Say Anything Blog

Rob: You make some great points about the virtual immortality of taxes.  Although my ox isnt being gored in this case(I’m a militant non-smoker), the fundamental error of taxation is present here.  Economically speaking, all taxes do is transfer money from the citizens to the political class, then we have to trust them to not do too much harm with our money.  It is always better to contribute directly to your favorite cause than it is to have your money conficated in taxes for some ostensibly noble cause.  I favor a very lean tax policy. Earmarking by the political class is just about always for vote-buying of a special interest group.

[...] Sin Tax Sillyness By Rob on December 15, 2005 at 12:08 am SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A coalition of health organizations wants to quadruple the tax on a pack of cigarettes in California to boost funding for a variety of health programs. [...]

And what happens after people actually quit smoking? These same health organizations will complain about the decline in tax dollars for their necessary and important health programs…

You get Rob Reiner complaining that the tax going to my pet cause is going down because you want tax to go to YOUR pet cause!

If these tax dollars are going to save the health and lives of others, don’t we have a moral obligation to smoke as much as we can?

Let me get this straight---

Y’all actually want addictive, cancer-causing drugs to be cheaper and easier to get, and you want to take away funds for cancer research and prevention (which benefits society as a whole, not just smokers).

I realize y’all have a knee-jerk all-taxes-are-the-work-of-the-Antichrist thing goin’, but you might want to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about this for a minute.

Brandon:

This is yet another example of how I think for myself, rather than slavishly following a party line...unlike others I could mention (and y’all know who you are).

Cigarette smokers aren’t just harming themselves---they harm others and society at large as well. Second-hand smoke, space in cancer wards, higher Medicaid and Medicare costs, higher insurance costs, etc etc etc.

Should society at large shoulder the financial burden for that? Or should the smokers themselves, in the form of a “sin tax?"*

At the same time, the higher price might convince some of the tobacco junkies---and don’t forget, junkies are exactly who we’re dealing with here---to give ‘em up, which is also a societal good. People not getting sick is definately in the common good.

Dig?

* I hate the term “sin tax.” It’s almost as stupid as the GOP name for the estate tax. How about “usage tax?”

Don,

I think of all people, you’d be the person on this blog most likely to be against ‘sin’ taxes.

You know, let people live their lives and do whatever the hell they want without government intrusion.

The temperature in Hell is dropping, because I actually agree with Don about something.  Cigarette smoking does harm others, in a way that overeating, for example, does not.  If our tax money was used efficiently by the political class, and if it actually made a difference, I might tend to think it was OK, but govt programs, by and large, just don’t work.  That is the main reason they need to keep growing every year way beyond the rate of inflation and population growth.
“Sin tax” is another term for excise tax, which is what the tobacco tax is, in reality, so it is an appropriate way to refer to it.
Higher medical costs are mostly due to the gross inefficiencies of a centrally-controlled market, not to smokers, and is no justification for taxation, IMO.  So-called government money just makes it worse.

Don Myers tries to get personal, Why do you hate sex so much, lik? Is it ‘cuz you’ve never had any?

Why are you so interested in my sex life? Mind your business you dirty pervert. It is sad that you’re always trumpeting your perverted lifestyle and questioning others’ sex life. Nobody else is bringing up their sex life and you presume to question it while simultaneously acting like you’re the best thing since sliced bread? Grow up man. How sad. You’ve done this time and time again to nurmerous people on this blog. Reminds me of some immature people I knew in high school.

That would certainly explain why you’re so crabby all the goddamn time.

Don’t presume to know me because you don’t.

Any more big-headed comments? I know there will be, you can’t help yourself.

Why do you hate sex so much, lik? Is it ‘cuz you’ve never had any?

That would certainly explain why you’re so crabby all the goddamn time.

Don Myers dribbles out, Y’all actually want addictive, cancer-causing drugs to be cheaper and easier to get, and you want to take away funds for cancer research and prevention (which benefits society as a whole, not just smokers).

We want freedom Don. Understand that concept? And question - how can you “take away funds” when the funds aren’t going there to begin with? Answer: you can’t.

I realize y’all have a knee-jerk all-taxes-are-the-work-of-the-Antichrist thing goin’, but you might want to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about this for a minute.

Blah blah blah blah. This rhetoric of yours is tiring and useless.

This is yet another example of how I think for myself, rather than slavishly following a party line…unlike others I could mention (and y’all know who you are).

If you’re so confident that you think for yourself, why do you mention it so much? Just let your argument stand on its own merits before prefacing them with this rhetoric.

Cigarette smokers aren’t just harming themselves—they harm others and society at large as well.

So do over-eaters. And people who engage in risky sexual behavior. Should we tax the hell out of you? “For the good of society” of course. How could you refuse?

Should society at large shoulder the financial burden for that? Or should the smokers themselves, in the form of a “sin tax?”*

Should society at large shoulder the financial burden for your sexual proclivities? Or should you yourself, in the form of a sin tax?

At the same time, the higher price might convince some of the tobacco junkies—and don’t forget, junkies are exactly who we’re dealing with here—to give ‘em up, which is also a societal good. People not getting sick is definately in the common good.

Noam Chomsky...that’s rich. Now, right back at you Don:

At the same time, the higher price might convince some of the sexual junkies-and don’t forget, junkies are exactly who we’re dealing with here-to give up their gluttonous sexual ways. This is a “societal good”. People not getting sick from their sexual deviancy is definately in the common good.

* I hate the term “sin tax.” It’s almost as stupid as the GOP name for the estate tax. How about “usage tax?”

If it is a “usage tax”, then why single out tobacco? What’s wrong with calling the “estate tax” a death tax? That is what it is. Or do you just want to call it “stupid” and let that stand as your argument?

I think we know the answers to those last questions. Now insult...it is literally all you have.

There you go, it’s gone to personal attacks.

I declare Don the loser.

Dave: You surprise me.  As a self-professed libertarian, you must be aware that everyone around a smoker is forced to smoke, even if they don’t choose to light up themselves.  This is true inside a building or even outside.  If the driver of a car ahead of you is smoking with their driver’s window open, you can smell it. Medical costs are not “harm”, since they are caused by many factors, not the least of which is the socialization of medical care.  In a free enterprise healthcare system, only the patient pays for the consequences of their actions.  Libertarians ought to support that.

robert108 wrote:

Cigarette smoking does harm others, in a way that overeating, for example, does not.

Could you elaborate on that statement? Both smoking and over-eating raise our health insurance and Medicare/aid costs through increased hospitalization.

The reason I don’t like these taxes is because almost everything you do could have adverse effects on other people, so, therefore, almost everything you use could fall under the ridiculously named “sin tax.”

I don’t smoke, use drugs, drink pop, or eat meat, but I do occasionally drink alcohol, which may lead to liver problems later in life, increasing society’s burden in health care problems. I do drive a car, which pollutes the air, increases our dependence on foreign oil, and might be a partial contributor to global warming. I do listen to loud music, which may bother the people next to me at a traffic light.... etc, etc, etc.

Almost everything we use could qualify for a “sin tax.” The safest way to avoid these problems is to avoid implementing this “sin tax” on any goods individuals use.

Brandon -
Liberals like Don dont’ actually believe in reducing government intrusion. You could find a way to point out that ANY activity in some way effects society at large, so government has a right to come in and regulate it.

I’d be all for the Cigarette tax if the money went to border enforcement rather than health care. Secure the borders and your health care costs will fix themselves as less uninsured illegal aliens will be using emergency rooms for their kids sniffles at the taxpayers expense.

Typical Dems, tax and spend instead of fixing the real problems.

Sphagnum

Liberals like Don dont’ actually believe in reducing government intrusion. You could find a way to point out that ANY activity in some way effects society at large, so government has a right to come in and regulate it.

Dave: I don’t support the cigarette tax! It is a misallocation of resources, like most taxes.  Tax money is the heroin of the political class.

I was speaking in gereralities.  Liberals support sin taxes, those espousing Conservative ideals do not

robert108 wrote:

Dave: I don’t support the cigarette tax! It is a misallocation of resources, like most taxes. Tax money is the heroin of the political class.

Dave: I think smoking harms others besides oneself.  That doesn’t mean I think taxation is the answer to the problem of smoking.  Clear.  You assume facts not in evidence.

I’m not sure that smokers are really to blame for hurting those around them though, as most of the time people are around smokers by choice.  After all, nobody forces you to go into that smokey bar or restaurant.  It might be inconvenient to avoid smoking in some instances, but certainly nobody is forced to be around them. 

Thus inhaling second hand smoke is a choice.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If all establishments permitting smoking had large and prominent signs viewable from the street, I would tend to agree with you on that point.

I guess I’ve never been in a restaurant where I couldn’t tell how smokey it was from the entryway.

Having been outdoors and having been subjected to cigarette smoke, however, when my only choice was to be walking down the street, doesn’t constitute informed choice, so I would have to disagree with your contention.

How often does this actually happen though?  And you couldn’t pause for a minute to let the person/group get ahead of you?

I also grew up in a home with a mother who was a chain smoker, and have lifelong sinus and respiratory problems to show for it. I didn’t make that choice, either. As soon as I could, I got out of that house, but the damage had already been done. I was forced to be around that, no question. Smokers are responsible for what they do to other people’s air.

This is the only place where I’ll grant that you have a point, but some parents also let their kids drink too much soda or eat nothing but fast food.  What’s the cure for bad parental choices?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: If all establishments permitting smoking had large and prominent signs viewable from the street, I would tend to agree with you on that point.  Having been outdoors and having been subjected to cigarette smoke, however, when my only choice was to be walking down the street, doesn’t constitute informed choice, so I would have to disagree with your contention.  I also grew up in a home with a mother who was a chain smoker, and have lifelong sinus and respiratory problems to show for it.  I didn’t make that choice, either.  As soon as I could, I got out of that house, but the damage had already been done.  I was forced to be around that, no question. Smokers are responsible for what they do to other people’s air.

Rob: Let’s not use the leftie tactic of changing the subject: I was addressing responsibility, not “cure”. I don’t think taxation is the cure for anything, btw.
By the time you get to the entryway, you have found parking and have gotten your family together and anticipating a meal or whatever.  I still stand by the large and prominent signage as being necessary to establish informed choice.
As far as being forced to breathe some smoker’s smoke when outdoors, once is too many times. I shouldn’t be forced to breathe toxic fumes in public, period. Smokers are responsible for polluting the air around them, IMO.  Their choice is to smoke around others.

How am I changing the subject?

I don’t think taxation is the cure for anything, btw.

Never said you did.  The question at the end of my previous comment was hypothetical, meaning that the child/parent situation is an exception to the argument I’m making.  Kids don’t have the choices available to them that adults do.  There’s not a lot that can be done about that.

By the time you get to the entryway, you have found parking and have gotten your family together and anticipating a meal or whatever. I still stand by the large and prominent signage as being necessary to establish informed choice.

I still think you can make your choice from the entryway.  Not having a sign is inconvenient, sure, but that’s life.  I went to a restaurant once and got terrible service and food.  I haven’t gone back.  That first visit was inconvenient, but I learned my lesson for subsequent occassions where I might think about going to that same place.  The family in your example could get back in their car and leave.  That would suck, sure, but what are you going to do?  Mandate smoking warning signs?

As far as being forced to breathe some smoker’s smoke when outdoors, once is too many times. I shouldn’t be forced to breathe toxic fumes in public, period. Smokers are responsible for polluting the air around them, IMO. Their choice is to smoke around others.

Is breathing in their smoke any worse for you than breating in my car’s exhaust?  I guess I don’t know, but the argument you’re making has no logical end.  Next you’ll be saying that you have a right not to be harmed by my car’s exhaust.  Then you’ll be saying that you have a right not to be harmed by my lawn mower’s exhaust.  Then you’ll be saying that your dog has a right not to be irritated by the sound of my electric weed whacker.

Some times, in a free society, our lives and choices overlap each other.  We can’t use the law to solve the problems that arise from every one of these instances.  If the smokes bothering you, just stop for a moment and let them get ahead of you.  And you’ll just have to deal with the fact that you got a whiff of cigarette smoke.

I’d also say that if we’re going to take this discussion any further we’ll have to define what is and is not public property.  My contention is that places like restaurants, bars and stores are not public.  They are private property, and your presene on that property is entirely your choice.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: I think we both know that we are in general agreement in most things.  I have an agenda here: I want smokers to both admit and take responsibility for what they inflict on others.  What’s yours?
In contrast to your usual clear thinking, you seem to want to put the responsibility for avoiding the damage caused by smoking on the non-smokers.  We should change our behavior to avoid the smoker’s pollution.  We already have a lot of anti-pollution laws regulating the other behavior you mention, with the possible exception of irritating someone’s dog, which is completely irrelevant, IMO. 
You are right that restaurants are not public property in the sense of ownership.  However, they are frequented by the public.  Their success in business is totally dependent on attracting and serving the public, so allowing the public to make an informed choice to use their place is in the public interest.  After all, they have large and visible signage advertising their food(in the case of restaurants), so why not proudly announce their smoking status?  Because it would cost them some business! If they allowed people to choose from the street, they would lose some business, so they have a vested interest in not informing the public of their smoking status.  As far as bars are concerned, btw, I think it is an expectation that there will be smoking present, which is why I never choose to go into a bar. I think informed choice is the cornerstone of a free choice type of society, which I think both of us support.  I don’t understand why you would grant smokers an exception to that, as well as a pass on their obvious responsibilities of their choice to smoke.

Rob: I think we both know that we are in general agreement in most things. I have an agenda here: I want smokers to both admit and take responsibility for what they inflict on others. What’s yours?

I don’t have one.  I don’t smoke, and don’t like being around it.  If I do have an agenda here, it is only that I want to stand for personal liberty and property rights.  I think that restaurant owners have a right to determine whether or not to allow smoking on their property.  If you wander in and choose to sit in the smokey room that is hardly the fault of the smokers.

As for your example of smoke on the street...what’s the solution?  Outlaw smoking?  I think that would work about as well as the outlaw of alcohol worked.  Constrict smoking only to private property where the owner allows it?  Good luck enforcing that.  Like our law enforcement agencies don’t have enough to do.

My solution is that we just try to be polite with one another.  Smokers should try to avoid non-smokers when engaging in their habit, and non-smokers should be willing to take reasonable steps to keep themselves away from the smoke.  Of course, there are assholes out there, but then there are people who break emissions laws too.  What are you going to do?

In contrast to your usual clear thinking, you seem to want to put the responsibility for avoiding the damage caused by smoking on the non-smokers.

As far as choosing to avoid smokey restaurants goes, yes that’s true.  That and maybe an expectation that they not stand directly behind somebody who’s smoking and bitch when they could easily walk 15 feet away and alleviate the problem.

You are right that restaurants are not public property in the sense of ownership. However, they are frequented by the public. Their success in business is totally dependent on attracting and serving the public, so allowing the public to make an informed choice to use their place is in the public interest. After all, they have large and visible signage advertising their food(in the case of restaurants), so why not proudly announce their smoking status?

I have no problem with restaurants doing that, I just don’t see the point in mandating such signage.  I’m of the opinion that Americans are capable of making an informed choice about a dining room without setting up tax-funed bureacracy and enforcement systems for the signage.

I think informed choice is the cornerstone of a free choice type of society, which I think both of us support. I don’t understand why you would grant smokers an exception to that, as well as a pass on their obvious responsibilities of their choice to smoke.

Again, I think people can make informed choices without the signage you recommend.  There is no perfect solution here.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob: Since I never have advocated mandating anything, I don’t identify with that issue for you. My “solution” was expressed in my first paragraph.  I think we should tell the truth about smoking, and people can then make an informed choice on the matter.  Smoking has no social benefit, as far as I know, and the land and infrastructure of the tobacco industry could well be used to better purpose should that industry fail to attract new addicts in the future, due to informed choice.  Lack of ideas of how to deal with the harm of smoking is no excuse to ignore that harm.  I think bitching at smokers is entirely proper.  It reminds them that they are at least irritating others around them who don’t share their addiction, and might influence them to stop, which would be a good thing.  I don’t think smoking is a “rights” issue, in that most smokers are addicts, and are no longer making an informed choice.  I think social pressure is far superior to laws or taxation in this case, and so totally support it as a remedy. I would recommend to owners of venues frequented by the public to proudly and plainly announce their non-smoking policy, which would gain them business over venues that make no such statement.  I like the use of economic pressure at this level, as well. Businesses are always looking for an edge.

robert108 wrote:

I think bitching at smokers is entirely proper. It reminds them that they are at least irritating others around them who don’t share their addiction, and might influence them to stop, which would be a good thing.

However, almost every single argument you have put forth I can easily adapt into an argument against the eating of meat, an action I oppose as strongly as you oppose smoking. Yet, if you’ll recall, you did not respond very kindly when I “bitched” at you (and everyone else on this site) for eating meat and slaughtering animals; in fact, everyone at this blog excoriated me.

The way you fell when I extol on the virtues of vegetarianism and criticize you for participating in the slaughter of animals… is the exact same way smokers will feel when you criticize them for their choice.

It all depends on who’s doing the “bitching,” methinks. You don’t smoke, so you don’t mind inconveniencing those who do. But were you in their place (as you are to a vegetarian by eating meat), you most certainly would mind.

A guy, a girl and an Italian walk into a bar…

“You must all stop enjoying smoking, drinking and having fun I am here.”

Digger: I dealt with the bar issue in my last post.  Did you read it?
Dave: Your attempt to create equivalence between the addiction to smoking and the normal eating of meat is completely faulty.  It’s really all about your feelings, which aren’t my responsibility.  If you were able to understand my post, I urged social pressure, at the most, to deal with the problems of smoking.  Smoking, as you remember, has no social payoff for anyone.  It is a harmful addiction, causing emphysema in 95% of the addicts, and documented damage to the rest of us.  I don’t support taxation or legislation to deal with it.  If the small minority of vegetarians wants to bitch at me for something that is not only normal for humans, but which has positive social benefits for a great number of us, go ahead.  At least you would be better than the anti-war leftists, who are trying to cause real harm to our society.

Yes, I read it and your opinion is wrong.

Just because you don’t do something or find any “social benefit” doesn’t mean that others don’t.

You are no better than any other citizen in this nation, though I bet you find that hard to believe.

As far as it being a “rights” issue, it damn well sure is. Until it is an illegal action people have the right to do it.

The fact that you think that private businesses should not be allowed to let customers perform a legal act behind closed doors because you find it objectionable doesn’t make you right.

Drinking offends some people as well. So does someone who has bad breath. So does someone who coughs on you. Fat people affect you indirectly through increased insurance costs passed onto the customer. All legal acts which we all deal with on a daily basis without trying to outlaw them.

You are simply too stuck up and refuse to admit it. You are holier than thou.

Digger: When I wrote that bars were an exception, because there is an expectation there for smoking and drinking, you missed that, I guess.
If you think there is any social benefit to smoking, please inform us of what it is, don’t think a personal attack carries any weight. 
Show me in the constitution where it enumerates a right to smoke.
I don’t think that private businesses should not be allowed to let customers do anything.  You didn’t understand the part I wrote about informing the public what goes on in their business so that potential customers can make an informed choice.  No prohibition in my piece. 
Insurance cost is only an excuse for control when there is a socialized healthcare system.  I don’t support that at all.
I never suggested outlawing anything.  Once again, you didn’t read or understand what I wrote.  Sorry, but you are completely wrong in everything you wrote.  You are entitled to your opinion, but I would think there should be some substance to it.  You have none.

And you fail to realize that a private business doesn’t owe you a damn thing. If you go there and don’t like it then you have the right to leave. Expecting private businesses to drop everything because you think they should tell you “WE HAVE SMOKERS HERE” is a real issue you seem to have.

And it wasn’t a personal attack it was a wake up call that maybe you think to highly of yourself and need to realize that others live in this country. Because someone does something you don’t agree with doesn’t mean you have the right to expect them to be demoted to second class citizen status.

I never said that smoking is in the Constitution, did you read what I wrote? I said it is a right. It is not outlawed and therefore is a right.

I could of course point to the Declaration of Independence if you wish. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Just because you don’t see smoking as something that someone might find enjoyable, to take a break and be social with others or to simply enjoy the flavor of a good cigar or pipe, doesn’t make it wrong. Smoking makes some people happy. If you don’t find it as such, pursue your happiness elsewhere. No one is forcing you to endure it.

Digger: You come across as an addict who thinks his or her addiction is being threatened.  I hope it vanishes completely, which is my right.
I notice that you still haven’t offered any benefits to society in general from smoking. I realize your feelings have been ruffled, but that isn’t my problem.
I still haven’t supported any requirements for anyone; I support telling the truth about the harm to everyone done by smoking, and encourage social disapproval at most as a remedy for this sickness.
If the pursuit of your happiness(or addiction) interferes with my happiness(breathing), then you can expect to hear about it from me.  Grow up.

I’ll get off my veg*n agenda when you get off your non-smoking agenda. It’s a big world out there, and a lot of people relax by smoking cigars and cigarettes. No one cares that you don’t. Get over yourself.

You come across as an addict who thinks his or her addiction is being threatened.

You come across as an addict for animal flesh.

But the reason I don’t think McDonalds should be forced to put up signs saying “We slaughter cows” in their resteraunt is because I believe that private businesses should be allowed to make their own decisions. You, however, do not.

Dave: Check your reading and comprehension skills.  I have never advocated forcing anyone to do anything.  If you can get off your obsession with your vegan agenda, there is a big world out there, and most of the people in it eat an omnivorous diet, which includes meat.  Get over yourself
.

Andrew: Thanks for pointing that out. I appreciate the support.
Dave: No deal, thanks.  I find it charming that you would be willing to deal away your vegan agenda, but again, no thanks.  There is no equivalency between your eating agenda and my agenda to keep smokers from practicing their addiction in the presence of people who don’t want the toxic waste forced upon them.  Sorry, but once again, no deal.

Gonna have to agree with Robert108 on some of what he said.  Never did he advocate mandating private businesses to put up “Smoker” signs.  He simply stated that he thought it was more honest if they did.

Basically the government is finding ways of taking more money from the people in order to fund THEIR priorities. Naming it a “Sin” tax is a way of saying “Sure you can do this, but it will cost you a little extra” - The amount of second hand smoke an average non-smoker inhales on a daily basis is so minor as to be comparable to the effects of smog and your other standard air pollutants such as bleach when your wife cleans the house and fumes from spray can air freshner’s. Granted than none of these are very good for your health, but if these “Sin” taxes are applied to everything that might in some way affect the health of you or others EVERYONE would be outraged. Add a tax to bleach, add a tax to air fresheners, add another tax to gasoline, raise all of these price by $1.00 or even $4. Sure people have to have these things, people are “ADDICTED” to a clean, nice smelling home, and they have to get to work everyday to pay for these items, so lets raise gas tax as well, because it does pollute the atmosphere and disperses toxic fumes. I know you are thinking “Toxic?”, yes - carbon monoxide gas is poisonous and HAS killed people.

Now that we have covered adding items to the “Sin Tax” list lets make a new list based off of the rising cost of medicare and medicaid. Fat people, you all know who you are, dragging us all down with your sugar encrusted donuts, carbonated beverages, and candy bars. Lets have a “FAT TAX”. Lets base this off of sugar, sodium, carbohydrates, and fats. Lets “UNCLOG” the arteries of society so us skinny smokers can join the politically correct overweight society saying “if i put out my smoke would you put down your donut?” I think thats a great slogan, I don’t want the morbidly obese taking extra “handicapped parking spaces because they are too fat to walk, I don’t want to pay extra because their arteries are clogged with “sugary goodness”. I say spread the wealth, lets find more things to tax so you tree hugging hippies can not only have the money to fund your own “Garden of Eden” societies where no one is fat, no one is drunk, no one smokes, and no ones is happy, so you tree hugging hippies can sit around all day and gripe about everything and make everyone else hate your stinking guts.

Just a thought, I hope everyone has a nice day.
BTW I think all “Sin Tax” should be abolished and the government should find a more equal way of coming up with the money they need to spend on important projects that target the living quality of AMERICAN CITIZENS such as healthcare, schools, and of course HOMEland security.