Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
clicky

April 1, federal cigarette taxes will go from $0.39 to $1.01 to fund healthcare for children.

my take: this tax will fall almost entirely on lower middle class. good one obama.

I thought you went away. As I recall you never said anything, just went on a posting spree of other peoples' words. Personally I fail to see how adjusting cigarette taxes equates to the implied "I sure bet you wish you voted Republican now!"

As for the economic impact of tobacco companies going belly up because of this, I think you're missing several other key factors. First they are slowly going out of business as the world becomes more resentful of the whole paying money for something that can kill me thing. Major transitions in cigarette consumption is already been taking place for some time for other reasons. Then you have people that are committed to their habit that will continue to pay no matter what the cost.

Which leads to factor three where lets say tens of thousands of heavy smokers do suddenly stop spending crazy amounts of money on tobacco. Plus they stop getting shafted to the tune thousands of dollars in insurance hikes, job restrictions and losses, resale loss on vehicles and whatever other second hand prices get paid in the process. They just might have some more cash in the wallet to do something else with. Maybe those old tobacco farmers could start selling what their old clients are now buying. Sure you have to loose one job in the process but transitions are often important. All out suborn refusal to be flexible and allow transitions is outright dangerous.

At this point you have no clear cut reason to start the I told you so Train. The Democrats are still driving that train with gusto. Honestly complaining that tobacco companies should be better protected and that taxing people that cause massive health care problems shouldn't help resolve heath care problems isn't just flimsily logic, its kinda sick. Give it time I'm positive something more concrete will come up.

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike
Does your company ding people for using the toilet also?

That, as well as eating, drinking, and even chatting with colleagues are biological and social necessities. Smoking is not. Allowing smoking to be counted as work hours would be like allowing porn surfing to be counted as such.

Quote: Original post by Anon Mike
I really dislike that sort of petty bean-counting.

You wouldn't believe how much that can actually cost a larger company. It's well beyond bean counting.

Quote: Original post by owl
I did quit for two years and it took me around a month (yes I had to insist) to catch the habit again.

Mind sharing why you did that ?

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by owl
I did quit for two years and it took me around a month (yes I had to insist) to catch the habit again.

Mind sharing why you did that ?

When my wife left me, 3 years ago I saw only two options ahead: going mad or changing myself, thus I chose to change. I quitted smoking, I quitted computers, I started doing lots of excercise, lots of drinking and women. After 3 years of living a life I never dreamt living, I realised I was still the same, and that being myself wasn't that bad at all.

Being myself implies smoking because I like smoking, thus I smoke. I can't put it simpler than that.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by nobodynews

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Sin tax? I don't smoke, but if I were addicted to a drug, I doubt 60 cents a pack would stop me. If health concerns are a problem, why not legalize other drugs (like marijuana) that don't cause nearly as many health problems.

Or we could do both. However, since legalizing marijuana is probably out of the question for the time being we can focus on one thing. Besides, how does legalizing marijuana make someone less addicted to tobacco?

There is legislation batting around in California to legalize marijuana specifically so it can be taxed at something like $50 an ounce. link. So yeah, Khal-ee-for-nee-ahh (to quote the Governator) wants to get in on the dealing game.

The whole country should get in on the "dealing game" as you put it.

Legalization is long overdue. A report released in 2006 found that marijuana was the top cash crop in the United States, exceeding corn, soybean and hay. Using data from a 2005 State Department report on cannabis cultivation, the author estimated the nationwide value of the crop to be $35.8 billion.[1] That's slightly more money than the federal government spends fighting the drug war every year.[2] Marijuana prohibition has failed like alcohol prohibition failed 75 years ago. It costs too much money and doesn't deliver. It's wasteful spending at a time when Republicans in Congress are crying over the minutia in the stimulus bill. And let's not forget that the drug war is tearing Mexico apart as well, with more than 5,000 killings last year.[3]

[1] Marijuana is top U.S. cash crop, pro-legalization analysis says (2006)
[2] Marijuana Becomes Focus of Drug War (2005)
[3] Death toll in Mexico's drug war surges (2008)

FWIW, I dropped the above paragraph earlier this week on a website associated with the local newspaper (here).

See also:

Taxing pot could become a political toking point
Legal pot: Bill sees cash harvest for state
Smoke This Recession - It's simple: First we tax the booze. Then we legalize the pot. Done.

Addendum:

U.S. to yield marijuana jurisdiction to states

Quote:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is sending strong signals that President Obama - who as a candidate said states should be allowed to make their own rules on medical marijuana - will end raids on pot dispensaries in California.

Asked at a Washington news conference Wednesday about Drug Enforcement Administration raids in California since Obama took office last month, Holder said the administration has changed its policy.

"What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing here in law enforcement," he said. "What he said during the campaign is now American policy."
...

Can we please start banning members who have been 0 rated for an extended period of time? Pleeeeease?

Quote: Original post by Yann L
Heh ;) Well, that was probably a bit too harsh, agreed. But still, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can voluntarily smoke nowadays. I understand that fighting the addiction can probably be very hard, but still, a lot of people succeed.

Well for me, I made the stupid mistake of buying a pack on my 18th birthday. 4 years later, I'm smoking. I regret that everyday, but I'm making an effort towards quitting. I don't smoke as much as I used to (down to about 3-4 cigs a day, where previously I had gone through like half a pack a day) but I look forward to the day where I can quit completely.

I was able to quit about a year ago for ~3 months or so, but a lot of my friends smoke and I eventually caved. That's the thing -- if you're surrounded by people who do it, it becomes that much harder to quit. Unless if they quit with you, which is the way to go.

To the OP: I don't think you realize how addictive nicotine is. It's going to take more than a small tax raise to cause an addicted smoker to quit. Nicotine is more addictive than heroin. Do you think that a heroin addict will stop using if the price on the street rises 20%? Nope.

The tax hike MAY cause smokers to smoke less than they used to, which tends to even things out. So this tax hike on cigarettes is a GOOD thing: smokers smoke less, government pulls in relatively the same amount of money (if not more). The only downside would be the possible effect it may have on big tobacco companies, but we'll have to see what happens.

The idea that everybody quitting smoking would cause trouble for the tobacco industry and thus for those states who rely heavily on it for income reminds of the fallacy of the broken window. Keeping people smoking (and hence slowing killing them) is a good thing, because it stimulates the enconomy by allowing the tobacco companies to turn a profit. But that ignores the hidden cost - if people weren't buying cigarattes, they'd be buying something else.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by trzy
We should also tax video games, which are an unproductive waste of time that stunts the intellectual development of children. The collapse of the primary education system in countries like the United States strongly correlates with video games. Now, more than ever, we need an intelligent, competitive work force.

Money earned on video game taxes could be used to fund a generation of piano and violin enthusiasts with superior cognitive abilities to the average mentally deficient American raised on a corrosive diet of Playstation and Hollywood films.

So true!

People just dont know whats good for them. Some even go as far as to claim that whats a good or usefull way to spend time or money is entirely subjective!

Obviously, we should have the goverment do scientic measurements of whats good and then force everyone to comply. Imagine the bliss!

Maybe if we try hard enough, we could make everyone to be just like us.

Whos with me?

Don't forget to tax posting on forums. We all know the reduction in productivity when you spend too much time in the Lounge. Such societal ills must be dealt with harshly. Just remember, it's for the good of the children.

Quote: The only downside would be the possible effect it may have on big tobacco companies

how is that a downside?
Its like saying it would be a bummer if there were no wars cause it will hurt armament producing companies.
personally I love the idea, as it is a form of idiot-tax (lotteries are another)

Google "Electronic Cigarettes". Well see what this does to change the way cigs are sold and such.

I dont hate people who smoke or think they are dumb, but if your having trouble in this economy, well shit stop buying cigarettes.