fired for smoking

[xtc]

A Michigan company fires 4 people for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes. It seems the firm has instituted a policy that makes smoking a firing offence -even if done after hours in your home.

This seems a little totalitarian to me.

Article here (http://www.canada.com/health/story.html?id=723905c7-a328-436f-8014-af055b5d2e58)

[Iriscience]

Another reason to not work.

[Soulpieced]

I'm sure they will have a lovely lawsuit following. I know I would (if I smoked).

[HarmNone]

I would expect the ACLU to be dancing with joy about now. I'm sure they'll want to get their teeth into this one. :wow:

[Makkah]

I dunno... if it was a private company, they can set stupid requirements like that for employment... I don't really see any lawsuits going through. They knew what the deal was...

That being said... that company blows fucking ass.

rht

[TheRoseLady]

My first reaction was, wow that's not fair. After reading the article, it makes sense.

They are talking about upping the cigarette tax in Ohio from .55 a pack to like 1.00 a pack to help offset the budget deficit. One group wants to increase it by .75 a pack to 1.25 or so to include education and smoking cessation assistance. I hope it happens.

[Bobmuhthol]

There should never be a cigarette tax. Ever. Way to be England, Ohio.

<<One group wants to increase it by .75 a pack to 1.25 or so to include education and smoking cessation assistance.>>

That's especially retarded. Just let the fucking people smoke.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
There should never be a cigarette tax. Ever. Way to be England, Ohio.

<<One group wants to increase it by .75 a pack to 1.25 or so to include education and smoking cessation assistance.>>

That's especially retarded. Just let the fucking people smoke.

So just tax everyone instead? No thanks.

[Bobmuhthol]

Right. Don't tax everyone lower amounts. That's dumb. Tax everyone who smokes for smoking. I doubt you'd be happy if a black tax was implemented. Everyone else would, though.

Edited to fix a typo.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Miss X]

I'm glad they are taxed here because smokers cost our national health service so much money due to smoking related diseases like COPD,cancers, CVD etc.
If you want to smoke and get any number of health problems that end up costing a whole lot of cash to treat then expect to pay a whole lot of tax.

Michigan is an at-will employement state, so, technically the guy can fire people.. I've read about it, heard interviews with this guy. He does not wish to pay high healthcarecosts, and that is the reason he is doing that. His company provides things to help people quit smoking, as well as help them with their eating habits as well.

there are lawsuits in the pipeline already, so we will see what happens....

[Keller]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Right. Don't tax everyone lower amounts. That's dumb. Tax everyone who smokes for smoking. I doubt you'd be happy if a black tax was implemented. Everyone else would, though.

Edited to fix a typo.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

Why, because their addiction to a lethal product costs all of us money? I should finance that shit? Get real.

[Bobmuhthol]

Addiction has nothing to do with it. Why the fuck should smokers pay a tax FOR EDUCATION? When I buy a product, I generally don't build a school by doing so.

But as long as they're smoking, they might as well fund the entire state, right?

Edited to add another example.

When I go to Burger King and pay my meal tax, I'll be fucking pissed if the tax was increased to educate people in not being so fucking fat.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Keller]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Addiction has nothing to do with it. Why the fuck should smokers pay a tax FOR EDUCATION? When I buy a product, I generally don't build a school by doing so.

But as long as they're smoking, they might as well fund the entire state, right?

Because no one likes the idea of paying for some wheezer to get a lung removed and no one but you is opposed to paying for schools.

If you're going to be a burden to the fiscal health, the fiscal health will be a burden to you.

[Tsa`ah]

If the people fired were smokers prior to the new policy, they have a legal avenue.

If the people fired were hired after the implementation of said policy, they have a slight chance.

If the people fired lied on their application or in the interview, providing the questions pertaining to smoking were asked, they have no chance.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<and no one but you is opposed to paying for schools.>>

I'd wager millions of smokers agree with me that they shouldn't be paying to teach others the dangers of what they're paying for.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<and no one but you is opposed to paying for schools.>>

I'd wager millions of smokers agree with me that they shouldn't be paying to teach others the dangers of what they're paying for.

I'd wager most Americans would rather not pay tax than pay tax. What the fuck is your point?

[Bobmuhthol]

My point is that it's very clear I disproved what you said. Millions + me are, in fact, opposed to such a thing.

$0.75 ADDITIONAL tax per pack of cigarettes is simply outrageous.

[Tsa`ah]

Yet you ignore the fact that smokers do indeed place a financial burden on everyone else ... that doesn't smoke.

If you're ignorant enough to smoke, like myself, the taxes should go toward something constructive that will go toward reducing the financial burden on others.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
My point is that it's very clear I disproved what you said. Millions + me are, in fact, opposed to such a thing.

$0.75 ADDITIONAL tax per pack of cigarettes is simply outrageous.

Millions are opposed to the war in Iraq, the administration and countless other issues.

My words to you ... tough shit.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'd rather not see a smoking tax altogether, but that's not the point. What I'm concerned about is the needlessness of doubling the tax and then some because people want free lessons on how not to smoke. If that were to become a lawful tax at all, it should be paid by everyone.

[Tsa`ah]

Why should a non-smoker pay a cigarette tax? Why should a non-smoker take on more of a financial burden by being forced to fund educational endeavors concerning an act that they don't participate in?

That's sort of like saying you don't want to go to traffic school even though you caused a 3 car pile up by being a dumb ass.

That's along the same lines as wanting someone who has a clean driving record to help pay for your fine, because you drive like a dumb ass.

Very poor logic.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
If the people fired were smokers prior to the new policy, they have a legal avenue.

If the people fired were hired after the implementation of said policy, they have a slight chance.

If the people fired lied on their application or in the interview, providing the questions pertaining to smoking were asked, they have no chance.

from what I understand they were current employees who refused to take a test to determine if they were smokers.

about 10 of the employees had quit smoking before the policy was implemented., but they were aware of it before it went into place.

the only reason I don't like this, is because it puts employees in the position of having to llive their lives the way an employer dictates. and if this gets upheld in court, which should take like 3 years or so to determine, then I expect other companies to follow suit.

[Jolena]

Heh, I smoke occasionally and having seen others who smoke and their consequent health issues later on in life AND the cost of said health issues, I have to agree that taxing the cigarettes is a more realistic and fair thing to do in my mind since the taxes are going to help people quit smoking and to help counteract the cost of the healthcare these smokers are receiving.

As far as the black tax thing..eh, I'll just let that one go.

[SpunGirl]

I'm sure the insurance company that provides this company's benefits is loving the "no smoking" clause. Health care is expensive. This guy found a way to circumvent a large part of the expense. I'm tempted to say so what, but I also have to wonder where it'll stop. No smoking, ok, what's next? Max calorie intake per day so he doesn't have to pay for their clogged arteries? No Extreme Sports Allowed so he doesn't have to pay for their broken legs?

Don't get me wrong, smoking grosses me out and I wonder why intelligent people would suck that stuff down, but never having touched it myself I guess I just don't get it. But I think that people dictating how other people live has to stop somewhere. I suppose if you really hate it, you'll have to find another place to work.

-K

[Drew2]

I say charge like $20 a pack and let non-smokers get a tax break.

The end.

[Jolena]

Why couldn't he just not provide the insurance for those employees failing to stop smoking. I mean last I checked you do not HAVE to provide health insurance for your employees, it's completely elective.

[peam]

When everyone smoked, men lived for hundreds of years.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Why should a non-smoker pay a cigarette tax?>>

Why should anyone be taxed to educate people about smoking?

I'm against the entire idea of raising the taxes for this education bullshit. If non-smokers want to teach people about how smoking makes you the root of all evil, they should be paying for it themselves. What's the point in punishing the people who smoke by converting their wasted money to non-smoking?

<<That's sort of like saying you don't want to go to traffic school even though you caused a 3 car pile up by being a dumb ass.>>

I hear of plenty of car accidents. I'm not big on taxation, but I've never heard of the Bad Driver Tax (I am excluding insurance payments for the purpose of this discussion). Yet there's still education on how not to be a bad driver. And everybody pays for it.

[SpunGirl]

I'd argue that hefty traffic fines are a sort of Bad Driver Tax.

-K

[Tsa`ah]

Bob just wants to play idgit and ignore the analogy.

[Bobmuhthol]

The analogy must be worse than I think if somehow I ignored it by pointing out how stupid it is.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Why should anyone be taxed to educate people about smoking?

I'm against the entire idea of raising the taxes for this education bullshit. If non-smokers want to teach people about how smoking makes you the root of all evil, they should be paying for it themselves. What's the point in punishing the people who smoke by converting their wasted money to non-smoking?

<<That's sort of like saying you don't want to go to traffic school even though you caused a 3 car pile up by being a dumb ass.>>

Yet there's still education on how not to be a bad driver. And everybody pays for it.


Okay...in Ohio there's a group (probably special interests that represent the insurance industry) that WANT to raise it by .75 or more to which a part would go to help folks stop smoking. This is not what will go before the Governor, what will likely show up is an additional .45 per pack tax that will go toward balancing the budget - with no stipulation on helping anyone to stop smoking.

At stake for Ohioans is how much money the state will have to keep college tuition low, maintain parks and preserve wildlife and help schools hire teachers and buy books.

So let's see, shall we cut funding for parks, do without teachers and books and raise the cost of the college tuition or should we tax those who create a financial burden on all of us? It's pretty clear for me.

As for your comment about everyone paying for Driver's Ed. Wrong. In this state you do not have to have Driver's Ed at all if you are over the age of 18 years old. You just have to be able to pass the tests.

The state is not trying sugar coat anything as the tax being beneficial to smokers in order to help them, they frankly don't give a shit. It's a source of revenue and it's a behavior that has significant financial impacts. I hope they raise it.

[Fission]

They should do for smokers like they do for motorcyclists in Florida.

If you want to be a dumbass and go without a helmet, you can. As long as you carry a lot more insurance so other folks don't have to suck up as much expense if you get turned into a street pizza.

:injured:

[AkMan]

Alaska Airlines won't hire smokers period. They xray your lungs or something. So I've heard of this before, and I don't think there is any law against it. Basically, a company can fire you at any time for any reason...as long as it's not discriminatory based on sex, religion, race, color etc etc etc. Last I checked smokers aren't protected by equal opportunity laws (or whatever they are called).

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
Because no one likes the idea of paying for some wheezer to get a lung removed :hippie:

It'd probably easier for me to take a hard line on naughty smokers if the results weren't so incredibly debilitating, painful, disfiguring, etc.

And if we're wanting to stop preventable losses of life altogether (and have Backlash call us fascists, or something), abortion kills more people a year than tobacco does (in the U.S.) to the tune of half again as many.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
My point is that it's very clear I disproved what you said. Millions + me are, in fact, opposed to such a thing.

$0.75 ADDITIONAL tax per pack of cigarettes is simply outrageous.

Millions are opposed to the war in Iraq, the administration and countless other issues.

My words to you ... tough shit.


I'll remember that next time you are bitching about the administration and countless other issues :)

On topic, I'd kill for a cigarette right now, because they taste so good. But I quit :( :(

We need a smoking icon so I can live vicariously.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Keller
Because no one likes the idea of paying for some wheezer to get a lung removed :hippie:

It'd probably easier for me to take a hard line on naughty smokers if the results weren't so incredibly debilitating, painful, disfiguring, etc.

And if we're wanting to stop preventable losses of life altogether (and have Backlash call us fascists, or something), abortion kills more people a year than tobacco does (in the U.S.) to the tune of half again as many.

People should stop fucking without protection.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
And if we're wanting to stop preventable losses of life altogether (and have Backlash call us fascists, or something), abortion kills more people a year than tobacco does (in the U.S.) to the tune of half again as many.

Get off the fucking abortion soapbox already. I don't find a way to insinuate my belief that Christianity is a religion for feeble-minded sheep into every single thread I comment on, I think you can manage to hold back.

-K

[Jazuela]

Here in ConnectiTax...(and in several other states, especially in New England)...

We have the federal tax, the federal tobacco tax, the federal this that and the other tax. Then we have the state "sin" tax, which they duplicated with a second "sin" tax. Plus another arbitrary "let's tax smokes again" state tobacco tax.

Then - AFTER you pay those taxes - they tax us another 6% sales tax on the whole kit and kaboodle. Which is, most assuredly, unconstitutional.

It is *ILLEGAL* to tax tax. That was the whole point of tossing tea into the Boston Harbor. Taxation without Representation.

But they do it anyway, because they know us smoking idiots are addicted and we'll bend over and take it for our next nicotine fix.

The ironic thing, is that all these state taxes on smokes were supposed to go to smoking education programs. They've taken in BILLIONS of dollars - and they can't account for most of it. The smoking education programs are practically non-existent. Yet they continue to take our tax money and have the nerve to up it EVERY YEAR.

I'd have no problem or issue with paying the taxes, IF they were going where the legislators claimed they were going. But they're not, so I do.

I'm glad I quit smoking, but I still oppose a cigarette tax or any other bad habit tax. What's next, soda?

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

<<As for your comment about everyone paying for Driver's Ed. Wrong. In this state you do not have to have Driver's Ed at all if you are over the age of 18 years old. You just have to be able to pass the tests.>>

..............................................

No matter who takes it, EVERYONE PAYS FOR IT. Not governmentally funded is a funny way of saying governmentally funded. Not paying taxes is also a funny way of saying paying taxes.

<<The state is not trying sugar coat anything as the tax being beneficial to smokers in order to help them, they frankly don't give a shit. It's a source of revenue and it's a behavior that has significant financial impacts. I hope they raise it.>>

I hope they raise every tax in Ohio that applies to you and see how you feel. Failing that, I hope you get the sense to know that cigarettes are already overtaxed and it's unnecessary to tax them further. Your correlation of smoking tax and hiring teachers makes me wonder if you should be allowed to live. You want teachers? Pay for them. Don't make smokers do it for you. They're two entirely different things.

[Back]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Why should anyone be taxed to educate people about smoking?

I'm against the entire idea of raising the taxes for this education bullshit. If non-smokers want to teach people about how smoking makes you the root of all evil, they should be paying for it themselves. What's the point in punishing the people who smoke by converting their wasted money to non-smoking?

<<That's sort of like saying you don't want to go to traffic school even though you caused a 3 car pile up by being a dumb ass.>>

Yet there's still education on how not to be a bad driver. And everybody pays for it.


Okay...in Ohio there's a group (probably special interests that represent the insurance industry) that WANT to raise it by .75 or more to which a part would go to help folks stop smoking. This is not what will go before the Governor, what will likely show up is an additional .45 per pack tax that will go toward balancing the budget - with no stipulation on helping anyone to stop smoking.

At stake for Ohioans is how much money the state will have to keep college tuition low, maintain parks and preserve wildlife and help schools hire teachers and buy books.

So let's see, shall we cut funding for parks, do without teachers and books and raise the cost of the college tuition or should we tax those who create a financial burden on all of us? It's pretty clear for me.

As for your comment about everyone paying for Driver's Ed. Wrong. In this state you do not have to have Driver's Ed at all if you are over the age of 18 years old. You just have to be able to pass the tests.

The state is not trying sugar coat anything as the tax being beneficial to smokers in order to help them, they frankly don't give a shit. It's a source of revenue and it's a behavior that has significant financial impacts. I hope they raise it.

The more you post about Ohio, the more I wonder what planet the people who run things there were born on.

How does someone smoking affect the price of tuition, books and the environment of parks?

Someone in Ohio has been smoking alright. Crack.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Keller
Because no one likes the idea of paying for some wheezer to get a lung removed :hippie:

It'd probably easier for me to take a hard line on naughty smokers if the results weren't so incredibly debilitating, painful, disfiguring, etc.

And if we're wanting to stop preventable losses of life altogether (and have Backlash call us fascists, or something), abortion kills more people a year than tobacco does (in the U.S.) to the tune of half again as many.

We agree. People need salvation. We just have different ideas on who, how and why.

[peam]

Taxes on cigarettes are probably unavoidable, but I honestly do think there are other ways to avoid the costs it burdens society with. The motorcycle example that Fission used is a good example. For smokers, refuse insurance or have the cost significantly more. Losing a job over smoking is ridiculous.

I can get a pack of cigarettes in VA for about $2.50. I'm seriously debating taking up cigarette bootlegging as a profession.

[Artha]

You can be like the guy in Goodfellas!

Except older and hopefully with a better ending.

[peam]

Here's a list of the tax on each pack per state, if anyone's interested.

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarett.html

You New Englanders are getting railed.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Backlash


The more you post about Ohio, the more I wonder what planet the people who run things there were born on.

How does someone smoking affect the price of tuition, books and the environment of parks?

Someone in Ohio has been smoking alright. Crack. [/quote]


What part of they are going to tax cigarettes for revenue to make up for the shortfall in the budget did you miss? No one EVER said that smoking had ANY effect on the price of tuition or books. They are going to tax cigarettes for revenue, that's it. Those issues I mentioned are the ones that will lose funding if they don't find a revenue source. Cigarettes will likely be it.

And as for who runs this state, Republicans.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
And as for who runs this state, Republicans.

At least they're doing something right. ::flees::

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Get off the fucking abortion soapbox already. I don't find a way to insinuate my belief that Christianity is a religion for feeble-minded sheep into every single thread I comment on, I think you can manage to hold back.I didn't even say anything in the geography thread, either. :(

What's funny is, I just read about this: it's easier to remember events than non-events. Here's what I mean:

threads A-C: Latrinsorm doesn't say anything about abortion, and you don't notice this (there are more important things to notice than nothing).

thread D: Latrinsorm says something about abortion, and you do notice this. Because you don't remember everything I don't do (why would you) it seems like I'm ALWAYS going on about abortion. But really, I'm not. :)

I'm sorry if I'm being overbearing about it, which I have a tendency to do. Sorry in the sense that I believe in the issue I'm promoting, but don't want to be a prick about it.
Originally posted by Backlash
We agree. People need salvation.:)
We just have different ideas on who, how and why.I'll go first: everyone, haven't figured that out yet, because anything else would be inhuman.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
>>No matter who takes it, EVERYONE PAYS FOR IT. <<

Wrong. We all know how much you love to be wrong.

>>I hope they raise every tax in Ohio that applies to you and see how you feel. <<

:blah:

[SpunGirl]

You're right about the events vs. non-events thing. It gets on my nerves, but I'll be nicer about it, I promise.

You could always promote less abortions by handing out condoms when your area schools let out!

-K

[Latrinsorm]

I checked, Spun. I've posted the word "abortion" 12 times over the past 9 months; 7 of which were in threads clearly about abortion.

I'm surprised, actually. I thought it was way more too. :?:

edit: TY! :)

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by SpunGirl

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
And as for who runs this state, Republicans.

At least they're doing something right. ::flees::

-K

:lol: Well..in this case I actually do agree with the taxation plan. (I know PB will likely keep this post for posterity.)

[Keller]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Keller
Because no one likes the idea of paying for some wheezer to get a lung removed :hippie:

It'd probably easier for me to take a hard line on naughty smokers if the results weren't so incredibly debilitating, painful, disfiguring, etc.

And if we're wanting to stop preventable losses of life altogether (and have Backlash call us fascists, or something), abortion kills more people a year than tobacco does (in the U.S.) to the tune of half again as many.

Abortion doesn't kill any "people." It terminates pregnancies. In a lot of cases it saves those fetuses becoming a living person who will:
A) Jump from foster care to foster care, being nothing more than another paycheck.
B) Call it's grandmother mom and it's mother Pam.
C) Be cared for by an immature and unreliable mother
D) Never know it's father
E) live in a happy home.

I'm not saying it's right, but I understand.

On topic: Smoking is bad, mmmkay?

[Keller]

Originally posted by Jazuela
But they do it anyway, because they know us smoking idiots are addicted and we'll bend over and take it for our next nicotine fix.



::Sirens, whirly lights, and confetti!::

We have a winner folks!!!

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Wrong.>>

Then you must not pay taxes. Driving schools are very much funded by tax dollars paid by everyone.

[Overlord]

Man Cigs are still cheap as hell in the states, in fact all tobacco is. A pouch of bugler (68 ounces) is all of 1.50 in california while out here 2.5 grams of the same quality is 2.50. Who gives a damn about .75 cents extra. Out there I was paying 6 bucks a pack in CA

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Wrong.>>

Then you must not pay taxes. Driving schools are very much funded by tax dollars paid by everyone.


Not in Ohio. Do your homework. They are privatized, AAA, Sears etc. It is not taught in school anymore. Driver's ed in Ohio is not funded by tax dollars. You're wrong.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by TheRoseLady]

[Warriorbird]

Privatized here too, Bob. You can even take the damn nonsense over the Internet. At least as far as "driving school" for tickets, at least.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Warriorbird]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Wrong.>>

Then you must not pay taxes. Driving schools are very much funded by tax dollars paid by everyone. Here's the kicker. Even though driving schools are funded by tax dollars any individual who is required to go or who chooses will still pay a fairly hefty fee for their participation. That works for me and I'm sure millions of other drivers who'd rather not be on the road with someone who can't drive defensively to save their own life let alone mine.

I'm completely in favor of the cigarette tax. As much as smokers complain about the rising costs they do have a choice.

[AnticorRifling]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol

When I go to Burger King and pay my meal tax, I'll be fucking pissed if the tax was increased to educate people in not being so fucking fat.

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

That is, to me, not only a great example but a hiliarous way to prove a point.

[Overlord]

Not that many an obese american couldn't use the bloody education. "Super Size Me" anyone?

[Back]

I can see it now. Donut Tax. Pizza Tax. Candy Tax. Pork Rinds Tax...

[Nieninque]

This argument is stupid. It isnt just about freedom of choice, smoking also affects people who dont smoke.

If you want to behave in an antisocial way and risk the health of other people, expect to contribute to the aftermath of your grotty habits.

[Overlord]

Its funny, in the Times this morning I was reading that there are going to be bans on people smoking in and around Bus stops and bus shelters due to the whole argument of exposing other people to second hand smoke. Frankly it doesn't bother me, people out here have entirely too much freedom when it comes to smoking. When I arrived at the train station in Edinburgh I told my sister I wanted to go outside and smoke. She just looked at me like I was a complete fool and said "Light one up now". We also smoke at all the food courts in the centres or "Malls" and of course all the pubs and most resturants.

Smoking freedom indeed.

[Back]

Originally posted by Nieninque
This argument is stupid. It isnt just about freedom of choice, smoking also affects people who dont smoke.

If you want to behave in an antisocial way and risk the health of other people, expect to contribute to the aftermath of your grotty habits.

I think you’re on to something here Nien. How about an Obnoxious Tax? Or an Anti-Social Tax. Or a Stench Tax. Or an Ugly Tax.

All kidding aside. As a smoker I agree with not blowing it in non-smokers faces and try to be mindful of that in large crowds say... but places where you are allowed to smoke, sorry, its a non-smokers choice to enter that sort of place.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'll remember that next time you are bitching about the administration and countless other issues :)

Merely using the ever so popular sore loser argument that tends to pop up during any political debate.


Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
The analogy must be worse than I think if somehow I ignored it by pointing out how stupid it is.

No Bob, just calling you on the idgit ploy you utilize whenever someone uses an angle you can't argue around.

You have two ploys. Idgit and shitcock.

The analogy still stands. Your argument on cigarette tax is not far from someone getting a reckless driving charge and arguing that they shouldn't have to pay it, or everyone, who isn't a dumb ass, should pay a dumbass driver tax.

I smoke, I just accept that I and I alone am responsible for the consequences. If that responsibility requires I pay an additional tax to offset the financial burden placed on non-smokers due to my stupidity ... then so be it.

As has been pointed out, I'll bend over and take it ... or I'll quit.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
As has been pointed out, I'll bend over and take it ... or I'll quit.

Yeah yeah, still waiting for that part. The words "smoke" and "ass" spring to mind right now. :P

[Parkbandit]

I think CT just called you an ass-smoker Tsa`ah.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Backlash
All kidding aside. As a smoker I agree with not blowing it in non-smokers faces and try to be mindful of that in large crowds say... but places where you are allowed to smoke, sorry, its a non-smokers choice to enter that sort of place.

Maybe where you are, but not where I am.
It also isnt just the blowing smoke in people's faces that is the problem, it is the being around people that smoke.
The kids with respiratory problems because their parents smoke.
The people who have never smoked a ciggy in their life but still end up getting smoking related illnesses. People in pubs and restaurants who dont have a choice about being in that environment, save go to work or give up.
The people who miss out on important operations or have to wait for important operations because the resources that would have allowed that operation to go ahead, are being diverted to some twat who is killing themselves slowly and will continue to smoke even after the medical attention they have received.
And some...

Edited to add, I dont care especially whether people smoke or not, I have never smoked myself and dont envisage doing so. I am not a hardline "Smoking is bad" kind of person though, but I do feel quite strongly that there should be taxation on cigarettes so that those who cause the problems contribute towards the remedies, given their refusal/inability to cease their activities.

[Edited on 28-1-05 by Nieninque]

[HarmNone]

The problem I see is that smokers who end up with lung disease end their lives fighting for breath and coughing up pieces of lung, after years of being unable to work due to the disability caused by their disease. These people are, for the most part, not covered by insurance (The older ones usually have Medicare but no other coverage.), and spend inordinate amounts of time hospitalized before their eventual demise. The cost of their treatment is astronomical.

If cigarettes are heavily taxed, fine; but, if the reason for the high tax is to offset the costs of treatment for these people, a special fund should be created wherein all those monies collected are placed. It is from that fund that payment for treatment should come. That way, smokers are paying for their treatment in advance. Somehow, I don't feel that's where these taxes are going. Does anybody else actually believe that's where they're going?

HarmNone, who doesn't smoke

[xtc]

I don't like the idea of employers dictating what you do in your free time. I am too much of a libertarian for that. Neither am I a fan of shameless tax grabs. In Canada we have a fair rationalisation for high taxes on cigarettes, as the Government pays for health care and the taxes help offset the cost of increased health costs due to smoking.

I am an ex-smoker I quit 6-7 years and I think it is a filthy habit. I think tobacco companies are evil. That said I am tired of the state dictating that you can't smoke here, you can't smoke there. If it is legal then people should have a choice of where they can smoke. In Toronto they outlawed in restaurants and bars unless you had a separate, enclosed, smoking area with a separate ventilation system. Many bars and restaurants lost business due to the ban and some spent $100,000's installing smoking areas. Other restaurants open patios to compensate. A year later the provincial government outlaws smoking province wide in bars and restaurants and all public places. No exceptions, no separate smoking areas, covered patios must be smoke free. Now this is the kind of stupid asinine bureaucratic thinking that pisses me off. Many bars now had useless smoking areas they had spent fortunes building. Of course revenue from bars and restaurants is substantially down across the province.

[Samin]

Okay. And the tax from cigerettes should ONLY go towards smokers. So you people that don't smoke, go die from lung disease you get from breathing in Smog!

By the way, Hamburgers kill more people then Cigerettes now. So, lets create a fat tax. The US Govt will set up weight standards, and weigh everyone on certain dates. If you are over the weight standard, you get billed for it! INGENIOUS.

[Edited on 2005128 by Samin]

[DeV]

For as long as I can remember cigarettes have been taxed... or, is this something new?

-Non-smoker

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Samin
By the way, Hamburgers kill more people then Cigerettes now. So, lets create a fat tax. The US Govt will set up weight standards, and weigh everyone on certain dates. If you are over the weight standard, you get billed for it! INGENIOUS.


Give me a break with this noise, however I'm pretty sure you were being sarcastic (hope so, anyway).

Hamburgers don't have an addictive chemical that makes you crave them (don't care WHAT people say, they don't). They aren't harmful to your health in any way if eaten with moderation. If you eat like a pig, deal with it.

Pardon me since I recently saw on the news the whole bullshit drama of people trying to sue McDonalds for being fat, and I nearly had a hissy fit and felt like driving out to the Brooklyn fatties and punching them in the face for not taking responsibility for eating like suckling swines and blaming someone else for their failures. Suck it up, get on a treadmill and STFU.


Okay. And the tax from cigerettes should ONLY go towards smokers. So you people that don't smoke, go die from lung disease you get from breathing in Smog!

As for the smog, if people are actually getting lung cancer from breathing in smog (holy shit tell me where and I won't ever live there), the tax should be put on the companies that cause that crap to float to the air. Fucking savages in these towns.

[Edited on 1/28/2005 by CrystalTears]

[HarmNone]

Umm...Samin, I didn't mean to infer the tax should go only toward treating people who smoked. I meant that it should be earmarked for the treatment of disease related to smoking, no matter how that disease may have come to be.

My bad for not stating my point more clearly.

[HarmNone]

Personally, I believe that people who are morbidly obese SHOULD be required to either pay a higher premium for their insurance, or some other method found to make them accountable for their share of medical costs related to their obesity. There are many people who are downright noncompliant with medications, diet and general health regimens that are prescribed to improve their health and avoid long hospitalizations and expensive treatments. These people should be held accountable.

*Edited to add that those individuals who are obese due to glandular disfunction would not be included in the above. However, that is really very rare.*

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by HarmNone]

Should we also make people that live in a high crime neighborhood pay a higher "crime" tax?

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Arkans, that doesn't make any sense. People who live in high crime areas, yet do not commit crimes, are not contributing to any problem of which I am aware. :rolleyes:

If they arn't helping the solution they are part of them problem :bleh:

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Heh. If they live in a high crime area, I'm sure they're doing their damnedest to "help the solution". Hell, their lives are at stake in many cases.:bleh:

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by HarmNone]

[DeV]

Someone should explain why cigarettes should be exempt from taxation.

They can be taxed, sure, but not in the obscene way that they are.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Well, if we could figure out a way to protect the innocent from the results of second-hand smoke, I'd say make ciggies cheap and let the gene pool reap the benefits. ;)

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Arkans, that doesn't make any sense. People who live in high crime areas, yet do not commit crimes, are not contributing to any problem of which I am aware. :rolleyes:

Actually it is an interesting analogy when compared to higher taxes for smokers through cigarettes. Not all smokers contract cancer, some live long lives putting almost no extra strain on the healthcare system, yet we tax them more just the same. The same rational could go to those who live in high crime areas. Not all of them will cost the system more yet the probability is higher. Thus all people who live in high crime areas should pay more tax.

[HarmNone]

I really believe that if the taxes on cigarettes were put to the use for which it is claimed they are intended, that tax probably COULD be reduced, Arkans.

Second hand smoke is so dilluted that it's pretty much impossible to get any adverse affects. On a side note, a 10 bag of charcoal produces the same amount of smoke as 120 packs of cigarettes cause. Should we tax BBQs next?

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Cancer isn't the only smoking-related disease that is dealt with by the healthcare system, xtc. In fact, it is not the most common, nor is it the condition that costs the most over the long haul.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
Second hand smoke is so dilluted that it's pretty much impossible to get any adverse affects. On a side note, a 10 bag of charcoal produces the same amount of smoke as 120 packs of cigarettes cause. Should we tax BBQs next?

- Arkans

I'd just love to see a credible source for this, Arkans.

[Killer Kitten]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Why should a non-smoker pay a cigarette tax? Why should a non-smoker take on more of a financial burden by being forced to fund educational endeavors concerning an act that they don't participate in?

That's sort of like saying you don't want to go to traffic school even though you caused a 3 car pile up by being a dumb ass.

That's along the same lines as wanting someone who has a clean driving record to help pay for your fine, because you drive like a dumb ass.

Very poor logic.

I've never been able to fathom the logic of most of the taxes we pay.

For example, my husband and I have chosen not to breed and are in our late 40's with no children.

The family down the road from us has had five children in the past seven years and shows no sign of stopping the baby production.

Mike and I pay a much higher school tax than this family does, even though our family does not use the schools and this family overuses them. They get a tax break for every kid they pop out, while we pay more for not running a baby factory.

We're non-parents, yet we pay out the ass for child/parent programs across the board, while parental types get tax breaks for using the same programs.

We got no government help buying our house, while this family got to take advantage of low interest government loans because they had several small children. Our tax dollars made this possible.

Overpopulation causes more problems for more people than smoking does, yet we penalize smokers while rewarding indiscriminate breeders. The smoker eventually removes himself from society and stops being a burden. The baby factory generally spawns other baby factories that only place more of a burden on already limited resources.

Given that system of taxation, non-smokers should be paying cigarette taxes, not the smokers.

Kimm

And, no, I do not hate children or parents. Nor do I smoke. I just find what passes for logic in the heads of our elected officials to be kind of scary.

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Cancer isn't the only smoking-related disease that is dealt with by the healthcare system, xtc. In fact, it is not the most common, nor is it the condition that costs the most over the long haul.

OK my point simply is that not all smokers cost the healthcare system more than average. So as ridiculous as Arkans comparison seems, it is to some extent apt.

[HarmNone]

Let's put it this way, xtc. Those people who live in high crime areas and do not commit crimes are probably not living in that area by choice, eh? It may be that they live there because they are economically unable to live elsewhere. They may have lived there for 50 or more years, while the area deteriorated around them, and now are too old, and entrenched, to move. There are many reasons why someone might find themselves in such a position. However, I doubt that any live there strictly because they choose to live in a criminal-infested area. Smokers choose to smoke.

http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/RestaurantAir.html


About restaurants, but still has to do with second hand smoking.

- Arkans

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Let's put it this way, xtc. Those people who live in high crime areas and do not commit crimes are probably not living in that area by choice, eh? It may be that they live there because they are economically unable to live elsewhere. They may have lived there for 50 or more years, while the area deteriorated around them, and now are too old, and entrenched, to move. There are many reasons why someone might find themselves in such a position. However, I doubt that any live there strictly because they choose to live in a criminal-infested area. Smokers choose to smoke.

Interesting argument, but smoking is an addiction. Many people start before they are adults and give in to peer pressure. I doubt they would have started had they have fully realised the consequences. Smokers in their 60's who started in their teens had very little knowledge of the effects of smoking.

Conversely Adults choose to live in high crime areas. Perhaps they are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to live in a better neighbourhood. Also not all low income neighbourhoods are high crime areas. Maybe many of these people are choosing to live in a thief’s paradise because that is what they are.

[HarmNone]

Smoking is an addiction, but that addiction can be cured with determination and effort. I'm well aware it can. I used to smoke. So did my mother. Neither of us smoke anymore. It is a choice.

In my opinion, very few adults would consciously choose to live in areas where their lives, and the lives of their family members, are in danger due to high crime rates. If they cannot afford to move, there's little they can do to get out. It's not always a matter of just doing so. It costs money to move. Many people just don't have the funds.

If a person chooses to live in a thief's paradise because they are a thief...well, those aren't the people we were discussing, are they?

You can choose where you live.

" I can have 3 kids at 16 and drop out.. Or I can continue my education"

"I can pick up a second job or live in this poverty stricken town"

"I can look into other low income areas in different cities that do not have a high crime rate or I can stay here..."


Lots of choices if you ask me.

- Arkans

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Killer Kitten ......


Don't take the quote as an insult as I believe you have a valid point.

I don't think that people with more than 2 children should receive any tax credit past the second. To me that's just more incentive for over population. If you want children, that's fine, but there exists a point where the breaks become a burden on others.

I think the argument is short sited however. I would be more inclined to look at it as indirectly securing your future.

As a childless couple, what do you think your future would look like if you and everyone else without children weren't paying taxes that went toward education and social services?

Do you think that the taxes, reduced as they are, paid by parents would be enough to cover these costs? What do you think your taxes would look like in 5 - 20 years when all of the kids that dropped out of school, all of the kids that received a horrible education don't further their educations, and welfare participants sky rocket?

There are indirect benefits to the taxes you pay. One of them is keeping, rather poorly at this point, kids in school, off welfare, marketable for employment ... so on and so forth.

Things could be so much better, but at the same time we really have no comprehension of how bad they could get without the limited funding from the taxes we pay.

Smoking on the other hand is entirely voluntary. Why should you, a non-smoker, have to pay for my medical costs? You didn't force me to smoke, in fact I'm pretty sure you would prefer I not smoke.

People that smoke and develop respiratory diseases, heart and circulatory diseases, and cancer are one of the prime reasons why insurance rates are so astronomical.

If hiking the taxes on cigarettes financially deters some kid, that shouldn't be in the first place, from smoking, don't you believe that is beneficial?

If hiking the taxes on cigarettes causes even a minor reduction in the percentage of total smokers, thus reducing the potential costs to you, wouldn't you believe that beneficial?

If hiking the taxes on cigarettes helps fund cessation education, also reducing the total number of smokers and reducing the potential cost to you, would that not also be beneficial?

The arguments can go on and on, but what it boils down to is the cost to you, the non-smoker and the responsibilities that should be mine, the smoker.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
You can choose where you live.

" I can have 3 kids at 16 and drop out.. Or I can continue my education"

Or...I can be unable to continue my education because I don't have the mental capability, due to no fault of my own.

"I can pick up a second job or live in this poverty stricken town"

Or...I work two jobs at minimum wage and can barely afford to stay where I am.

"I can look into other low income areas in different cities that do not have a high crime rate or I can stay here..."

Or...This is a rat-hole, and there's a real nice place to live in Kansas. However, Kansas is 1000 miles away, and I don't have the funds to move there.


Lots of choices if you ask me.

- Arkans

Sure, there are choices. Many people do escape from poverty. Many people do move out of crime-ridden areas. However, not all people are able to do so, and the reasons they are unable are not ALWAYS of their own making. Also, let's not forget the people who are living in poverty because they are striving to better themselves by going to school and working two jobs on the side. I know a couple of them.

Of course, but they are actively trying to remove themselves from a situation. No one is forced to live in one area. It is all a matter of how much effort they are willing to put in and if they think the effort is worth the gain.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/RestaurantAir.html


About restaurants, but still has to do with second hand smoking.

- Arkans

:lol: I requested a creditable source, Arkans. A pro-smoking site is not, in my view, a creditable source in this case. I'd be seeking a more unbiased view.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Arkans
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/RestaurantAir.html

About restaurants, but still has to do with second hand smoking.

After just a quick skim through the article this jumped out at me:


It must be underscored that none of these studies had any information whatsoever on the subjects' exposure to secondhand smoke--how much, how long, of if at all.

So really, it doesn't look like that article had all that much to do with second hand smoke unless there's a lot more information imbedded in it that was apparent. However, this article does:

Parents' Smoking Can Kill Children Years Later (http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2005/01/28/hscout523688.html)

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
Of course, but they are actively trying to remove themselves from a situation. No one is forced to live in one area. It is all a matter of how much effort they are willing to put in and if they think the effort is worth the gain.

- Arkans Now equate that argument with smoking cigarettes. No one is forcing anyone else to smoke and pay the high rate of taxes that accompanies that choice. You can remove yourself from the situation of smoking anytime with a little hard work and dedication if you feel it's worth your while. Smoking it not beneficial to anyone, including the smoker. I do agree that the taxes are outrageous for cigarettes but I also agree as a non-smoker I'd rather not have to pay them simply because It's an extracirricular activity that I choose not to participate in.

I agree. I made the choice the quit and have held good on my choice, but I still think that cigarettes should not be as much as they are.

- Arkans

PS: So I guess Anti-Smoking sources are not credible either? I hope no one posts them ever again in a serious manner

[HarmNone]

No, Arkans, I wouldn't find anti-smoking sources credible either, in this case. To be fair and unbiased would mean that no pre-existing agenda is present.

[Miss X]

I was just listening to a report from the biggest ever study into passive smoking. The results are that if you smoke around your children they are three times more likely to develop lung cancer in later life. Basically because children are still growing and the cells in their lungs are easier to damage which gives the cancer cells more chance to develop.

If that isn't enough to stop parents smoking then nothing is. I'd hate to know I was doing something that could put a childs life at risk, it's just as bad as drink driving and stuff like that.

I'd love to see how credible this study is by examining outside influences on health, the area they lived in, ect.

- Arkans

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Nieninque
This argument is stupid. It isnt just about freedom of choice, smoking also affects people who dont smoke.

If you want to behave in an antisocial way and risk the health of other people, expect to contribute to the aftermath of your grotty habits.

That response is stupid. Because I think drunks are a blight on society and THEY should pay more taxes too. Now STFU and pass me my $10 pint of bud, while I go out to the street to smoke my $1.50 cigarette.

Also, smoking is actually considered SOCIAL. I'd also suggest to you that more people die from alcohol or alcohol related incidents than from smoking. If you don't like smoke stay out of bars that allow smokers. Ditto on restuarants or hospitals or airplanes. Patronage should be the driving factor in where you can smoke or not, not the government.

And to close, I'm actually in favor of a big tax on cigarettes. Just not for laws against smoking.

[HarmNone]

I'm also in favor of an enormous tax on alcoholic beverages, to include beer and wine.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Nieninque
This argument is stupid. It isnt just about freedom of choice, smoking also affects people who dont smoke.

If you want to behave in an antisocial way and risk the health of other people, expect to contribute to the aftermath of your grotty habits.

I think you’re on to something here Nien. How about an Obnoxious Tax? Or an Anti-Social Tax. Or a Stench Tax. Or an Ugly Tax.

All kidding aside. As a smoker I agree with not blowing it in non-smokers faces and try to be mindful of that in large crowds say... but places where you are allowed to smoke, sorry, its a non-smokers choice to enter that sort of place.

Goddamn right Backlash, I actually agree with you (and I'm a non-smoker).

[Kainen]

The fact is.. smokers are an easy mark for taxes.. as for non-smoking places.. THANK GOD.. in resturants the non-smoking areas were a joke. Now I agree that there should be places that people are allowed to smoke.. they should just be away from people who don't.

[DeV]

They are easy marks because it's an addictive habit and raising the tax will not stop a majority of smokers from buying a pack/box. At some point it does become a matter of taxing advantage but if you don't stop buying it certainly won't decrease.

I also agree with taxing alcohol in the same manner. It would only be fair.

[xtc]

Originally posted by DeV
They are easy marks because it's an addictive habit and raising the tax will not stop a majority of smokers from buying a pack/box. At some point it does become a matter of taxing advantage but if you don't stop buying it certainly won't decrease.

I also agree with taxing alcohol in the same manner. It would only be fair.

Up here in Canada they already do tax alcohol in the same manner. In Ontario the government runs state owned liquor stores which are the only place you can legally buy a bottle of booze outside of a restaurant or bar. But I think the goal is fewer not more taxes. "Sin taxes" as they are dubbed up here are always an easy way to raise revenue.

Economics 101 example of inelastic demand, which is demand that doesn't change because of fluctuations in price. Tobacco was always the first example.

[HarmNone]

If the monies gained from taxing things like cigarettes and alcohol are used specifically to treat the conditions leading up to, and resulting from, use of those products, I would not be inclined to think of it so much as a "sin tax" as a method of recouping the costs to treat these people if, and when, they contract a disease related to the use of said product.

I don't give a flip if people "sin". They can "sin" if they choose. However, they should not become a drain on the rest of society because they choose to "sin".

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
They are easy marks because it's an addictive habit and raising the tax will not stop a majority of smokers from buying a pack/box. At some point it does become a matter of taxing advantage but if you don't stop buying it certainly won't decrease.

I also agree with taxing alcohol in the same manner. It would only be fair.

Alcohol lobby > smoking lobby.

It will never happen.

[HarmNone]

Gah! Don't get me started on lobbies! I tend to froth at the mouth and drink too much Bailey's....I'm not sure in what order.

[xtc]

Originally posted by HarmNone
If the monies gained from taxing things like cigarettes and alcohol are used specifically to treat the conditions leading up to, and resulting from, use of those products, I would not be inclined to think of it so much as a "sin tax" as a method of recouping the costs to treat these people if, and when, they contract a disease related to the use of said product.

I don't give a flip if people "sin". They can "sin" if they choose. However, they should not become a drain on the rest of society because they choose to "sin".

Sin tax is just what people call it.

Of course the governement always puts the moneys raised by alcohol and tobacco taxes in the general coffers, at least up here. It is an easy way of raising taxes to pay for their mismanagement of our money. The money isn't dedicated exclusively to health care or addiction recovery. I would be surprised if it was different south of the 49th parallel.

[HarmNone]

It isn't different here, xtc, and that is my prime objection to it. If the PTB want to tell me that they're raising taxes for a purpose, I'm one of those odd people who wants to see those taxes used for that purpose. Fancy that, eh?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
They are easy marks because it's an addictive habit and raising the tax will not stop a majority of smokers from buying a pack/box. At some point it does become a matter of taxing advantage but if you don't stop buying it certainly won't decrease.

I also agree with taxing alcohol in the same manner. It would only be fair.

Alcohol lobby > smoking lobby.

It will never happen. We agree there... just stating it would be fair for those claiming how unfair it currently is. If that was even a slight possibility, then yeah, I could see the liquor loving folk up in arms but it'd be paid regardless. Smoking is a whole other ballpark indeed.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
Abortion doesn't kill any "people."I hope nobody ever decides I'm not a person, because currently I'm not very interested in dying.
In a lot of casesDon't make me find the exact wording of the Beethoven example, please. :) Even assuming there never was such a case, it's a bit distasteful to me to arbitrarily decide that a person's probable life isn't worth living and kill them.
Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
I'd also suggest to you that more people die from alcohol or alcohol related incidents than from smoking.Your suggestion would be enormously unbased in reality. There are 5 times as many tobacco-related deaths as alcohol-related. Even assuming that the source I have (sucky pdf, sorry: http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf ) exaggerated their findings by 100%, tobacco would still kill twice as many people as alcohol.

[Bobmuhthol]

I didn't look at the pdf but this is so much more convenient.

Behavioral causes of death

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/behavior.gif

[Edited on 1-28-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[HarmNone]

Latrinsorm, we are not talking about abortion. Please take that subject elsewhere. It does not belong in this topic.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Your suggestion would be enormously unbased in reality. There are 5 times as many tobacco-related deaths as alcohol-related. Even assuming that the source I have (sucky pdf, sorry: http://www.csdp.org/research/1238.pdf ) exaggerated their findings by 100%, tobacco would still kill twice as many people as alcohol.

Your year 2000 pdf file speaks to death by alcohol (binge drinking, liver damage, etc) of current drinkers. Deosn't account for long time binge drinkers who then stopped (says so in the pdf). Also does not account for all alcohol related deaths such as drowning, shooting, riots, etc. That's where I'd guess the majority of deaths occur, and also where it is the hardest to record or quantify.

Some other interesting "facts" from the year 2000.

Alcohol abuse is linked to:
65% of suicide attempts
76,000 facial injuries a year
23% of child neglect calls to national helplines
39% of fires
15% of drownings

In Minnesota, alcohol related deaths cost the state $278 million. http://wcco.com/trafficnews/local_story_025194645.html

Economic costs
Harwood (2000) estimated the costs of alcohol abuse and alcoholism to be $184.6 billion in 1998. Costs include:

About $18.9 billion in medical expenditures to treat the medical consequences of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, including:
$5.5 billion for alcohol and drug abuse services
About $134.2 billion due to lost earnings, including:
$36.5 billion due to premature death
$87.6 billion due to impaired productivity
$9.1 billion for the lost productivity of incarcerated people
$1 billion for victims of crime
About $31.5 billion for other impacts on society, including:
$7.5 billion for specialty alcohol services such as alcohol abuse treatment
$6.3 billion for crime costs (other than lost productivity)
$84 million for social welfare administration
$5.7 billion for alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes (other than health care costs)
1.5 billion for fire destruction costs


Anyway, I'm not against alcohol or anything, just playing devils advocate.

[Tsa`ah]

Looks like a good argument for some pretty damned hefty liquor taxes.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You can't take away my white lightning!!!111oneone!!1

I think I have the solution...

Quit Smoking Now! (http://cigarette.com/quit%20smoking%20circles.htm)

- Made by an Anti-Smoking Company.

[MrFeature]

Originally posted by Nieninque
This argument is stupid. It isnt just about freedom of choice, smoking also affects people who dont smoke.


Consider cars, more harmful shit pours out of the SUV's every day than 1000 smokers combined, and it also affects those who do not drive.

If the government is going to educate people on not smoking, through taxes collected from those who smoke, then the government should tell people not to drive and fund that by raising taxes.

[HarmNone]

Ahh, circular reasoning. Words upon words, signifying nothing. :whistle:

[Hulkein]

Tax fatty foods sold at McDonalds, Burger King, etc.

It's just as dangerous and a much more lucrative thing to tax.

And no, Nienique, smoking at ones home doesn't affect anyone at their work.

[hectomaner]

...

[Edited on 1-29-2005 by hectomaner]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Anyway, I'm not against alcohol or anything, just playing devils advocate.Even with homicide, firearms, and motor vehicles added onto alcohol, it doesn't even reach half of tobacco.

I'm certainly not saying there's nothing wrong with alcohol's effects. Just because it kills less people than tobacco doesn't mean it doesn't kill way too many people. However, alcohol is not necessarily addictive, while tobacco is. Relying on personal responsibility is clearly not working, and if taxes like these manage to put a dent of any kind in these brutal statistics, I wouldn't mind them at all. It's one thing to say that what people do in their private lives is their business, but it becomes society's business when you endager others and to a certain extent yourself (at least in my picture of society).

[Back]

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell
I think I have the solution...

Quit Smoking Now! (http://cigarette.com/quit%20smoking%20circles.htm)

- Made by an Anti-Smoking Company.

Damn, Stan, now I want a j.

[Back]

From the American Heart Foundation (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4545).

At first I only read TRLs post about Ohio holding schools hostage to cigarette taxes, which I still think is absolutely unlawful. But as far as taxing people who smoke to pay for the education about not smoking, helping hospitals, and increasing state revenue is fine with me. As long as it goes where its supposed to go.

Holding Ohio’s children’s education hostage over it is so bizzare I can’t even describe it.