Originally posted by cnichols
reply to post by atlasastro
It is my right to choose if I smoke or not. Just as it is someone's right to choose to eat beef or pork. Or someone's right to drink alchohol or
Last time I checked, beef didn't kill as many people as smoking. Pork eaters did not harm the non-pork eaters passively. Pork and beef
eaters where not dropping pork and beef everywhere in the streets, emptying beef and pork from car ashtrays , or flicking bits of beef and pork onto
the roads and streets as they drive around. Alchohol is taxed in my country. Smoking and Alchohol account for 80% and 60% respectively as cause in
most cases of hospital admissions in my State.
People brew thier own beer. So grow your own tabacco.
I choose to smoke while understanding that I have to pay for that right, to a certain extent. But to be "penalized" by heavier and
heavier taxes, to have additives added to my cigarettes because the government decided it's best for everyone is just simply not right.
understand that, why not quit then, why is that not an option if you are so dissatisfied with the product and the perception that you are being
penalised. But to what extent do you classify a "certain extent" becoming a penalty? I find it amusing that you are only willing to pay a certain
extent. LOL. No, you pay the full extent. This is your choice to smoke. Full extent.
Are you suggesting that the Govt. is allocating a penalty on smokers for nothing?. Why not ask Society what it sees as a fair "certain extent" of
payment. If we ask smokers to allocate this "fair certain extent of payment" do you really think it will allocate a realistic taxation on itself. I
mean, really! Please.
Would you like it if someone started taxing beef and said it was a sin tax because you ENJOY eating a steak? omg!
Your analogy is
assinine. If I eat beef, I do not become addicted to it. In fact, I don't eat beef(seriously just poultry and fish). But I'll answer your ludicrous
attempt to infer a parrallel between the two.
If I eat beef, I don't have to eat it at regular intervals that mean I have to give it priority over all other matters. If I eat beef, I do not have
to do it 15, 20, 30 times a day and so endangering my health, the health of others etc etc. OMG!
I don't mind paying a bit extra in taxes, honestly, but there has to be a limit somewhere. Some states the taxes you pay on cigarettes are
more than the cigarettes themselves!
I agree that taxes are harsh. But the taxes are there for a reason, not just because you smoke, but
because of what smoking does.
I find it amusing that you are willing to pay with your health, your well being, the way others will relate to you yet when it comes to money,
well....you'll draw a line.
And while I will admit that yes, it that the health system may bear some "burden" from smokers, I don't feel it's right to say that the
non-smoking taxpayer bears all the burden. They don't.
Aggregate Costs to U.S. Economy: The Surgeon General recently testified that the U.S. spends
approximately $50 billion per year treating smoking related illness.11 This amount represents the
estimated spending in 1993 dollars. Adjusting for inflation, tobacco use may result in excess
medical expenditures of nearly $60 billion today.12 Public funding — primarily Medicare and
Medicaid — paid over 40 percent of those costs, or more than $20 billion.13 Taking this into
account, the net cost of smoking is roughly $45 billion per year.
I can dig these up all day, for every country.
You think the current taxes on tabacco are covering this? This is an old study. Wonder what the costs are currently? And that is just in excess
medical health care. On top of all other health care. Excess. More. Over and above.
] Ever heard of health insurance? Smokers pay higher premiums because they choose to smoke.
You believe all cost are cover by insurance, are you saying all smokers making claims will have their costs covered, please! Insurance companies rip
off the healthiest of people with clauses and loop holes,I also have to say sorry, My health system is generally free. Its a public health system
covered by tax payers via a levy so while that is more relevat to my point of view I concede that my arguement may have failed to account for your
system, so sorry.
And smokers pay taxes too! More than the average non-smoker I'm sure.
Are you saying that smokers are taxed more as per your tax code, or that it is the added taxes on the products combined.
If its just added then this is right. As a citizen your taxes should be the same as everyone else regardless of weather you smoke or not. The added
tax on the product is justified.
How do you justify the added costs of time, resources, man power etc dedicated to fighting preventable diseases caused by smoking, that that time,
resources and manpower could be allocated to other diseases and illnesses. How do you count that?
It really gets my goat to hear the non-smoker start preaching about how much of a burden we smokers are on them. Like we don't work to make
our money or pay our share of taxes. All we do is lay around and smoke cigarettes to make everyone else miserable.
Your post are
GE was so impressed it plans to offer an incentive program nationwide next year, aiming to save some of the company's estimated $50 million annually
in extra health and other costs for smoking employees.
It got GE's goat. It was costing them 50 large.
I like how you inflate the arguement there. You are a burden. It is evident that smokers are a burden. It is evident that smokers are less productive.
It is as evident as it is that smoking damages you.
No doubt it gets your goat. I bet it will when you have emphacema. I bet it will really get your goat when you have cancer. How will your goat be when
your arteries harden and you need a by pass. Does it get your goat that Pork and beef don't taste the same anymore because smoking has destroyed the
way you taste things. When the blood vessel in your extremities, say in your lower legs begin to fail as you grow older, exposing you to many, many
problems. I find it funny that you relegate any opposition to preaching yet, from your own soap box your presentation is that only of why you yourself
should not pay the full extent of that which you choose to do. And that if there is a cost to society, it is not as much as you think it is, and that
the solution presented(taxes) is too harsh as it not by you and not to the extent you think it should be. LOL.
I bet it gets your goat that you are just wrong. You know smoking is wrong. You know it is stupid. You know how much damage it is doing. You know why
it is taxed. You know that, and you know that you just cannot stop. I bet that gets your goat too.
Anyway, there is no point probably conversing with a smoker and the taxes they incur.
They will defend their position out of a need to re-inforce that they are right and are some how the victims of circumstances rather then within a
setting of their own design purely through self choice.
Light 'em up.
after reading this I know your busting for one. Go on, I'l give you 5 minutes.
[edit on 14-2-2009 by atlasastro]