Well, to answer your question directly, you don’t take it that far. Sam, you have to admit there’s a wide, wide gulf between taxing a dangerous drug and selectively putting newspapers out of business.
Not to point out the obvious here, but taxes on smokes pale next to the level of control the government exerts over, say, Demerol or any other sort of prescription narcotic. (I have conducted quality audits of companies that hold such products in inventory. Fort Knox has NOTHING on what they have to do. And God forbid you lose so much as a single bottle.) They’re legal drugs, but the government makes it insanely hard to get them. That’s true in pretty much every organized state, so far as I am aware. There is obviously very little connection between the government imposing market-warping restrictions on addictive drugs, and the government shutting down opposition newspapers with conveniently applied “taxes.”
I’m not dismissing your arguments out of hand, but the comparison to Chile was a ridiculous stretch. I still cannot muster a lot of sympathy for the smokers. You can sway me with arguments based in economics or good social policy, and your point about smuggling’s a good one. But I just don’t see this as being a true injustice.
I’ve head this argument before and don’t agree. I grant one part of it, though: By dying early, they will save on Social Security costs. That is, by dying they lose their pension.
This assumes, however, that the goal of government and social policy is profit. This isn’t the case. Otherwise, you could argue that murderers save us money by offing people who would have cost the system money. The actual goal of the system is long life, prosperity, and happiness for all. Smoking thwarts these goals.
On the fiscal side, though, I would still say it’s at best a wash for smokers, even when you include the early death angle. They DO cost the system more:
A. More illness during working life = lost work days and productivity.
B. More illness. Many smokers do NOT die especially early but simply get sicker younger.
Yes, there is, inasmuch as the individual can no longer afford every treatment that could save him. If society is committed to saving him, then society will have to make up the difference.
If society is content to let people die who cannot afford the big treatments, then, yes, you are correct.
While there are a lot of folks here with little sympathy for smokers, I have yet to see (perhaps I missed it) a justification for the taxes that are currently placed on cigarettes.
In what way do smokers deserve to have a larger portion of their income go to a state’s General Fund, or for water quality, or anything other than to cover the additional costs they supposedly bring to the state?
Where did that settlement money go? Want to bet that a lot of it is also in General Funds throughout the country?
If taxing cigarettes insanely is okay, can we do the same for any food with greater than 25% of its calories from fat? We’re paying for obesity in the same way we pay for smoking. Perhaps we should tax medications for the elderly to the point they triple in cost. After all, they cost more than their share in health care.
What are you going to do about the shortfall if the “supposed” reason for the tax comes to fruition, and the tax revenue is gone due to everyone quitting?
DMC, just so it’s clear, I’m not saying I am thoroughly am disagreeing with Sam Stone, I’m just saying that the argument, “It’s not fair to poor people who want to smoke” ain’t doin’ it for me. The other reasons given have some merit, but not that one.
There’s an extra fee attached to car rentals and hotel fees and airline fees, which makes it harder for poor people to travel. There are a lot of things that are “too expensive” for some of us. Heaven knows, I’d travel more if it cost less. I can’t afford to travel as much as richer people. But that’s the way it goes. We all can’t afford to do the things we want to do, or have the things we want to have.
Are the rest of you wringing your hands in heartfelt sympathy for me because I can’t afford to travel more? I doubt it. Then why should I wring my hands in heartfelt sympathy if some people can’t afford more cigarettes, or because they decide to not get something else because they’ve decided they value their cigarettes more?
I haven’t seen any data for the United States, but I know that there was a rather infamous Phillip Morris study done in the Czech Republic that found the smoking saved the government money.
While I understand that the folks supporting these taxes might be a bit offput by a study paid for by Philip Morris, I found one that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (aren’t these peer reviewed?), that also supports the notion that smokers are actually cheaper long term.
While I’m not a subscriber, so can’t see the full text, I did find other folks who have cited it, namely here, which says:
So, does anyone still think we should have outrageous taxes on cigarettes, and why?
Note, my statement about the study being done for Philip Morris was in reference to the cite provided by cckerberos. As far as I know, the study I cited has nothing to do with Philip Morris nor any other tobacco firm.
As an American currently living in Norway, I can say that higher taxes DO make be drink less (I don’t smoke, so I can’t say anything about that). A half-liter of (decent) beer will set you back USD$3.50 (or 25NOK) in the supermarkt (about $6-7 in a bar) which is insanely high - so I drink less. But maybe if I start living here for an extended amount of time and get used to the high prices, my consumption might go up. But for me, I do feel that taxes do lessen consumption overall.
As a note, princes for tobacco are about USD$10-11 for a 20-pack, and still a hell of a lot of people smoke here.
And on and on and on. Cites are in plentiful supply.
I am sad to hear that smoking has such dire consequences and I always feel sorry when I hear that someone has fallen prey to a smoking-related disease. We all run the risk of getting sick due to our “bad habits.” The thing is, they are bad habits. They are generally not considered “good ideas.” One cite does indicate that 9 out of 10 smokers wants to quit. This gives me the impression that they also feel that it isn’t a “good idea.”
That’s a tempting argument, but it could be used to justify taxing all sorts of activities. Just think of all the deaths and injuries caused each year by skiing, swimming, and playing football.
I would like to ask people who are fine with taxes on cigarettes if a tax on delicious desserts and french fries is OK with them. Surely, the reports on the rising obesity epidemic must have caught your attention. The analogy is exact.
Also, someone raised the point of special taxes in the tourism industry: hotels, rentals etc. Anyone know why they exist, and its relationship to a tax on cigs, if any?
I was the one that brought up the tourism fees, and I don’t know what relationship they have on cigarette taxes. My point wasn’t that extra taxes were okay, only that saying that “but poor people won’t afford them” isn’t quite doing it. Especially for something like smoking.
Let’s use the obesity example for a moment. Let’s say I’m as fat as a circus lady, and I have to scoot around on one of those motorized scooters because I can’t get around very well on my own. Let’s say I’m addicted to McDonald’s Big Macs and eat them three times a day. Let’s say that I love Big Macs and I claim that it’s my choice to enjoy them (which it would be—nobody else’s business, really). Let’s say some bizarre law was allowed where a prohibitive tax was allowed on Big Macs if the person buying it was as large as a circus lady who had to get around on a scooter. And let’s say that some people were bleating about how “unfair” it was to this lady, not because it’s not the government’s job to interfere with her buying habits like that (something which I might be persuaded to agree), but because it’s not fair because she’s poor and can’t enjoy all the Big Macs she wants.
That’s not really a good reason. The other reasons—like government not putting “sin taxes” on stuff, because it’s obtrusive—that has merit. But not because of some impoverished circus lady who can’t get all the Big Macs that she wants. I don’t think that too many people would be picketing in protest because all the poor circus ladies of the world couldn’t afford to eat as much junk food anymore, so we’ve gotta lower the taxes on junk food, because think of the poor circus ladies! Come on.
(And just so it’s clear, I’m not exactly svelte. I am not anti-circus lady. I just don’t think that she’d be a victim if she can’t afford Big Macs three times a day. ;))
First off, Sam’s point is primarily about the government regulating people’s choices unfairly. It looks like you agree with that.
The other important point is that in your analogy, the Big Macs are taxed heavily whether the consumer is a fat circus lady riding a scooter or a guy who balances himself on a thin rope.
Yosemite, you keep bringing up statistics and making points about how smoking is bad for you, but this thread is actually about the taxation of said consumption, not it’s detriment to one’s health.
Do you or do you not support the insanely high taxation of cigarettes and why?
Note: Yes, there are various “hospitality” taxes on hotels, etc., but they do not double or triple the price of a standard hotel room. That’s the level of taxation we’re dealing with here in some places.
Probably not, my post was not meant to be all that weighty. In truth I’m not really following this thread all that closely, although I’m sure marvelous argumentative scaffolds are being constructed pro and con, and slippery slopes slid down in a grand rhetorical snakes and ladders.
The reason is quite simply that when it comes to cigarettes I am an absolute tobacco bigot. My parents smoked and it was torture. I just can’t stand being in enclosed spaces with smokers, and am resentful that they have driven me out of some of the better bars and lounges in the area. My eyes water, my nasal passages get irritated and my clothes stink like an ashtray. It’s just a god awful, flthy habit that drives me out of interesting places. God I hate cigarettes and cigarette smoke.
I really can’t look at cigarette smoking from a detached analytical perspective because I loathe it so. I really do want it taxed out of existence even if I have to pick up the slack financially. I want cigarette smoking killed with extreme prejudice.
I know it’s not a rhetorically admirable position, but I can’ help my visceral distaste for them. God I hate cigarettes. Tax 'em to death!
I’m a fairly neutral party (a rare thing on this issue). I used to smoke lightly (American Spirits, if you must know), I’ll still smoke socially if my date or friends start. Personally, I was never bitten by addiction. Smoking obviously doesn’t bother the hell out of me as it does some people who insist on calling it “disgusting” (frankly, so is keeping a housepet and being fat at the beach - and I do both with wild abandon). My grandfather died of lung cancer from being a lifelong smoker.
I agree that there should be A tax on cigarettes (especially in a country with socialized medicine), but not one so incredibly high as it currently is. The key is “reasonable” use of taxing. Approaching 100% taxation is a tad over the top. :-p
It is ridiculously high. If they taxed anything else that much, there would be an uproar. No, it doesn’t encourage people to not smoke or quit smoking, it just makes them poorer.
Yes, the government will need to find some other way to get its income.
And if the gov’t wants something gone, they should do it through legislature, not taxation. “Discouraging” behavior is whack-on-the-nose-with-a-newspaper bad for a democratic government.
For me, the key issue is principle. Call it the slippery slope argument if you will, but to me it is more fundamental:
It is one thing for government to interfere in our lives to maintain order, provide for the poor, maintain our defenses, or even educate our kids and help pay the medical bills, although I do not agree with some of these. But at least the issue can be debated and I can agree that the end goals of these programs are laudable.
But taxation as a form of behaviour modification is different. It is an insidious intrusion into our freedom. It is the government literally manipulating, punishing and rewarding us to force us to change personal habits. To me, this is unacceptable. Period. This is the same reason I oppose the war on drugs.
The perfect democratic government is one which helps all of us maximize our freedoms to live our lives as we see fit. When government starts down the path of social engineering, it goes way too far.
For the same reason, the ACLU takes a bright-line approach to things like freedom of the press and association. That’s why it fights for the right of Nazis to spew their hatred. Because once you accept in principle that some speech will not be tolerated, the degree becomes a matter for dispute and the whim of the electorate. In Canada we have laws against ‘hate speech’, which is used today to protect minorities and gay people. But how will the supporters of those laws feel if one day a Conservative government uses the principle to justify shutting down anti-war speech or criticism of Christianity?
But even if it goes no further, it is still too much. Government is not my mom. I am a free human being, and if I want to kill myself by smoking or guzzling battery acid, that is my own damned business. I will support taxes on cigarettes if it can be shown that there are serious 3rd party costs that I am liable for. But not one cent in tax because someone thinks I choose poorly and should be pushed into the light.
As I’ve tried to make clear several times already, I’m bringing up the perils of smoking in response to this post by Sam Stone:
He seemed to want to minimize the risks of smoking. He also took exception to my claim that smoking was a bad or dumb choice. Sure, it’s something that many people enjoy on one level, but few consider it a dandy choice, and it seems rather ludicrous to consider it a great choice. He seemed to have a differing opinion—“spice of life” and all that.
It was almost as if (by my interpretation) he’s saying that taxing cigarettes is “unfair” to poor people because they are unable to afford the wonderfulness and supreme joyful opportunity to smoke more cigarettes. (I’m being a little sarcastic here.) So I brought up the cites to point out that it’s a stretch to think that poor people are missing out on anything supremely wonderful if they can’t afford to smoke that much.
I thought I made my sentiments clear several times: I find Sam Stone’s arguments compelling, except for the “but think of the poor people who can’t smoke as much!” argument. I am not a big fan of taxes such as this. I can’t say I’m 100% onboard with the anti-smoke-tax side, but I’m definitely leaning that way because I think the government is overreaching.
No, I was bringing that up for a different reason. Smoking IS risky. But so are other things. Some of them very much so. Heart disease is the #1 killer. Alcoholism is a big problem. Or extreme sports. I was trying to put the risk in a bit of perspective.
My point was that it was not MY decision to make. I don’t smoke. Smoke makes me sick. I won’t buy a car that was owned by a smoker. When we were looking for a house, we turned down smoker’s houses. We do not let people smoke in our vehicles or our house. I discriminate against smokers. I discriminate by not doing business with restaraunts that do not have no-smoking sections. I discriminate by turning down an offer to buy something from someone simply because they smoked around it and I do not like the smell.
But I DO know people who honestly enjoy it and have no intention of quitting. Maybe it’s because I come from the wrong side of the tracks, but in my community lots and lots of people smoke quite happily. They roll their own to minimize taxes. They work hard all day, and cigarettes make the day go a little easier. At night they sit with friends and smoke and chat and drink beer. It is their chosen lifestyle, and no puritan yutz has the right to decide that they must be punished by society for their choices.
