Resolved: Cigarette Taxes are a Very Bad Thing

Great Debates
101

Let’s see you make a selection from these two possibilities:
A) Maybe die of lung cancer.
B) Suffer from uncontrolled schizophrenia for the rest of your life.

Thinking back on some of the out of control schizophrenics I’ve dealt with, dying of lung cancer is the softer, gentler choice.

Sure, like the drug companies are amenable to appeals from consumers. When cheap, nonprescription nicotine containing suckers came out a couple years ago, the government shut down sales like nobody’s business.
It’d be real nice if people would climb off their moral hobby horses for a moment and come to the realization that the health effects of nicotine are a big issue that could benefit from a rational approach.

102

And people can get nicotine without having to smoke, right? Right? It isn’t as if it’s either smoking or schizophrenia. It is either (for some people) nicotine or schizophrenia. Not the same thing.

And that is another subject, isn’t it? So the drug companies are bloodsuckers. So the government shut down some nicotine lollypops for reasons that might or might not have been sound. All of that has nothing to do with sin taxes and cigarettes.

So, there is an illness that can be helped by nicotine. Not by cigarettes exclusively, but nicotine. It is up to the drug companies to come up with a drug—one that does not cost an arm and a leg—to help these people. But surely, these people’s choice is not either lung cancer or schizophrenia. Because as far as I know (I welcome cites proving otherwise) nicotine does not cause cancer.

103

Except that nicotine is NOT a proven treatment for schizophrenia. I quote “Some experiments have shown that nicotine can slow down the onset of Parkinson’s symptoms; others have had revealed its power in curtailing the hallucinations of schizophrenics. " Note- “some experiments have shown”. Not- “it has been proven that…”. The rest of the “studies” are 'cause & effect” studies, which since they don’t have a blind-control are scientifically doubtful. (and I’ll also point out that “The Gaurdian” is hardly the New England Journal of Medicine, not even close! :dubious: :rolleyes: ) If & when there is good solid evidence that nicotine really does control certain aspects of schizophrenia, then that drug will be made available free or cheaply to those that need it. As it, is, “generic” nico gum is rather cheap, and “snuff” gives a large nicotine kick- cheaply- and not as bad as cigs.

Note also, your other site did not say that “the sales were shut down” just that the FDA “is investigating” and that “consumers are warned”. Big whoop. The warning seems reasonable, given that nicotine IS a deadly poison. :rolleyes: :dubious:

104

I quote:

Since smoking does nothing for schizophrenics, it’s obvious that 95% of them are weak willed evil people. I never thought of it that way. That confirms my underlying prejudice against the mentally ill! I guess I’ll believe that. :dubious:

105

Wow, talk about a melodramatic way to dodge the rest of DrDeth’s answer:

Cigarettes are not the sole solution for people with this mental illness, if, indeed, nicotine helps their illness. Other sources of nicotine exist, and are not taxed with a “sin” tax. No need to bleat “It’s either lung cancer or schizophrenia!” 'cause that’s not how it is.

106

Forget about people who need nicotine for whatever reason.

That doesn’t address the issue. The issue is that people WANT to smoke. No, they don’t HAVE to. Yes, it is “bad” for them. Why is it right to tax people to death for doing something that is bad for them?

Some people don’t consider the object of life to stay living as long as possible. Some people enjoy (note: this is subjective) things that others don’t. There are many things that people do that I don’t like, and in fact wish they would stop. But I would never consider it right for the government to tax those activites to such an extreme, simply because the people doing those activities are in the minority.

107

You may not be aware of this, but a considerable portion of the taxes paid on cigarettes is going to lawyers! In fact, a law firm in Massachusetts WANTS an extra $1.2billion…they claim they should be fairley compansated for the work they did in sueing the tobacco companies,on behalf of all the sick smokers in the state.
Transferring wealth from the poor to a group of lawyers is hardly in the public interest-how is this defensible? :cool:

108

I disagree with this. Using this logic we would need to put a high tax on any activity that placed a burden on the healthcare system. Should we triple the price of McDonalds? Skateboards? Bungie jumping? What proportion of health related issues come from overeating and not getting enough exercise? Do we tax people extra for not walking several miles a day to stay fit?

109

I call bullshit on that cite. There is absolutely no way I believe that smoking deaths exceed car crash, alcohol, drug, and AIDS deaths. Maybe 15 years ago that was true. But in this decade? Propaganda from the Reagan era simply doesn’t cut it for me.

110

:shrug: I just quoted some cites that appeared to come from “authoritative” sources (medical and government sites). There are plenty more cites out there, and they say some pretty grim things about cigarettes. I’m sure you already know that.

111

Well, dear yosemite, I am a living proof that you should divert your “feeling sorry”, to petitioning to cut taxes on cigarettes. Here are the reasons:

1- I am 62 years old and have enjoyed smoking for 44 years. Never been ill nor hospitalized in my life. To-date, I have no physician, do not bother to have annual health check-ups, and feel great.

2- I have had the most fun life than anyone I know or see around me. I plan to continue to do so until the “Good-bye day”, when my body or mind will no longer cooperate with my fun way of living. Meanwhile, everyday of fun beyond the age 62 is a bonus as, according to participants in this thread, I should have been sick or dead a long time ago.

3- I always wanted to cut 10 years from the end of my life, as there are no redeeming qualities in life when you are too old. Plus the fact that I have blown my money during the past 44 years having fun. So, I can’t (and really do not want to) afford old age retirement.

4- Consequently, I have provided myself with the means to die painlessly in my sleep. I will exercise that option the day that I become seriously ill, whether due to smoking or otherwise. That is my philosophy. It has given me a mental comfort, free from fear of pain, loss of dignity and integrity due to a serious illness. Consequently, I do not have to worry about medical expenses, to be paid by me or the society, as I won’t be around to incur any such bills. Meanwhile, I continue to party at the beach, and picnic my way through the rest of my smoking life.

5- I never throw a cigarette butt around, nor do I smoke indoors or anywhere in the vicinity of anyone who can possibly dislike or object to my cigarette smoke.

Now Yosemite, do you have a problem with someone like me, or feel sorry for me? If not, please start a campaign to cut down taxes on cigarettes as the OP suggests. Thank you, and may your life be filled with fun rather than sadness.

112

Uh . . . dear Wake up call, did you even bother to read my statements in their entirety on this thread? Huh? Didya?

Because if you did, you’d not that I thought that the OP presented a pretty strong case for the most part and I was leaning towards agreeing with him.

I brought up the cites about the perils of smoking because it seemed to me that the OP was minimizing the risks and possible consequences of the choice. There are an overwhelming amount of cites and I don’t think they all lie—it’s not a dandy choice and I doubt that many would recommend it. Oh wait, would you? Do you recommend the habit of smoking to me, a non-smoker? What are its benefits to me? Could ya tell me that? Because that was my main point in bringing up the cites.

And, y’know, you’d have known that if you’d been, like, following what I’d actually been saying on this thread.

If you read my other posts on this thread, you’d know that I don’t generally care about what you do. Just don’t litter your butts on the ground and don’t smoke in non-smoking areas and we’re cool.

And yeah. It would also be cool if you’d read what I actually wrote before responding, too.

It’s okay. Sometimes I miss stuff on these threads too. But you know, you kind of missed a lot of what I wrote. Like, almost all of it. :wink:

113

Argh. Typing too fast . . .

It should be: "Because if you did, you’d know that . . . "

114

Crikey, do you really believe that all the smokers in the world combined add up to even a sliver of environmental pollution?

115

Cigarette butts do seem to make up the majority of litter.

116

Outlaw filters then. Cigarettes without filters wash away in the rain pretty quickly.

117

After 3 pages of this thread, isn’t it is time to reach a consensus and go forward?
Those of you who agree with the OP, have you written a petition to your representative, demanding a reduction in cigarette taxes? (I have. Would you like a copy of the letter?)
And those who are adamantly against Sam Stone’s position, what is your action plan, if any?

118

Very interesting and well argued debate.

I put the question into my TRPV* machine and this came out:

Hi, very interesting and well argued debate.

My father died 3 years ago of lung cancer. He was 61.

My father smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years. He said he picked it up working a loading dock when he was younger. My mother says he worked a loading dock when he was 16, which would make his smoking period more like 45 years. She also says he smoked more than 2 packs a day, but whatever…

I’m pretty sure my dad paid more and more of a percentage of the packs’ retail price in taxes as the years went by. I’m pretty sure he was paying for his own funeral in cigarette taxes towards the last 5 years.

His cancer was quick and the insurance covered all of it. He had been paying insurance premiums, either directly or through work, for at least 40 years.

He was due to start collecting on Social Security in a few years. We, his heirs, don’t get any of that back, of course.

If all the money he paid in taxes and all the money he saved the government and his insurance provider in health care costs would be spent to tell his story to 16 year olds, we his heirs would be happy.

But that aint gonna happen.

*Total Reality Perspective Vortex, damn thing is still a prototype, keeps morphing from logic to maudlin

119

If taxing cigs is wrong, that’s fine.

Just allow insurers to and employers to deny smokers health insurance coverage.

Problem solved.

120

So… they’d also be able to deny health insurance to people who ski, skateboard, eat a lot of red meat, or drive a car, right?