KingGlamis
Banned
Here in AZ we have American Indian smoke shops where you don't pay taxes on smokes. I think it's $16 per carton cheaper than a normal store.
smokes
- Thread starter alaskawolf
- Start date
binky
Flashlight Enthusiast
Y'know, I don't think the high prices are going to get my sister to stop. I think it must be right that for some people's bodies it's just extremely addictive, and for some of us it's just not. I tried smoking a pipe for a while in college. After 2 weeks I couldn't get the foul taste of my mouth, plus I realized it couldn't be helping my cross-country running, so I quit. Okay maybe a pipe is lame and isn't a good determination whether I'd get addicted or not. The best I can do is an analogous chemical addiction that's supposed to yield instant addiction... morphine.
I was also in the hospital a couple times and got lots of morphine, even with "the button" on-demand delivery. Although I was glad to have it when things hurt super duper bad, I also hated so much being spaced out from it that I was eager to stop and preferred some amount of pain vs the morphine buzz. No bad feelings or lost love when I was finally able to stop using that stuff. Then I was a bad outpatient and didn't take all my crazy heavy-duty pain-killer pills that I was supposed to take. Didn't like that feeling either. Preferred the pain.
If the high price were ever to outweigh the impulse to smoke, it implies that the impulse be down in the range of "maybe not" so the person can stand at the counter and think along the lines of "well, they're just too expensive today, so I'll pass it up." (And for me it seems luckily even farther down in the "rather not" range so it's naturally an easier decision for my body.) Maybe it's a mistake to think that people's impulses are always down in the "maybe not" range. I suspect it is a mistake. If this model is correct then any high price designed to dissuade an addictive decision just cannot work, at least not until it's completely financially impossible to afford it.
I was also in the hospital a couple times and got lots of morphine, even with "the button" on-demand delivery. Although I was glad to have it when things hurt super duper bad, I also hated so much being spaced out from it that I was eager to stop and preferred some amount of pain vs the morphine buzz. No bad feelings or lost love when I was finally able to stop using that stuff. Then I was a bad outpatient and didn't take all my crazy heavy-duty pain-killer pills that I was supposed to take. Didn't like that feeling either. Preferred the pain.
If the high price were ever to outweigh the impulse to smoke, it implies that the impulse be down in the range of "maybe not" so the person can stand at the counter and think along the lines of "well, they're just too expensive today, so I'll pass it up." (And for me it seems luckily even farther down in the "rather not" range so it's naturally an easier decision for my body.) Maybe it's a mistake to think that people's impulses are always down in the "maybe not" range. I suspect it is a mistake. If this model is correct then any high price designed to dissuade an addictive decision just cannot work, at least not until it's completely financially impossible to afford it.
i was at the store buying some cashews since they were on sale and since im not a smoker i was surprised to see the price for a carton
I love me some cashews.
I am all for higher tobacco taxes. It is a filthy habit. If the higher prices help you to quit, then good for you, if you want to keep smoking than keep going and at least the increased taxes will benefit the general public.
I'm all for higher cashew taxes, on the same basis.
Maybe the public shouldn't be benefitting off of someone's horrible addiction, and their inability to stop. Drug Dealers benefit off of Addicts' inability to stop. Maybe imitation is not a good idea in this case.
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
I don't drink alcohol (allergic to it). I think drinking to intoxication is a filthy habit and if not actually dangerous, in the case for the individual, it is still obnoxious. Usury taxes could be a real boon to the general public. It would not effect me, one way or the other; beyond some potential benefit as a member of the general public. I would not support or condone such a tax on alcohol program though.
We had friends over for dinner last night and a couple times, I excused myself from the conversation and stepped outside to practice my filthy habit. The topic of the new tax on tobacco came up and I said I would like to know just where this additional revenue was headed. On of our guests said he saw some interview where an official wouldn't look at the camera but stated that some funds would go to health care for children who otherwise would not get it. If this is true and to what ever extent a good cause, why are only smokers burdened with supporting this program?
There is a minority, much smaller than the group of active smokers in our society. This minority is likely in the best position to be hit with proportionally heavy taxation and suffer no significant reduction in their ability to subsist in terms of reasonable meals, shelter and enjoyment of life. This minority has also been tagged as filthy by some. It would be the filthy rich. They make a great tax target but unlike smokers, I think they are in a much better position to defend against usury taxation.
Within reason, taxes are reasonable; I guess a tautology. IMHO and independent of my participation as a smoker, the taxes on tobacco products have gone beyond reasonable, some time ago.
A smoker, due to his or her addiction, is quite likely making significant sacrifices in their health and well being as a result of their habit. Society has deemed that in addition to these sacrifices the smoker will also sacrifice in their general purchase and consumption levels. If dollars are votes and votes of value, the smoker is penalized and handicapped in his ability to vote and enjoy the fruits of those votes. The stronger the addiction the greater burden that can be placed on the addicted and he will attempt to carry the load. Need we extend any sense of equity towards the filthy minorities? Nah.
Exodus125,
In other circumstances, were the load placed on your shoulder and yet to the benefit of the general public, I wonder if you would have a different take. :shrug:
The general public bears much of the health costs for smokers -- no one could pay for the costs of dealing with the costs of treatment for tobacco related illnesses. Then there's also the long term disability and often permanent disability costs. Now let's add in the effects of second hand smoke. It is added into the public health costs and also into the premiums we pay for health insurance.
Remember, the list of diseases is long -- a variety of cancers, emphysema, COPD, increased occurrence and severity of asthma, increased risk and severity of pneumonia, upper respiratory infections, etc., etc. Also you have to include chronic and acute care for those. Who has significant enough insurance to completely deal with any of that?
The additional taxes on tobacco are a drop in the health care bucket. If that was not the case why would anyone continue to sell a non-profitable product?
Remember, the list of diseases is long -- a variety of cancers, emphysema, COPD, increased occurrence and severity of asthma, increased risk and severity of pneumonia, upper respiratory infections, etc., etc. Also you have to include chronic and acute care for those. Who has significant enough insurance to completely deal with any of that?
The additional taxes on tobacco are a drop in the health care bucket. If that was not the case why would anyone continue to sell a non-profitable product?
What you say sounds good on the surface but at any depth, I question some of your comments and logic. I have been smoking for way too many years and I presently pay a good chunk of change on a monthly basis for health care. I am not clear on how the general public or even a private individual has spent a dime on my habit or its direct or indirect effects. Yes, exclude me as one of those smokers if need be but how many of us are to be excluded?
I don't follow your last statement at all?!?! How does the profitability of tobacco products correspond with the cost of health care? I can understand how the damage from tobacco products can impact the cost of health care but its profitability?!?
No matter, as long as I smoke, I will have to pay the price of admission whether I like it, understand it or not.
I agree 100% with this. I'm one of those who don't like feeling "high", "buzzed", "out of it". I occasionally drink wine and beer because I like the taste. However, I hate the aftereffects. Nothing pleasureable to me at all. Some people say alcohol loosens you up socially. For me it just makes me want to go straight to bed. I don't like the caffeine in coffee, either, but mostly drink it for the taste. However, I've found decaffeinated varieties lack something taste-wise, so I just deal with the negative effects of caffeine (in my case mostly the need to urinate more frequently for a while).
I have the same attitude and reaction to any type of pain killers. I HATE them. So much so that I had a tooth pulled with no anesthesia just so I wouldn't have to deal with the aftermath (in my case I feel sleepy for a good week from novacaine).
I guess people who tend to get addicted like the highs or other things associated with the addiction, and just don't have the same kind of negative reactions that we do. Or maybe the positives outweigh the negatives. While this may explain why people stay addicted, I've just never understood why they get addicted in the first place. If it's well known that a substance is both not good for you and highly addicting, they why even try it in the first place? That goes for lots of things besides smoking. Life is already full of lots of big problems. Why give yourself more by getting addicted to something which in the end will add to them? If we could find an answer to why people do this, then we could not only end smoking, but also drug abuse of all kinds. Somehow though I'm not hopeful an answer will come in my lifetime. Too many people profit off the weaknesses of others to give us much incentive to find a fix.
binky
Flashlight Enthusiast
Whoa. Just, like, whoa. That's hardcore.
Smokers do not pay for the entirety of their own health care costs, not by a long shot. The taxes on tobacco also do not begin to cover the cost of its effects. The more it continues, the greater the costs to all of us, If the airline industry knowingly produced aircraft that crashed or otherwise caused injury during its intended use, they would have been out of business long ago because people would stop supporting that industry. We all bear these costs but the tobacco industry is still profitable and little of the overall costs is offset by them. The more they continue to make a profit, the worse it is for all of us.
Let's consider another view. Let's say there's a new pharmaceutical on the market. The company that makes it knows it is highly addictive and its continued use will cause people a number of health problems from side effects. By the way the benefits of the drug are very limited. The health problems are complicated, can be both chronic and acute, require intensive and expensive care, and create a large burden on the health industry. Insurance costs go up for everyone. Health care is more expensive for everyone. Families bear huge economic and emotional costs. The drug is allowed to be sold over the counter. The manufacturer is sued repeatedly, but in the end their costs are a very small fraction of their profits. The government is lobbied but instead of coming down on the company, it allows for subsidies to be paid to the company so it can grow even more. The more the company sells, the more profit it makes, but more and more people start using the drug and the costs rise. How long would that be allowed to continue?
No one is going to stop many of these bad habits (tobacco, obesity, alcohol abuse, drug addiction, etc.), even though many are fatal, just because of taxes or high costs. We don't even quit subsidizing the industries that are bad for us. We can't stop our children from repeating our mistakes. We barely even try. I've even heard a woman talking about how she would never immunize her children (preschoolers) if she didn't have to. She was smoking in front of them at the time.
Last edited:
chmsam,
I can follow your reasoning much better this time around. I doubt your analogies are necessary if really applicable to start with. I don't think you will get any argument that tobacco products are of little if any redeeming value or that they are a detriment to health and productivity in our society.
The profit enjoyed by the tobacco industry and pork gained by special interests from it has been enormous and who funded this? Prior to the class action suits in which the legal industry along with plaintiffs who certainly knew better reaped enormous settlements (paid by those addicted), Madison Avenue and all forms of the media had their turn at harvesting golden eggs at the expense of the addicted. The ad campaigns and competition among brands surely cost a fortune and this cost was passed on with additional margin for the industry, to the addicted.
I am all for internalizing externalities and having the responsible parties pick up the cost of damage they inflict on society.
What we, or at least the majority of us don't know, is where the revenue stream from tobacco sales actually flows or just what it is that it covers. Somehow, I doubt this latest federal excise tax is actually applied to any expense directly related to tobacco and its consumption. That the tobacco industry adds a margin of profit on top of this tax just adds insult to injury, IMHO.
I have no idea what the true costs are nor do I have any idea what the amount of money, above actual hard costs of the tobacco itself is or where it ends up. I don't know what the actual cost of health care is as it relates to the industries that manage it and their fees above hard costs of treatments. I am of the opinion that the legal ind insurance industries are bloated with blood sucked from the medical industry whether the blood is tainted with nicotine or not.
What I do know is that I picked up a very addictive and destructive habit over 40 years ago and that funding it has progressively become more and more expensive. This habit has gone from the glamor of the Marlboro Man to the antisocial activity of a pariah. I am now an easy mark for exploitation and I am paying a ransom for each cigarette I smoke. You believe the ransom is justified and deficient in size, I think. I can't contest that but I believe the ransom is lining the pockets of those in the position to exploit me and not going to cover the damage I or others like me have caused, by engaging in our habits.
There was a time that I subjected others to my second hand smoke. This was in a time when I and society really knew no better. That time is long gone by. My habit at this point is damaging my health to some undetermined amount but no one else. I am just one individual and I may be representative and typical of our group or I may be atypical. Policy can't cater to the individual but must deal with the group, at large.
Your example about the pharmaceutical is certainly food for thought but how about considering some types of food itself as food for thought? What is the burden now on society due to the near epidemic levels of diabetes? I wonder if the legal industry can pull off some new class actions against Hostess and McDonalds. Like you have suggested, no one is going to stop much of the self destructive activites citizens engage in but is anyone going to stop the exploitation of these activities?
I can follow your reasoning much better this time around. I doubt your analogies are necessary if really applicable to start with. I don't think you will get any argument that tobacco products are of little if any redeeming value or that they are a detriment to health and productivity in our society.
The profit enjoyed by the tobacco industry and pork gained by special interests from it has been enormous and who funded this? Prior to the class action suits in which the legal industry along with plaintiffs who certainly knew better reaped enormous settlements (paid by those addicted), Madison Avenue and all forms of the media had their turn at harvesting golden eggs at the expense of the addicted. The ad campaigns and competition among brands surely cost a fortune and this cost was passed on with additional margin for the industry, to the addicted.
I am all for internalizing externalities and having the responsible parties pick up the cost of damage they inflict on society.
What we, or at least the majority of us don't know, is where the revenue stream from tobacco sales actually flows or just what it is that it covers. Somehow, I doubt this latest federal excise tax is actually applied to any expense directly related to tobacco and its consumption. That the tobacco industry adds a margin of profit on top of this tax just adds insult to injury, IMHO.
I have no idea what the true costs are nor do I have any idea what the amount of money, above actual hard costs of the tobacco itself is or where it ends up. I don't know what the actual cost of health care is as it relates to the industries that manage it and their fees above hard costs of treatments. I am of the opinion that the legal ind insurance industries are bloated with blood sucked from the medical industry whether the blood is tainted with nicotine or not.
What I do know is that I picked up a very addictive and destructive habit over 40 years ago and that funding it has progressively become more and more expensive. This habit has gone from the glamor of the Marlboro Man to the antisocial activity of a pariah. I am now an easy mark for exploitation and I am paying a ransom for each cigarette I smoke. You believe the ransom is justified and deficient in size, I think. I can't contest that but I believe the ransom is lining the pockets of those in the position to exploit me and not going to cover the damage I or others like me have caused, by engaging in our habits.
There was a time that I subjected others to my second hand smoke. This was in a time when I and society really knew no better. That time is long gone by. My habit at this point is damaging my health to some undetermined amount but no one else. I am just one individual and I may be representative and typical of our group or I may be atypical. Policy can't cater to the individual but must deal with the group, at large.
Your example about the pharmaceutical is certainly food for thought but how about considering some types of food itself as food for thought? What is the burden now on society due to the near epidemic levels of diabetes? I wonder if the legal industry can pull off some new class actions against Hostess and McDonalds. Like you have suggested, no one is going to stop much of the self destructive activites citizens engage in but is anyone going to stop the exploitation of these activities?
I hate to say it but that IS already the situation with a lot of prescription drugs, and if fact IMO prescription drugs are a much bigger problem than alcohol, cigarettes, or even illegal drugs. The government really dropped the ball on this one. First off, the FDA is a joke as far as really testing these drugs for both safety and efficacy. Second, we are one of only two countries in the world which allow direct to patient advertising of prescription drugs. There is little good reason laypeople who are in no position to either prescribe these drugs, or to best understand for whom they're really meant, should have these drugs advertised to them. To me it's akin to advertising a certain type of integrated circuit on TV so laypeople asking me to design a project can ask me to use that IC in one of my designs. It's just a dumb policy for lack of a better word. I cringe when I hear a drug commercial say "Ask your doctor about such and such drug". So now we're supposed to waste the time of already busy doctors asking them, even pestering them, about a bunch of mostly non-indicated drugs just because we saw a TV commercial? Why don't the doctors vehemently complain about this waste of their time? I know I would. Third, drug salespeople are allowed to interact with medical professionals. I've little doubt this influences them, at least on a subconscious level, to prescribe drugs instead of offering other, perhaps better, treatments. Fourth, if you look at the names of these companies, some of the same companies which make drugs are also in charge of the food supply. This is more than a little frightening. I wonder if the large numbers of obese and sick people we're seeing aren't a direct result of trace amounts of unknown things purposely added to food. Even the things we already know about are frightening enough. One good example is growth hormones in meat. Are these having the same effect on humans who consume the meat as on the cows? And what about the high fructose corn syrup that's seemingly in everything these days? That may well be as bad for you as transfats, but so far nobody has done anything.
While smokers are an easy target, in the end they're just another purposeful distraction from the real problem. Our health is being compromised both by big pharma and by the food industry. Once more of the general public learns this, and lobbies for change, then maybe we'll finally see action. The only problem is that for many it'll mean substituting more difficult lifestyle changes for the ease of popping a pill. Worth it long term, but I wonder how many will want to do this?
Pharmaceutical Industry. Fast Food Industry. Tobacco Industry. Lots of people remember what was attributed to P.T. Barnum.
And there are still enough out there that never learned that phrase.
For those who do not remember their history (and are condemned to repeat it), from Barnum or not, it rings true and it goes like this:
"There's a sucker born every minute."
And there are still enough out there that never learned that phrase.
For those who do not remember their history (and are condemned to repeat it), from Barnum or not, it rings true and it goes like this:
"There's a sucker born every minute."
geepondy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Anybody grow their own tobacco? I assume, unlike marijuana, it's legal to do so. If I was a smoker and lived in a climate that supported it, I think I'd be growing and drying out my own tobacco rather then pay those prices.
All I have to say is there are countless behaviors/habits/addictions/sins that have massive costs on the body politic so lets tax/punish them all equally or not at all.
(To be clear, I'm confining my discussion here to the relatively safe, non-addictive drugs, which are typically advertised to consumers; I'm not making a claim that other drugs, e.g., opioids, should or shouldn't be OTC.)
Bluntly, I see this situation as a problem, too, but precisely the opposite way. The trouble with many of these drugs is that they are prescription-only -- they should be advertised to consumers, and they should be available OTC. The flip-side is that consumers would be responsible for their own health, and would examine the consequences themselves, instead of blindly trusting their doctors (who, for all they know, may be getting kickbacks for prescribing drugs) to make all decisions for them. This would also dramatically reduce some of the potential issues with your point 3 -- a doctor's role (with a person in basically good health) would be more like a consulting engineer, rather than a minor deity, and the risk of influence by the drug companies would be less important.
Obviously, people don't always make good decisions for themselves -- but neither do their doctors. And they have more incentive to make good decisions for themselves than a doctor does to make those decisions for them, and will be less easily swayed by the drug companies, even with advertising to consumers.
I mostly agree, except for the notion of "more of the public learning this" -- most people won't learn it, because they see their health as their doctor's problem, not their own. Since they don't take responsibility for their health, they feel no need to learn about it.
Diesel_Bomber
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,772
Heard something semi-related to this thread on the radio today. There's a proposed law here in Oregon that will make smoking in a car with children in it illegal. First offense, $90 fine, third offense, $360 fine. Click me.
I'm kind of torn in both directions on this issue.
Other than the nasty smell, a passing whiff of cigarette smoke isn't going to do anybody any damage. We breath car exhaust, we sit in offices with very little ventilation and loads of outgassing plastics and rubbers, and we spray chemical air "fresheners" all over the place. A whiff here and there of cigarette smoke is not going to make any difference. I also want the government to butt out, mind it's own business, and nanny-state someone else. Free thinking adults make the choice to kill themselves slowly and expensively, and they have every right to make that choice. Not my problem.
I also remember being a child, riding in the car with my parents. Both of them lighting up and refusing to open any windows. I remember the burning throat, the tearing eyes, the feeling that my lungs were on fire, and begging them to open a window. They just laughed and said you'll get used to it. I never did. While the occasional whiff of cigarette smoke won't do any damage, how could this concentrated exposure, repeated over and over through the developing years of a child's lungs, do anything but severe harm? This part of me agrees with the law 10,000% and wishes the fines were much higher.
Overall I think the welfare of the child wins out. I would vote in favor of this law.
:buddies:
I'm kind of torn in both directions on this issue.
Other than the nasty smell, a passing whiff of cigarette smoke isn't going to do anybody any damage. We breath car exhaust, we sit in offices with very little ventilation and loads of outgassing plastics and rubbers, and we spray chemical air "fresheners" all over the place. A whiff here and there of cigarette smoke is not going to make any difference. I also want the government to butt out, mind it's own business, and nanny-state someone else. Free thinking adults make the choice to kill themselves slowly and expensively, and they have every right to make that choice. Not my problem.
I also remember being a child, riding in the car with my parents. Both of them lighting up and refusing to open any windows. I remember the burning throat, the tearing eyes, the feeling that my lungs were on fire, and begging them to open a window. They just laughed and said you'll get used to it. I never did. While the occasional whiff of cigarette smoke won't do any damage, how could this concentrated exposure, repeated over and over through the developing years of a child's lungs, do anything but severe harm? This part of me agrees with the law 10,000% and wishes the fines were much higher.
Overall I think the welfare of the child wins out. I would vote in favor of this law.
:buddies:
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
New Fireflylite Flashlights arrived! They are absolutely amazing!
- Latest: AMD64Brunette
-
-