Except if the tax does have it's (supposedly) intended effect and actually gets people to stop smoking then how will your new service get funded?

Also, at what point does increased taxes create a tobacco black market run by gangsters? Isn't this social engineering just creating the next Al Capone? Of course if (when) that happens we'll need to increase funding to law enforcement to fight (but never actually win) against this new scourge and who is going to pay for that?

Nicotine is one of if not the most addictive substance out there that is readily and legally available. Raising the price does not make anyone quite.

At that point people would go to the pot dealers instead.

Its nearly universal that Cigs are bad for your health. The money spent on the results of this addiction by taxpayers is extreme. Elderly Health Issues, Newborns with issues, etc...

There will not be a black market for them. Because unlike Beer and Pot, They arent really desired, just craved. Sales of patches and gums and quitting programs are going to explode.

As for this dumbass notion that we have to stop the campaigns to end smoking because those are American jobs at stake. How much money is lost per year on those damned things that could have gone into better uses. Because of calculating the cost of smoking likely influenced the decision to buy a house or a car.

Cigs are bad for us and the economy. The faster they are taxed into obilivion the faster people will quit them.

How selfish of you. Dont you understand your country relies on that revinue?

Apparently you did not read the part of my post that say nicotine is the most addictive and legal substance out there. Get with the program. Cigarettes get carried untaxed over state lines all the time. Cigarettes are desired. Sales of patches and gum will not explode. I tried the patch, gum and quitting programs. All BS. Only ones desire to really quit will it be done. What a laugh, Phillip Morris stock is up since the recession. Welcome to the world of vices. People will not quit because the price went up. What if they did? Tax the healthy who eat apples all day to pay for the health care of children. :06: Vices are taxed because the vices are addictive, legal and readily available. Can we say the same for alcohol?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v253r...eature=related

Good luck over there. Our doom here is seald anyway.

In his speeches, I see frightening parallels with Hitlers speeches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVnRz...eature=related

Just came across this clip here, coincidentally I started suspecting him just to be the same. Couldn't said it better myself.

And don't you understand how our country is drained by the cost of keeping smokers and those they affect healthy? How much do we spend on Medicare for smoking-related diseases? How many hours of productivity does our country lose from diseases or deaths caused by smoking?

I don't know the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if the economic drain caused by smoking is bigger than its contribution to the economy.

That said, I agree with those who say that this won't reduce the number of smokers. It will simply make them pay more, which will enable children of low-income families to get health care. I don't see what's wrong with healthy kids.

As for the black market, if Obama was banning cigarettes, I'd agree with you. It would be Prohibition all over again. But I don't think increasing the price will create an Al Capone of cigarettes. There might be a small increase in black market activity, but I don't think most consumers will go through the effort of getting something on the black market every day that they can get legally. The black market is fine for one-time purchases (like a fake Gucci bag), but using it for something you buy every few days is too much of a hassle for most consumers.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

Yeah, so-called "sin taxes" have been around for years and years, and I agree with them.

This is NOT socialism nor is it redistributionism. This is a tax on an item that one can choose to either partake or not partake in. I know this first hand - I smoked for 25 years.

But more importantly, as someone pointed out it is typically the lower-income folks that indulge in this habit. It is also typically lower-income folks who are uninsured. So now we run into ACTUAL socialism and redistribution of wealth as someone must pay for the inevitable medical care these people will require.

Also, doesn't anyone see the irony that certain lower-income individuals who'd have the most to gain by keeping in good health also be the riskiest with their health? Or, that they would spend sizable portions of their already limited income simply on cigarettes?

Think about that.

The problem with all of this is reduced smoking is possible and that reduces cost for smoking related illness goes hand and had but, it also reduces the tax revenue for the child healthcare. It would seem people want it both ways. For health issues for things people do, how about a tax on fatty foods and other unhealthy eating habits many partake? A lot focus on smoking and the healthcare costs but not much is addressed in the poor eating habits of people and the healthcare associated with bad eating habits.

But again, this is not socialism or anything new. Tobacco has been taxed for years. Nothing new here.

I agree with what you say here 100%. The sin tax covers a wide variety of people. Some do all and some do a few. All use gas for their cars. Everyone is getting taxed in one form or another concerning the sin taxes.

Now it's cigarettes and alcohol but in actuality just about any human activity short of those things absolutely necessary to maintain life could be considered "sins" to be taxed.

You like to ski?, well skiers tend to have more broken legs than non skiers. Pay a sin tax. Like to ride a motorcycle? Ohh that's dangerous! Pay a sin tax. Swim in lakes or the ocean? You recklessly expose yourself anything from a shark bite to swimmers ear. Pay a sin tax. Like to go out nightclubbing, where you might get into a fight? Pay a sin tax.

If you don't think it can happen think again. Already they are talking about fatty foods, what's next?

Well, skiing or riding a motorcycle is not something everyone does. It is not addictive in the same sense like a drug is (alcohol, nicotine). You cover a majority of the people by taxing alcohol, tobacco and gasoline. Everyone uses at least one of these. As far as fatty foods, lets take a look at it. Smokers get beat to death for smoking. Taxed and frowned at. Told to go smoke outside basically feeling like a leper yet we want your taxed cigarette money because of healthcare costs. Ok, fine. Let's take a looks at fat burger city with a gallon of coke to wash it down along with his french fries. You can feel your arteries clogging right now...no? Well, this causes health problems with continuing to eat like this. Tit for tat....why not tax fatty with ribeye smothered in onions, mushrooms and a few pints of gravy on top. After all, should you or I pay for the bypass surgery? COME ON AUGUST..THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU!

That's a good point, but there is a huge distinction. The PUBLIC cost for treating sports-related injuries is significantly lower than smoking. Furthermore, most athletes tend to be covered by insurance. But finally, one could argue that the benefits of an athletic, active lifestyle far outweighs the risk.

What I don't get is how certain ideologies are in favor of one kind of socialism (supporting the healthcare of smokers) but are opposed to others.

As far as fatty foods goes, its STILL different than smoking as the foods do possess some nutritional value. Smoking does not.

I disagree with the seemingly prevalent assertion that this is not a socialist measure. It is indirect nationalization of private industry through unconstitutional tax sanctions.

As for what it costs the U.S. healthcare system, perhaps the main problem is that we have socialized forms of healthcare. First liberals want nationalized healthcare and then they want to regulate/influence people's activities because they provide their healthcare? That's a slippery slope to socialism and significant violations of individual rights.

Everything about this and similar legislation reeks of socialism. It's just a sneaky way of doing it.

One more thing;
There is some truth in this. However, the black market is still a market and functions as one. As soon as the desired goods become too scarce or expensive, the black market begins to function like a normal market.
It would be incorrect to assume that purchases of frequently-used products are not common on the black market. The pervasive influence of the illegal drug industry should be evidence enough, but many other examples exsist.