate function in that area. The government has no business in private establishments.