Debates
02 Jun 12
05 Jun 12
Originally posted by normbenignBut that comes back to bite us in the asss when smokers get lung cancer and have no insurance and the taxpayer pays the bill for his affliction which could have been prevented by not smoking tobacco in the first place.
The United States decided in 1791 to remain with a somewhat stronger Federal government than under the articles of Confederation, but still with the States retaining the bulk of legislative and taxing power.
I don't want to be subject to the silly whims of California or its people. I choose to not smoke, but I don't choose to persecute and over tax those who still desire to do so.
10 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseA person without insurance or resources who gets lung cancer and dies relatively young probably saves taxpayers money in the long run.
But that comes back to bite us in the asss when smokers get lung cancer and have no insurance and the taxpayer pays the bill for his affliction which could have been prevented by not smoking tobacco in the first place.
12 Jun 12
Originally posted by wittywonkaDoes it matter?
My answer would depend on how much money the state already spends on medical expenses related to smoking-caused lung cancer.
Ultimately, I would suspect that the short-term investment in prevention might pay off in the long run.
People who die of lung cancer collect social benefits shorter periods, and save the government money.
If cessation programs were successful (fewer smokers) then the tax would raise little or no money.
Eventually, tobacco farmers would lose their subsidies, and become welfare recipients, or learn to grow soybeans.
12 Jun 12
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's a slippery slope, and somewhat misguided. Do we really want the State to tax everything that might have a cost not paid by the user?
But that comes back to bite us in the asss when smokers get lung cancer and have no insurance and the taxpayer pays the bill for his affliction which could have been prevented by not smoking tobacco in the first place.
12 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignAre you seriously telling me the US subsidises people to produce tobacco? When the rest of the world is trying to get people to smoke less or not at all?
Eventually, tobacco farmers would lose their subsidies, and become welfare recipients, or learn to grow soybeans.
12 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieThe exact same could be said for people who eat too much ice cream (well, maybe not the emphysema part).
Possibly. But the lung cancer case is outnumbered 20 to 1 by the emphysema and cardiac cases which often live a long and medically-expensive life, clogging up hospitals and nursing homes and demanding care that they can't afford to pay for themselves.
12 Jun 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitWith taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products so high, and government units becoming more and more dependent on the revenues, you may just see governments promoting smoking, just as they now promote gambling.
Much like with alcohol and marijuana, attempts to ban or tax cigarettes out of existence are doomed to fail in the US.
15 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignAnd then they have the gall to be putting people in jail for smoking marijuana.
Sounds nuts, but the entire government policy on tobacco is pretty weird.
Lets see, tobacco KILLS hundreds of thousands of people a year.
Ok, lets tax tobacco so the medical bills can be partially offset.
Ok, now lets pay farmers who grow tobacco a subsidy so they can keep on growing tobacco.
Ok, now we have to jail all those evil marijuana smokers
Tell me again how many people have DIED from smoking marijuana?
Oh, I get it. The tobacco subsidy is a POPULATION CONTROL method and making marijuana illegal is just the government's way of keeping people hooked on tobacco.
Yeah, I see, it all makes sense now.......