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.

Robert108 supports this cigarette tax too, so it’s not just liberals.

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.

Then what the hell was this post all about, or were you just being needlessly antagonistic?