smokers tax

I think true conservatives don't hate all taxes. They hate over-taxes. I have no problem paying taxes to protect our country.

Besides the difference between a "required" tax and a "selective" tax is not insiginificant to me. If I don't like the cigarette tax then I don't have to pay it. I simply don't buy cigarettes and the tax doesn't apply to me. As for income tax, well if I don't pay then everyone else gets to ante up for supporting me while I rot in jail for a little while. Big difference to me.

I think the tax on cigarettes is a bad idea. It will create a HUGE blackmarket in this country (already exists and will get bigger). We must remember that most people that smoke are ADDICTED to the nicotine! I am not a smoker, but I am addicted to another form of nicotine (chewing tobacco). It is extremely difficult to stop. Call it willpower, call it whatever. Those that are addicted to nicotine, such as those addicted to other drugs will find a way to get their "fix".

Currently there are ways to not pay tax on tobacco products via the internet. I am not going to digress, but this certainly will become a much bigger marketplace should they start taxing the crap out of cigarettes.

The one difference is that cigarettes don't sustain you (some could argue that they do ;)) but fast food, as bad as it is for you, keeps you alive.

Until you die of a heart attack or diabetes?

I thought cigarettes were an appetite suppresant, therefore preventing you from eating that fast food, clogging your arteries, getting a heart attack and dying.

So...cigarettes are clearly good for you ;)

Maybe I am more conservative than I think, but I generally do not like the idea of the federal government using its power to tax to legislate for or against certain lifestyles or freedoms. The ability to smoke or do with one's body whatever one pleases is a significant freedom. The notion that taxes should be used to promote certain lifestyles or to kick certain choices is, IMHO, a fundamentally "unconservative" notion.

As for obesity, some people definately have a genetic pre-disposition to become obese. However, statistics show that over the past 40 years obesity has been skyrocketing due to personal choices (e.g., not exercising and poor diet). Rapidly increasing rates of cardiovascular disease among the general public (which is largely due to poor diet and lack of exercise) has overtaken lung cancer as the #1 killer in America and costs American taxpayers more every year than smokes. I am not for a "fat tax," but I don't really see how people can support a cigarette tax and not be for a fat tax.

Hmmm...A six pack of coors Light in MD. is like $4.99. How much in PA?

$5.99, sometimes way more.

10.00 easy. maybe alittle less in some spots, maybe alittle more

A lot of that cost is because you can't buy beer at grocery or convenience stores. At beer distributors, you can only buy by the case. So the only place to get a sixer is at bars/restaurants with liquor licenses who sell take out beer.

These places are the only places open in the state that sell beer after 10:00 pm. So they jack their prices way up because of the supply and demand balance.

So you can't compare the prices of sixers in VA and PA, it's not apples to apples. But if you compare prices of cases in PA and VA, you're talking about 10-20% more in PA.

I thought cigarettes were an appetite suppresant, therefore preventing you from eating that fast food, clogging your arteries, getting a heart attack and dying.

So...cigarettes are clearly good for you ;)

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

Obviously, I don't advocate people dying young or smoking cigarettes. But, I wonder if the social utiliarians (i.e., those who advocate taxes on smokes because smokers take away tax dollars) are truly utilitarian and would support tax breaks for cigarette smokers if the above study was proven correct. If the study was proven correct and the social utiliarians still believed that the federal government should tax smokes, they are really basing their support of such taxes on "I don't like your lifestyle, choices, or habits, so I'm going to tell you what to do or not to do."

Soylent Green is People.

There was an interesting study that came out of Yale or MIT a few years ago that showed that cigarettes may actually SAVE taxpayer dollars. Crazy you say? Guess when people stop "contributing" to society, at least in terms of tax dollars? When they are old and retired. Guess when people consume tax dollars in terms of Medicare and Social Security? When they are old and retired. Guess what cigarette smoke does? Kill people prematurely. The study "proved" that smokers' premature deaths offset the costs of caring for them when they get sick from cancer.

That reminds me of the "argument" that was presented in that movie "Thank You for Smoking"