explainyouranswer

So is armed robbery.

It is immoral, because the government may not legislate morality (anti-homosexual laws).

"It's only taxing, it doesn't really hurt anyone."

Can we tax homosexual marriage licenses more than regular ones? Why not, it's only taxing.

fried beef sandwich

Regarding the OP, I wanted to point out that the benefits nonsmokers derive from cig taxes are used to help the public good. Hence, smokers are paying for their share of public goods with their cigarette tax.

Especially if they get pulmonary fibrosis and have to use their Medicare or Medi-Cal to pay for their treatment.

explainyouranswer

Public goods? What is this "public good?" Can we quantify and define this "public good?" Did "the public" pay for it?

One removal of freedom that causes problems does not justify removing even more freedom to fix the problem created by removing freedom. The solution is to allow man to be free.

yelyos

Issue with this - the SMOKE travels off the private property and into public areas. If the smoke can be kept somehow within the private property, I have no issue with smoking. But don't smoke anywhere else.

By the time someone has cleared the age limit for smoking, they're legally an adult and therefore it is NOT the parent's responsibility.

If you're referring to <18 smoking and saying that there shouldn't be an age law and that it should be the role of parents, I would have to argue that not all parents have issues with their children smoking.

My personal opinion is that if it's bad enough to ban children and most teenagers from doing it, it should be only legal in rooms where the outside world is sheltered from the smoke. We need individual smoking rooms, with filter systems to prevent the smoke going into the public air. Also, it should be taxed enough in countries with socialized medicine to pay for any health problems that smokers may have. This would ensure that the only people the smokers harm is themselves, and that is the only time I would be okay with smoking.

abe smith

Well, Bhye, gummints can tax anything they goddamn please, that the taxpayers will let them get away with; and "morality" has nothing to do with it! It's about POWER!

neo_mp5

i say, tax the hell out of it. hundred bucks a pack. put the money from the taxes into stop-smoking programs and ads. new warning label: warning, cigarettes may cause you to go bankrupt

Adora

If a mother who slowly poisons her child in her home (ie- "Private property") with minute amounts of rat-poison in the child's meals is punishable under law, an smoker in a private or public place should be taxed, or punished in some way.

explainyouranswer

Can I see some scientific analysis of this assertion? Do these levels of carcinogens have any effect whatsoever on health, particularly lung cancer?

Right, and what's your point?

I never said there should not be an age limit, I said parents need to be more responsible. You don't punish all tobacco users simply because some parents choose not to keep an eye on their childrens activities.

Scientific studies show that smokers actually benefit the socialist immoral policies, since they tend to die sooner and so do not recieve many of the alleged "benefits." A smoker who dies 15-20 years earlier would more than makeup his medical expenses. The issue here also is not an arguement against smokers, but an arguement against socialism. This is a problem with socialism, not smoking.

As far as your "filter systems" arguement goes, the average SUV produces more toxic fumes in 10 minutes than burning an entire carton of cigarettes at the same time. "Public air" is not demonstratably affected by cigarette smoke, that much is certain. If it were, then I too would be an advocate for banning public smoking.

But your obviously an unreasonable and irrational person. A christian would tell me that it is Gods will, therefore it is justified. The standard us non-fundamentalists use is reason, not mysticism.

True, parents should consider the health effects of smoking in the home. However, I'm not even opposed to the government enforcing this law, since it is a protection of individual rights, specifically that of the child.

However, when we are talking about consenting individuals, as is the case in Californias bars, the government has absolutely no right to dictate the use of private property. None at all.

Mallberta

Taxing cigarrette makes sense from a pollution aspect; air is clearly a common good, so people who wish to consume it above the normal level should be made to pay.

Adora

When I go to a yacht club with a friend or family and I sit in the bar or restaurant in the "Non Smoking" section (which a recent study has found can sometimes be more poisonous from ciggys than the smoking section thanks to air conditioning units and ventilation being poor) and the "Smoking" section is puffing away and poisoning the rest of us, I consent to nothing. The government, public, and the councils have absolutely the right to dictate the use of private property, because you cannot murder, cannibalise or rape someone on that private property and get away with it. It is not the property that is the issue here, but the act. The individuals commiting the act on the property are negatively affecting society, and therefore, society has every right to punish them.