Quote:
If said people do quit smoking, it's gonna hit the southern tobacco states hard (millions of jobs). Not to mention how this will affect small independent retailers and wholesalers.
True, and some people still may lose jobs. But you're assuming that the Tobacco industry only serves the U.S. which is not true. They export to other countries, most of which do not have taxes on tobacco. Secondly, there is this concept known as "secondary cost" which basically means the government uses tax money to fix up the problems generated by an industry running. If you get rid of the industry, you get rid of the secondary cost, which in turn saves the government money. You will never see this secondary cost because it is factored into all prices.
I see what your trying to say, but it's not true. That's like saying bringing hone the troops from Iraq will contract the economy because now people are not being paid, the government is not buying military gear, etc. But what you don't know is that if one industry goes down, two others will spawn in it's place. Some of the people that are laid off will find jobs elsewhere, or better yet, start their own business. There will be some mild hardships along the way but in the long run, the economy will recover and those workers will have jobs.
Quote:
I don't smoke either, so I'm not trying to defend the cause of smoking. raising taxes to this degree is an indirect way of banning cigarettes for those who cannot afford it, and i don't believe any substance should be banned (much less the substance that is addictive on such a large scale)
You don't believe in banned substances? How about Cocaine? How does banning == taxation?
